Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Iron Triangle, LLC significantly increased its presence in the Malheur National Forest after winning a 2013 competitive bidding process by the U.S. Forest Service, securing an exclusive ten-year stewardship contract and right of first refusal on 70% of federal timberland. Iron Triangle also regularly won bids for the remaining 30% of timber sales. In 2020, it entered a contract with Malheur Lumber Company to supply pine sawlogs and provide logging services. Plaintiffs—loggers, landowners, and a competing sawmill—claimed that Iron Triangle and other defendants used anticompetitive tactics to monopolize and restrain trade across four related product markets in the region.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs failed to allege monopoly power, anticompetitive conduct, or antitrust injury in any of the identified markets. The court also held that federal regulations governing government contracting and timber sales precluded findings of monopoly power. Plaintiffs amended their complaint twice, but each time, the district court found the allegations insufficient and eventually denied further leave to amend.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. While disagreeing that federal regulations categorically preclude monopoly power, the appellate court held that plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead monopoly or monopsony power, anticompetitive conduct, or antitrust injury in any market. The court also found plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege an illegal tying arrangement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as logging services and sawlogs were not distinct products and there was no coercion. The Ninth Circuit further affirmed denial of leave to amend, concluding additional amendments would be futile. View "MALHEUR FOREST FAIRNESS COALITION V. IRON TRIANGLE, LLC" on Justia Law

Seagate Technology LLC, a California-based manufacturer of hard disk drives, and two of its foreign subsidiaries (in Thailand and Singapore) brought antitrust claims against NHK Spring Co., Ltd., a Japanese supplier of suspension assemblies—critical hard drive components. NHK pleaded guilty in a separate federal criminal proceeding to conspiring with competitors to fix the prices of these suspension assemblies, which were sold both in the United States and abroad. The majority of the price-fixed assemblies purchased by Seagate’s foreign entities occurred outside the United States, with only finished hard drives being imported into the country.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California initially found that the Sherman Act did not apply to Seagate’s claims related to suspension assemblies purchased abroad, ruling that these were “wholly foreign transactions” outside the reach of U.S. antitrust law. The court also determined that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) import commerce exclusion did not apply since the assemblies themselves were not directly imported into the United States, and that Seagate could not show the necessary domestic effect giving rise to its foreign injury. The district court granted NHK’s motion for partial summary judgment in full and denied Seagate leave to amend its complaint for indirect purchaser claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment order. The appellate court held that while the import commerce exclusion did not apply, Seagate alleged a viable theory under the FTAIA’s domestic effects exception: NHK’s price-fixing in the United States led to higher prices domestically, which then directly caused Seagate’s foreign entities to pay inflated prices abroad. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for the district court to determine whether Seagate had presented sufficient evidence of proximate cause to survive summary judgment. View "SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC V. NHK SPRING CO., LTD." on Justia Law

AliveCor, a medical-technology company, developed a software feature called SmartRhythm to detect atrial fibrillation (Afib) using the Apple Watch. SmartRhythm depended on heart rate data generated by Apple’s original Workout Mode algorithm, known as HRPO. In 2018, Apple updated its Watch operating system and replaced HRPO with a new algorithm, HRNN, which improved exercise monitoring. Apple shared HRNN data with third-party developers but stopped sharing HRPO data, making SmartRhythm ineffective and leading AliveCor to discontinue the feature. Around the same time, Apple launched its own heart rhythm analysis feature, Irregular Rhythm Notification (IRN), using a different algorithm and shared that data as well. AliveCor alleged that Apple’s conduct intentionally disabled competing software features, thereby monopolizing the market for heart rhythm analysis apps on the Apple Watch.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment for Apple, finding that Apple’s changes constituted a lawful product improvement under Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group LP. The court held that the update to the Workout Mode was a genuine product improvement and that the associated incompatibility with SmartRhythm was not separate anticompetitive conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment, but on different grounds. The Ninth Circuit held that Apple’s refusal to continue sharing HRPO data with third-party developers constituted a “refusal to deal,” which under antitrust law does not impose a duty to share with competitors unless specific exceptions apply. The court found that AliveCor had not shown that an exception, such as the Aspen Skiing exception or the essential-facilities doctrine, applied. Therefore, AliveCor’s Section 2 Sherman Act claims failed as a matter of law, and summary judgment for Apple was affirmed. View "ALIVECOR, INC. V. APPLE INC." on Justia Law

Epic Games, a developer and operator of the Epic Games Store, sued Apple over its App Store practices, alleging violations of federal and California competition law. The dispute centered on Apple’s rules requiring developers to use Apple’s in-app payment system, which imposed a 30% commission, and its prohibition of developers directing users to other purchasing options outside the App Store. After a bench trial, the district court found Apple’s anti-steering provisions violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by preventing informed consumer choice but upheld Apple’s in-app payment system requirement for digital goods. The court issued an injunction barring Apple from restricting developers from including in their apps buttons, links, or other calls to action that direct users to alternative purchasing mechanisms.Following the injunction, Apple implemented a compliance plan involving a 27% commission on linked-out purchases and a series of restrictions on how developers could present external payment options, including limitations on button design, link placement, and user flow. Epic contested Apple’s compliance, arguing these measures still effectively prohibited alternative purchases. After holding multiple evidentiary hearings, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found Apple in civil contempt for failing to comply with the injunction, citing Apple’s bad faith and pretextual justifications. The district court imposed broad sanctions, including prohibiting any commission on linked-out purchases, restricting Apple’s ability to limit external links, and referring Apple for criminal investigation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s contempt findings and most of the resulting sanctions but found portions of the sanctions—particularly the blanket ban on commissions—overbroad and more punitive than coercive. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded those parts for further tailoring, clarified the scope of permissible developer link prominence, and declined to vacate the injunction or reassign the case. The court otherwise affirmed the district court’s orders. View "EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE INC." on Justia Law

