While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected resale price maintenance claims against a mattress maker under federal law, a suit brought by the Attorney General of New York against the same mattress company, based on a novel interpretation of a New York statute, was dismissed by a state trial court, and the California Attorney General obtained a settlement of its enforcement action asserting that a cosmetics company’s online distribution pricing policy constituted a per se violation of California’s antitrust law.
Other recent antitrust developments of note included the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s guidance on pre-merger information exchanges in its opinion rejecting a claim that two health insurers unlawfully restrained trade in the months leading up to their merger and the Department of Justice’s challenge of Comcast and NBC Universal’s joint venture.
Mattresses—Federal Law
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
