FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists (1986)

1
FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists (1986)
Basic Facts Indiana Dental Assoc., comprised of
85 dentist in Indiana, reused to provide x-rays
to insurance carriers for review. Insurers
required as cost containment measure. Dentist
said it threatened their professional independence
and economic well-being. Assoc. agreed to FTC
consent decree, and then new, smaller group
formed (Indiana Federation of Dentists) concentrat
ed in three communities. FTC ruled policy
violated Section 5 of FTC Act as unfair method
of competition. What did Seventh Circuit
hold? What did 7th cir say was relevant
market? Was there evidence restrain resulted in
higher patient costs?
2
California Dental Assoc. v. FTC (Sup. Ct. 1999)
Base Facts California Dental Assoc. included
75 of all Cal. Dentists. Rules (1) prohibited
across the board discounts, (2) prohibited
promotional statements about cheap or reasonable
prices, (3) prohibited claims about quality or
superior services, (4) discouraged solicitations,
and (5) imposed disclosure requirements for
advertising discounts. FTC held price constrains
illegal per se and non-price constrains illegal
after quick look under Sherman 1 because of
market power. Ct. of Appeals affirmed after
quick look. What is purpose of quick look? What
was purpose of restrictions? What effect anti
or pro competitive? Who was hurt by
restrains? Are less restrictive restraints
possible?
3
Rothery Storage Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines
(D.C. Cir. 1986)
Basic Facts Deregulation of moving industry
made it possible for independents to compete with
major movers who work with independent agents.
Atlas adopted rule that it would terminate agency
contract and deny Atlas services to any
independent who handled business for own account.
Independents alleged Atlas actions were illegal
group boycott. Dist. Ct. granted Atlas summary
judgment motion. How big of market share did
Atlas have? How did Atlas hurt
independents? Was price a factor? How?
4
Broadcast Music Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting
(Sup Ct. 1979)

• Base Facts ASCAP and BMI secured nonexclusive
  licenses from composers and artists and then
  master licensed to users. CBS claimed master
  licenses controlled and fixed prices and were per
  se illegal. Ct of Appeals held per se illegal.
• What was underlying purpose of master license?
• What impact on market?
• Who gets hurt by this restraint?
• What was issue for court?