1. Overview of Unfair Business Practices and Antitrust Litigation
Our firm provides skilled representation in matters involving unfair business practices and antitrust violations. In California, these claims often arise under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and state and federal antitrust statutes, targeting practices that undermine fair competition and harm consumers or competitors.
The UCL, codified at California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” This broad statute allows for claims based on a range of unfair conduct, including violations of other laws, business practices deemed oppressive or unscrupulous, and acts likely to deceive the public.
California antitrust law, modeled after the federal Sherman Act, is primarily embodied in the Cartwright Act (California Business and Professions Code Sections 16700-16770). The Cartwright Act prohibits conspiracies, agreements, and trade restraints that restrict competition or fix prices. Our attorneys possess deep knowledge of these laws, providing representation to businesses, consumers, and competitors seeking to address or defend against unfair practices.
We work closely with economic experts, industry professionals, and regulators to investigate, litigate, and resolve complex cases involving monopolistic behavior, anti-competitive agreements, and market manipulation. Whether pursuing or defending claims, we approach each matter with a focus on economic impact, statutory compliance, and strategic advocacy.
—
2. Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Claims
The California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) provides a cause of action for “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent” business practices. Our firm represents clients in a wide range of UCL claims, whether asserting consumer rights, protecting business interests, or defending against allegations of misconduct.
A claim under the UCL may be based on conduct that violates any other state or federal law, creating a “borrowing” mechanism that incorporates violations of laws such as consumer protection statutes or environmental regulations. In Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, the California Supreme Court clarified the “unfair” prong of the UCL as conduct that threatens an incipient violation of antitrust law, violates the policy or spirit of such laws, or harms competition.
The “fraudulent” prong of the UCL targets conduct likely to deceive members of the public. Our attorneys are skilled in proving or challenging allegations of misleading advertising, false claims, and deceptive business practices. Remedies available under the UCL include injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties, though damages are not recoverable.
Our team’s litigation strategy is comprehensive, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements, engaging in evidence collection, and advocating effectively before courts and regulatory agencies to protect our clients’ rights and interests.
—
3. Cartwright Act Violations
The Cartwright Act, California’s primary antitrust statute, prohibits any combination, conspiracy, or agreement that restrains trade or competition. This statute is broader in scope than its federal counterpart and targets price-fixing, market allocation, tying arrangements, and other anti-competitive behavior.
A claim under the Cartwright Act requires showing (1) an agreement or combination among competitors or market participants, (2) an unreasonable restraint on trade, and (3) resulting damages. Our attorneys utilize this legal framework to address and resolve claims of anti-competitive conduct, drawing on both case law and economic analysis. The Act’s intent was articulated in Vernon v. State of California (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 114, emphasizing its protective role in maintaining fair and competitive markets.
Cartwright Act violations often involve complex factual disputes, requiring extensive discovery, market analysis, and economic modeling. Our attorneys collaborate with economists, industry experts, and data analysts to uncover evidence of anti-competitive practices or refute unfounded allegations.
Whether representing plaintiffs harmed by anti-competitive conduct or defending businesses accused of engaging in unfair trade restraints, our firm takes a meticulous and assertive approach, emphasizing economic impact, legal precedent, and effective advocacy.
—
4. Federal Antitrust Claims: Sherman Act and Clayton Act
Our firm represents clients in federal antitrust matters arising under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. The Sherman Act prohibits monopolistic behavior and agreements that unreasonably restrain trade, while the Clayton Act addresses anti-competitive mergers and specific practices such as exclusive dealing and tying arrangements.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade, while Section 2 targets attempts to monopolize or actual monopolization. Claims may involve horizontal agreements between competitors, vertical agreements involving suppliers and distributors, or other anti-competitive practices. In United States v. Grinnell Corp. (1966) 384 U.S. 563, the U.S. Supreme Court established a two-prong test for monopoly power and monopolistic intent.
The Clayton Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27, addresses mergers and acquisitions that substantially lessen competition. Our attorneys provide merger review, regulatory guidance, and litigation defense to ensure compliance with federal antitrust laws.
