On June 30, the Second Circuit affirmed DOJ’s trial victory over Apple in the Ebooks Case. The three-judge panel fractured in an interesting way: two judges affirmed the finding that Apple’s role in a “hub and spokes” conspiracy was unlawful per se; one judge also would have found a rule-of-reason violation; and the dissent — stating Apple had a “vertical” position and was challenging the leading seller’s “monopoly” — would have found no liability at all. What is the reasoning and precedent of the decision? Is “marketplace vigilantism” (the concurring judge’s phrase) ever justified? Fiona Scott Morton is a panelist during this webinar and will debate the issues.
For more information on this event, click here.
CRA engagements win in 2024 GCR Awards
The high-profile acquisition of Activision by Microsoft, which CRA Competition’s teams advised on was named overall Matter of the Year, as well as Matter of...