Sentences with phrase «for violating the antitrust laws»

A California appellate court has considered whether association lawyers and their clients could be liable for violating the antitrust laws through discovery violations.

Not exact matches

Turing Pharmaceuticals was warned by New York's attorney general that the distribution network for a rarely used drug, whose 55-fold overnight price hike drew widespread criticism, may violate antitrust laws.

It could have gone a lot worse, but the fact that they were ruled to have violated antitrust laws is a problem, especially for the future cases that they have to face now that this is all over.

For the first time, NCAA amateurism rules were found to have violated federal antitrust laws.

Judge Wilken, and later three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, concluded that the NCAA and its nearly 1,300 members violated antitrust law by unlawfully conspiring to prevent players from negotiating the monetary value of their names, images and likenesses.

But as cases of academic fraud and evidence of steering continue, it's becoming easier for those attacking the NCAA to point to substantive evidence that the NCAA does promote education enough to allow it to blatantly violate antitrust laws.

No activity or discussion at any Association meeting or other function may be engaged in for the purpose of bringing about any understanding or agreement among members that may violate or appear to violate the antitrust laws, including but not limited to raise, lower or stabilize prices; to regulate production; to allocate markets; to encourage boycotts; to foster unfair trade practices; to assist monopolization; or to in any way violate federal or state antitrust laws.

In the plea deal with the U.S. Department of Justice, NEC Business Network Solutions Inc. — an Irving, Texas - based subsidiary of NEC America Inc. — also accepted responsibility for violating federal antitrust laws by allocating contracts to avert competition and rigging...

Although Apple and the publishers may have cooperated in ways that violated the nation's sometimes contradictory antitrust laws, for the Justice Department to single this matter out and not address other issues in the book industry or in business in general seems misguided.

For its part, HarperCollins said that it «did not violate any antitrust laws» and maintained that its «business terms and policies have been, and continue to be, designed to give readers the greatest choice of formats, features, value, platforms and partners — for both print and digital.&raqFor its part, HarperCollins said that it «did not violate any antitrust laws» and maintained that its «business terms and policies have been, and continue to be, designed to give readers the greatest choice of formats, features, value, platforms and partners — for both print and digital.&raqfor both print and digital.»

But when businesses that dominate production of a particular item (which pretty much defines the Big Six publishers prior to the Kindle rollout) agree behind the scenes to charge a particular price for that item, instead of competing against one another and letting the market set the price, they run the risk of violating U.S. antitrust law.

After being found guilty of violating antitrust laws by a US District Judge in 2013 and by an Appeals court in 2015, Apple's request for an appeal to the US Supreme Court was denied this past March, forcing it to settle with the plaintiffs.

As top executives from competing newspapers met last week to consider such issues as whether to charge for online content, Editor & Publisher asks whether collective industry action would violate antitrust law.

Though Taubman pleaded not guilty, he was convicted for conspiracy to violate antitrust laws in his capacity as owner of the Sotheby's auction house on Dec. 5.

While association membership is tied to MLS access, the court determined that this arrangement was a reasonable requirement for the association and did not violate the federal antitrust laws.

In an important ruling for REALTOR ® Associations, a California federal district court has ruled that a multiple listing service («MLS») and its member associations did not violate federal antitrust laws.

NAR argued that it was inappropriate for the court to review the policy because there was no relief for the court to order even if it found that the VOW policy had violated federal antitrust law, as NAR had already voluntarily rescinded the policy.