Of Lions and Lambs in the Time of Coronavirus
In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission and Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, are fostering something of a Peaceable Commercial Kingdom and loosening some restrictions on competitor collaborations.
April 09, 2020 at 02:15 PM
5 minute read
Beginning in the 1830s, the Quaker artist Edward Hicks began to paint what would become a long series of paintings (over 60) on the theme of the Peaceable Kingdom. These paintings, based in part on scriptural references to a messianic age after a period of great strife, often feature predator and prey living in harmony. Now, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission and Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, are fostering something of a Peaceable Commercial Kingdom and loosening some restrictions on competitor collaborations.
The agencies start from the proposition that addressing the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) "will require unprecedented cooperation between federal, state, and local governments and among private businesses to protect Americans' health and safety." Accordingly, they "wish to make clear to the public that there are many ways firms, including competitors, can engage in procompetitive collaboration that does not violate the antitrust laws."
The agencies' action plan has both procedural and substantive components. First, they are committed to expediting COVID-19-related requests under the Antitrust Division's Business Review Process and the Federal Trade Commission's Advisory Opinion Process "and to resolve those addressing public health and safety within seven calendar days of receiving all necessary information." In a related vein, the agencies—recognizing the efficacy of certain joint ventures in expanding capacity and developing and delivering products and services—"will also work to expeditiously process filings under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act (as amended by the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act).
Second, the agencies recognize that even expedited procedures may not be fast enough in some situations, and so they emphasize that "many types of collaborative activities designed to improve the health and safety response to the pandemic would be consistent with the antitrust laws." They draw particular attention to the following:
- When firms collaborate on research and development, this "efficiency-enhancing integration of economic activity" is typically procompetitive, as noted in the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors issued in 2000.
- Sharing technical know-how, rather than company-specific data about prices, wages, outputs, or costs, may be "necessary to achieve the procompetitive benefits of certain collaborations." This and other important tips—which turn out to be uber relevant under this pandemic—are found in the Federal Trade Commission's 2014 Information Exchange: Be Reasonable.
- The agencies will not usually challenge health care providers' development of suggested practice parameters—standards for patient management developed to assist providers in clinical decision-making—that also may provide useful information to patients, providers, and purchasers, as described in the agencies' Statement of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care.
- Most joint purchasing arrangements among health care providers, such as those designed to increase the efficiency of procurement and reduce transaction costs, do not raise antitrust concerns.
- The Noerr-Pennington doctrine continues to immunize private lobbying addressed to the use of federal emergency authority, including private industry meetings with the federal government to discuss strategies on responding to COVID-19, "insofar as those activities comprise mere solicitation of governmental action with respect to the passage and enforcement of laws."
The agencies also acknowledge that "health care facilities may need to work together in providing resources and services to communities without immediate access to personal protective equipment, medical supplies, or health care" and that other "businesses may need to temporarily combine production, distribution, or service networks to facilitate production and distribution of COVID-19-related supplies they may not have traditionally manufactured or distributed."
Additionally, both agencies stand ready to assist in coordinating with other branches of the federal government, "such as by working with the Department of Health and Human Services to effectuate the Defense Production Act and the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, as appropriate, along with other agencies working to address COVID-19."
So will all go well in the Peaceable Kingdom? As one 19th century wag warned, "The lion and the lamb may possibly sometimes lie down together; but if you'll notice carefully, when the lion gets up, the lamb is generally missing."
Not surprisingly, then, the agencies issued some warnings of their own: "While many individuals and businesses have and will demonstrate extraordinary compassion and flexibility in responding to COVID-19, others may use it as an opportunity to subvert competition or prey on vulnerable Americans. The division and the bureau will not hesitate to seek to hold accountable those who do so." They will be particularly on the lookout for "agreements between individuals and business to restrain competition through increased prices, lower wages, decreased output, or reduced quality as well as efforts by monopolists to use their market power to engage in exclusionary conduct." And, as usual, they will look to ferret out hard-core violations like price fixing, bid rigging and market allocation.
Randy D. Gordon is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chairs the antitrust practice group. He is executive professor of law and history at Texas A&M University.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250