News

Carl Hittinger Comments on Antitrust Case Involving Real Estate Date Providers

News / August 1, 2017

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Antitrust Advocate
Ohio v. American Express: The Supreme Court Credits American Express's Anti-Steering Provisions
By William DeVinney
July 10, 2018
In a 5-4 decision in Ohio v. American Express, the Supreme Court affirmed that the anti-steering provisions of American Express’s merchant agreement do not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Credit card companies’ core business involves...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Carl Hittinger, Tyson Herrold Author Article that Assesses Congressional Attempts to Update FTC Merger Review Process
By Tyson Y. Herrold, Carl W. Hittinger
June 27, 2018
Partner Carl Hittinger and Associate Tyson Herrold authored an article published June 22, 2018, by The Legal Intelligencer. The article, “How Smart is the Proposed Merger Review SMARTER Act?,” discusses a long-awaited bill before Congress...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Did You Know the ‘Plausibility' Standard Can Be Used for More Than Pleading Antitrust Claims?
By Danyll W. Foix
June 26, 2018
Partners Robert Abrams, Gregory Commins, and Danyll Foix authored an article published in the Global Competition Review’s “The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2018.” Their article reviews how the “plausibility” pleading standard announced...
Read More ->
Class Action Lawsuit Defense
The US Supreme Court's Ruling in American Pipe Does Not Extend to Allow Tolling of Statutes of Limitation in Successive Class Actions
June 13, 2018
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has limited the reach of its landmark decision in American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), which tolled the statute of limitations applicable to a timely filed putative class...
Read More ->
Class Action Lawsuit Defense
State Court Adoption of Comcast v. Behrend
By Albert G. Lin, Rand L. McClellan
June 11, 2018
In Comcast v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013), the United States Supreme Court clarified the requirements for establishing that classwide injury and damages predominate over individual issues for the purposes of FRCP 23(b)(3). In particular...
Read More ->