Skip to main content

competition

Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. (11-1160)

in
Oral argument: 
November 26, 2012
Court below: 
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Phoebe Putney Health Systems ("PPHS") leased and operated one of two hospitals in Dougherty County, Georgia. PPHS then leased the other county hospital, Palmyra Medical Center, from the Hospital Corporation of America ("HCA"). In April 2011, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a complaint against PPHS, alleging that by leasing Palmyra, PPHS violated the Clayton Act and the FTC Act by acting with anticompetitive effect. PPHS argues that it should be exempt from federal antitrust law under the state action doctrine. The Eleventh Circuit found for PPHS, stating that a private actor falls within the state action doctrine when its anticompetitive activity is foreseeable by the state legislature. The FTC urges a more stringent standard where the anticompetitive effect must be intrinsic to the state’s authorization. How the Supreme Court decides this case will dictate how state legislatures delegate power to local government entities, and whether or not they must formally articulate authorization for such an entity to act with anticompetitive effect.

Questions Presented: 

1. Whether the Georgia legislature, by vesting the local government entity with general corporate powers to acquire and lease out hospitals and other property, has “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” a “state policy to displace competition” in the market for hospital services.

2. Whether such a state policy, even if clearly articulated, would be sufficient to validate the anticompetitive conduct in this case, given that the local government entity neither actively participated in negotiating the terms of the hospital sale nor has any practical means of overseeing the hospital's operation.

top

Issue(s)

Where a state legislature’s authorization leads to anticompetitive actions by a private actor, what standard will be applied to determine whether those actions are exempt from federal antitrust law?

top

Written by: 
Jeremy Amar-Dolan
Zachary Zemlin
Edited by: 
Brooks Kaufman
Additional Resources: 

top

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. D/B/A AT&T California v. linkLine Communications, Inc. (07-512)

in

Oral argument: Dec. 8, 2008

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (Sept. 11, 2007)

ANTITRUST LAW, SHERMAN ACT, COMPETITION, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, FCC

This case involves price squeeze claims and whether they are viable under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. In addition, the Court will likely determine if price squeeze claims must be pled and treated in the same way as traditional predatory pricing claims. This claim arose when linkLine, an internet service provider, sued its wholesale DSL supplier, AT&T, for engaging in anticompetitive practices in order to stifle competition in the California telecommunications market. The Ninth Circuit rejected AT&T’s argument that linkLine’s claim was not viable under antitrust jurisprudence, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Verizon v. Trinko. The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine the status of price squeeze claims in antitrust jurisprudence, and could also clarify how the costs of retail production of a vertically integrated company with a wholesale monopoly should be measured when considering retail predatory pricing claims. 

Syndicate content