PRACTICE AREAS

ANTITRUST

The antitrust laws were designed to protect consumers and promote competition in the free enterprise system. Antitrust activity exists when an entity, or corporation, enters into anti-competitive agreements, obtains or maintains monopoly power by means that harm consumers or abuses its monopoly power.

The following are examples of some things that may violate the antitrust laws:

	Agreeing with a competitor to hold the price of similar products or services at, above, or below agreed-upon levels ("price-fixing")
	Agreeing with a competitor not to compete in a particular geographic area
	Lowering prices below cost to drive a competitor out of business ("predatory pricing")
	Requiring a buyer to buy something that he does not want in order to buy something that he does want ("tying")

PENDING CASES

In In Re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1730 (D. N.J.) Abbey Spainier serves as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of pharmacies, hospitals and other purchasers of hypodermic products manufactured by Becton Dickinson. Becton Dickinson has been able to maintain a monopoly in the disposable hypodermic products market by unreasonably restraining trade and foreclosing competition through anticompetitive and illegal actions. As a result of Becton's anticompetitive actions, plaintiffs and other persons have paid more for their disposable hypodermic product purchases.

In Keefer v. Verizon Communications, et al., 08-cv-3997 (E.D.N.Y), plaintiff alleges that Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon Wireless, AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, Sprint Nextel Corporation, Vodafone Group PLC, T-Mobile International AG, and T-Mobile USA, Inc. violated the Sherman Act by conspiring to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of text messaging services. As a result of defendants' anticompetitive actions, plaintiff and other persons have paid more for text messaging services.

In Meyer v. Qualcomm, No. 08-cv-0655 (S.D. Cal.), plaintiff alleges that Qualcomm, Inc., violated the Sherman Act and California antitrust law by its illegal and anticompetitive conduct in licensing certain patented technology that is essential to the operation of cell phones. As a result of this conduct, Qualcomm has gained monopoly over the market for this technology and coerced device manufacturers and cellular service providers into paying supracompetitive prices. These costs are passed on to consumers.