State Action and Meaning of Agreement under the Sherman Act: An Approach to Hybrid Restraints
Lopatka, John E., Page, William H., Yale Journal on Regulation
Antitrust observers are familiar with the two-part Midcal test for the immunity of state regulation from federal antitrust laws: the state must clearly articulate its policy to displace competition and must "actively supervise" any private conduct pursuant to the policy. But state action need not meet these requirements if it is "unilateral" and therefore does not conflict with Section 1. Only if a state-authorized restraint is "hybrid," combining state and private action in a way that resembles a prohibited agreement, need the restraint satisfy Midcal.
In this article, John Lopatka and Bill Page examine the history and current importance of the distinction between unilateral and …
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: State Action and Meaning of Agreement under the Sherman Act: An Approach to Hybrid Restraints. Contributors: Lopatka, John E. - Author, Page, William H. - Author. Journal title: Yale Journal on Regulation. Volume: 20. Issue: 2 Publication date: Summer 2003. Page number: 269. © Yale University School of Law Winter 2009. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.