On March 28, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission jointly filed a Statement of Interest on behalf of the United States in the case of Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment, 1:23-CV-02536 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2024). 

In the Statement, the agencies express their disagreement with two legal arguments asserted by the Cornish-Adebiyi defendants in their motion to dismiss.  First, the agencies argue that, although communications between competitors “can be highly probative of an agreement,” there is “no rule requiring proof of such communications” in order to prove the existence of an agreement for purposes of Section 1.  In the agencies’ view, Section 1 claims may also be demonstrated by “actions alone,” as in the case of a tacit agreement, or an agreement facilitated by communications between competitors and a central intermediary, as in the case of a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy.

Additionally, and in response to the Cornish-Adebiyi defendants’ argument that the alleged conduct does not constitute per se unlawful price fixing if pricing recommendations are non-binding, the agencies argue that per se illegal price fixing includes agreements to fix the “starting point of prices,” regardless of “how often [an agreement] is followed.”

The Statement, filed with the District of New Jersey, follows similar Statements of Interest submitted in the past year by the United States in two other ongoing algorithmic price fixing cases, In re: RealPage, 3:23-MD-03071 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2023), and Duffy v. Yardi, 2:23-cv-01391 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 1, 2024).  Last December, the district court in RealPage did not accept plaintiffs’ and the agencies’ argument for per se treatment, instead dismissing one of the two complaints and allowing the other to proceed only under a Rule of Reason theory.  In re RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litig. (No. II), 3:23-MD-03071, 2023 WL 9004806, at *30 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 28, 2023).

We will continue to update you on meaningful developments related to algorithmic price fixing here and across our blogs.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of John Playforth John Playforth

John Playforth is an antitrust litigator in the firm’s Washington office. John specializes in defending financial institutions, corporations, and sports leagues in high-stakes antitrust litigations and has extensive experience representing defendants in antitrust class actions and complex, multi-district litigations.

Recognized by Chambers for…

John Playforth is an antitrust litigator in the firm’s Washington office. John specializes in defending financial institutions, corporations, and sports leagues in high-stakes antitrust litigations and has extensive experience representing defendants in antitrust class actions and complex, multi-district litigations.

Recognized by Chambers for antitrust litigation, John is described by clients as “incredibly smart, responsive, and practical.” He has a track record of delivering critical victories to clients at the motion to dismiss, class certification, summary judgment, and post-trial phases of litigation. John’s work also has earned him the recognition of “Litigator of the Week” by The AmLaw Litigation Daily.

Watch: John and members of the Class Actions practice discuss antitrust class action considerations, as part of our Navigating Class Actions video series.

Read more about John PlayforthEmail
Show more Show less