Federal antitrust litigation often requires complex analysis of market structures, competitive dynamics, and economic impact. Our firm excels in navigating these complexities, providing strategic guidance and assertive representation to safeguard clients’ market positions and rights.
—
5. Price-Fixing and Market Allocation Claims
Price-fixing and market allocation agreements among competitors represent serious antitrust violations under both state and federal law. Our firm provides aggressive representation to clients facing or pursuing claims involving collusion, price manipulation, and market allocation schemes.
Price-fixing occurs when competitors agree to establish prices, discount policies, or other terms of sale, thereby eliminating competition. Market allocation involves agreements to divide markets, territories, or customers. Both practices are considered per se violations of the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act, meaning they are unlawful regardless of their impact on competition.
Proving or defending against claims of collusion requires a detailed investigation of communications, agreements, and market behavior. The courts have recognized in California ex rel. Harris v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 41 Cal.4th 1234 that even informal arrangements between competitors can trigger antitrust liability.
Our attorneys work with forensic analysts and industry experts to uncover or contest evidence of collusion, building strong factual and legal arguments. Remedies in such cases may include treble damages, injunctive relief, and substantial civil penalties.
—
6. Monopolization and Abuse of Dominance Claims
Monopolization and abuse of dominance claims target conduct by businesses that possess market power and use it to harm competitors or consumers. California law, through the Cartwright Act, and federal law, via the Sherman Act, prohibit monopolistic practices that unreasonably restrain trade.
To prove monopolization under the Sherman Act, plaintiffs must demonstrate (1) the possession of monopoly power in a relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as opposed to growth due to superior products, innovation, or business acumen. Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan (1993) 506 U.S. 447 highlights these elements.
Abuse of dominance claims often involve predatory pricing, exclusionary tactics, refusal to deal, and leveraging market power to disadvantage competitors. Our attorneys conduct in-depth market analyses, assess competitive behavior, and develop legal strategies to address claims of monopolistic practices.
Defending against monopolization claims requires demonstrating competitive justifications, efficiencies, and the absence of anti-competitive intent. Our firm’s expertise ensures comprehensive and effective advocacy in these high-stakes matters.
—
7. Tying Arrangements and Exclusive Dealing Agreements
Tying arrangements and exclusive dealing agreements can raise significant antitrust concerns when they foreclose competition or harm consumer choice. Our firm represents businesses and consumers in evaluating, challenging, or defending against these claims under California and federal law.
A tying arrangement occurs when a seller conditions the sale of one product (the tying product) on the purchase of another product (the tied product). Courts have found such practices unlawful if the seller has market power over the tying product and the arrangement substantially forecloses competition. Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde (1984) 466 U.S. 2 outlines the elements of tying claims.
Exclusive dealing agreements, where a buyer commits to purchase exclusively from a seller, may violate antitrust laws if they substantially lessen competition or create barriers to market entry. Our attorneys analyze market impact, competitive effects, and pro-competitive justifications for these arrangements, drawing on relevant case law and economic principles.
Whether challenging or defending such practices, our firm offers detailed market analysis, expert consultation, and strategic advocacy to achieve favorable outcomes for our clients.
—
8. Fraudulent and Deceptive Trade Practices
Fraudulent and deceptive trade practices are often pursued under California’s UCL, which prohibits conduct likely to deceive consumers or competitors. Our firm represents clients in disputes involving false advertising, misrepresentation, bait-and-switch schemes, and other deceptive practices.
California Business and Professions Code Section 17500 regulates advertising practices, prohibiting untrue or misleading statements in advertising goods and services. In People v. Superior Court (Jayhill Corp.) (1973) 9 Cal.3d 283, the California Supreme Court affirmed that even truthful statements can be deemed deceptive if they are misleading.
Our attorneys assess marketing materials, consumer complaints, and regulatory compliance to build or defend claims. Remedies under the UCL include restitution, injunctive relief, and civil penalties, making this a powerful tool for combating fraudulent business practices.
With a focus on client protection and strategic resolution, we provide clear guidance on compliance, liability exposure, and legal recourse for those harmed