Massey & Gail’s attorneys bring decades of experience to the area of antitrust and competition law, including in price-fixing, monopolization, market allocation, refusals to deal, tying, and other anti-competitive conduct. In jurisdictions around the country, our lawyers have represented plaintiffs that have been harmed by anti-competitive behavior and defendants that have been accused of antitrust violations.
One of our partners handled the Antitrust Division portfolio in the Associate Attorney General’s Office at the U.S. Department of Justice, and another oversaw the Antitrust Bureau while serving in the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. This breadth of experience gives us a 360-degree view of the challenges that antitrust and competition matters often bring.
Because of our work in this area, in 2015 we shared a Global Competition Review award for Litigation of the Year - Non-Cartel Prosecution.
Representative matters include:
- The firm successfully briefed a landmark antitrust class action holding the NCAA liable under the federal antitrust laws for engaging in an agreement in restraint of trade to fix student-athlete compensation at zero. We then handled the briefing on certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, where we successfully persuaded the Court to deny the NCAA’s cert. petition, and we also successfully briefed and argued the attorneys’ fee award for the entire legal team before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- We represented a bidder in proceedings before the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division with respect to various competition issues stemming from a divestiture issue.
- We represented a group of major banks in a major class action settlement regarding allegedly anti-competitive interchange fees charged by banks belonging to credit card networks.
- We represented plaintiffs in a wide range of antitrust claims, including against tobacco companies for conspiring to suppress safer cigarette designs, against the NBA and satellite and pay-per-view television providers in connection with a contract that restricted broadcast of out-of-market game, and against a gasoline supplier for allegedly illegal tying arrangement and price discrimination.