Antitrust and Tech Updates: Gig Economy, Director Overlaps, MFN Pricing – The National Law Review

Antitrust and tech is in the legal news almost daily, and often multiple times a day.  Here are a few recent developments with notable implications that may have flown under the radar: 1) renewed focus on gig economy issues; 2) potential enforcement efforts regarding director overlaps; and 3) challenges to MFN pricing. 
The Gig Economy.  The FTC recently announced its enforcement priority to protect gig workers from issues such as anticompetitive wage fixing and coordination between gig economy companies.  While not be solely tech focused, many tech companies, big and small, are based on the gig economy, often creating gig economies of their own. Indeed, 16% of Americans report having earned money from an online gig platform.  In its statement, the FTC noted three main areas of focus: 1) claims and conduct regarding the costs and benefits of gig work; 2) contract terms, including any restrictive terms limiting the ability to seek other jobs; and 3) wage, benefits or fee fixing. The statement notes the prominent role of technology in the gig economy, including managing the gig work force through artificial intelligence or algorithms. And as part of the FTC’s announcement, Elizabeth Wilkins (Director of the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning) seemingly called out tech companies, saying, “Technological advances and novel business models are no license to commit unfair, deceptive, or anticompetitive practices.” 
Director Overlaps.  In another issue that impacts tech and traditional companies alike, the DOJ has doubled down on its enforcement efforts relating to oft-ignored Section 8 of the Clayton Act and its prohibition (with a few exceptions) on director overlaps between competitors.  Today, many private equity companies have stakes in competing “portfolio” companies, and with stakes comes some say in corporate governance. Expressing concern about the amount of common control – or even the impact of incentives – that can arise from private equity cross-ownership, the DOJ has begun issuing letters and opening investigations triggered by information disclosed in HSR flings, and sometimes public SEC filing.  The letters warn that enforcement may be initiated with respect to alleged Section 8 violations.
MFN Pricing.  Amazon doesn’t ever truly fly under the radar. But it has largely avoided the high-profile antitrust cases that its Big Tech brethren have faced. Until now. This past year, state enforcement agencies took the lead in challenging Amazon’s third-party seller contracts and policies, which according to the recent lawsuits, bar third-party sellers from offering lower prices or better terms on sites outside Amazon.com.  Lawsuits filed by the Washington D.C. and California Attorneys General allege that Amazon’s restrictive policies impede competition and harm consumers because they keep prices artificially high through charging third-party sellers high fees.  In March 2022, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia dismissed the D.C. lawsuit for failure adequately allege anticompetitive effects. That decision is under appeal, and not long after, California filed its lawsuit in state court under a different and broader set of laws – the Cartwright Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law – presumably in an effort to avoid the same fate as Washington D.C.  If California’s suit is successful, it may spur increased attention and litigation under state-specific antitrust laws going forward.         
About this Author
Colin Kass is a partner in the Litigation Department and vice-chair of the Antitrust Group. An experienced antitrust and commercial litigation lawyer, Colin has litigated cases before federal and state courts throughout the United States and before administrative agencies. His practice involves a wide range of industries and spans the full-range of antitrust and unfair competition-related litigation, including class actions, competitor suits, dealer/distributor termination suits, price discrimination cases, criminal price-fixing investigations, and merger injunctions.
John Ingrassia is a special counsel and advises clients on a wide range of antitrust matters in various industries, including chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical devices, telecommunications, financial services, health care, and others. His practice includes a significant focus on the analysis of Hart-Scott-Rodino pre-merger notification requirements, the coordination and submission of Hart-Scott-Rodino filings, and the analysis and resolution of antitrust issues related to mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures. John has extensive experience with the legal, practical,…
David Munkittrick is a litigator and trial attorney. His practice focuses on complex and large-scale antitrust, copyright and entertainment matters in all forms of dispute resolution and litigation, from complaint through appeal.
David has been involved in some of the most significant antitrust matters over the past few years, obtaining favorable results for Fortune 500 companies and other clients in bench and jury trials involving price discrimination and group boycott claims. His practice includes the full range of antitrust matters and disputes: from class actions to competitor…
Amy Gordon is an associate in the Litigation Department.
Reut Samuels is an associate in the Litigation Department.
 
As a woman owned company, The National Law Review is a certified member of the Women's Business Enterprise National Council
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 
Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.

source

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.