Two individuals who frequently rented hotel rooms on the Las Vegas Strip brought a class action lawsuit, alleging that several major hotel operators and related entities caused them to pay artificially high prices for hotel rooms. The plaintiffs claimed that these hotels each entered into agreements to license revenue-management software from a single provider, Cendyn, whose products generated pricing recommendations based on proprietary algorithms. The software did not require hotels to follow its recommendations, nor did it share confidential information among the hotels. Plaintiffs alleged that, after the hotels adopted this software, room prices increased.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada reviewed the complaint, which asserted two claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The first claim alleged a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy among the hotels to adopt and follow the software’s pricing recommendations, but the district court dismissed this claim for failure to plausibly allege an agreement among the hotels. The plaintiffs later abandoned their appeal of this claim. The second claim alleged that the aggregate effect of the individual licensing agreements between each hotel and Cendyn resulted in anticompetitive effects, specifically higher prices. The district court dismissed this claim as well, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege a restraint of trade in the relevant market.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because the independent decisions by competing hotels to license the same pricing software, without an agreement among them or a restraint imposed by the software provider, did not constitute a restraint of trade. The court concluded that neither the terms nor the operation of the licensing agreements imposed anticompetitive restraints in the market for hotel-room rentals on the Las Vegas Strip. View "Gibson v. Cendyn Group, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the owners of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun regarding a 2005 joint operating arrangement (JOA). The 2005 JOA amended a 1989 JOA, which had been approved by the U.S. Attorney General under the Newspaper Preservation Act (NPA). The NPA allows failing newspapers to combine operations with another newspaper while maintaining editorial independence, provided they receive prior written consent from the Attorney General. The 2005 JOA was not approved by the Attorney General.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the defendants' motion to dissolve a stipulated injunction that required them to continue performing under the 2005 JOA. The district court concluded that the Attorney General's approval was not necessary for the 2005 JOA to be enforceable, interpreting the NPA as only denying antitrust exemption without invalidating the JOA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the 2005 JOA is unlawful and unenforceable under the NPA because it did not receive the required prior written consent from the Attorney General. The court clarified that the language of the NPA is clear and unequivocal, declaring unapproved JOAs to be unlawful to enter into, perform, or enforce. The court also rejected the district court's interpretation that the lack of approval merely meant the parties lacked antitrust exemption. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "LAS VEGAS SUN, INC. V. ADELSON" on Justia Law

Epic Games, Inc. filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google after Google removed Epic's Fortnite video game from the Google Play Store for noncompliance with its terms of service. Epic had embedded secret code into Fortnite’s software to bypass Google’s required payment-processing systems, which charged a 30% commission on in-app purchases. The jury found that Epic had proven the relevant product markets for Android app distribution and Android in-app billing services and that Google violated both federal and California antitrust laws by willfully acquiring or maintaining monopoly power in those markets, unreasonably restraining trade, and unlawfully tying the use of the Play Store to Google Play Billing.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered a three-year injunction against Google, prohibiting it from providing certain benefits to app distributors, developers, OEMs, or carriers in exchange for advantaging the Play Store. The injunction also required Google to allow developers to provide users with information about and access to alternative app billing, pricing, and distribution channels. Google appealed the liability verdict and the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict and upheld the district court’s injunction. The court rejected Google’s claim that a decision in Apple’s favor in a similar lawsuit precluded Epic from defining the market differently in this case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with a jury trial on Epic’s equitable claims and Google’s damages counterclaims. The court also found that the injunction was supported by the jury’s verdict and the district court’s own findings, and that the district court had broad discretion to craft the antitrust injunction. View "EPIC GAMES, INC. V. GOOGLE LLC" on Justia Law

CoStar Group, Inc. and CoStar Realty Information, Inc. (collectively, “CoStar”) and Commercial Real Estate Exchange, Inc. (“CREXi”) are online platforms competing in the commercial real estate listing, information, and auction markets. CoStar sued CREXi for copyright infringement, alleging that CREXi listed images and information hosted by CoStar without permission. CREXi counterclaimed on antitrust grounds, asserting that CoStar engaged in monopolistic practices to exclude competition.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed CREXi’s antitrust counterclaims and directed entry of final judgment on those claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The district court held that CREXi failed to show CoStar had monopoly power and that the agreements at issue were not exclusive. CREXi appealed the dismissal of its antitrust counterclaims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal of the antitrust counterclaims. The Ninth Circuit held that CREXi successfully stated claims under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, California’s Cartwright Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. The court found that CREXi plausibly alleged CoStar had monopoly power in the relevant markets and engaged in anticompetitive conduct by entering into de facto exclusive deals with brokers and imposing technological barriers to entry. The court concluded that a monopolist using its power to exclude competitors and maintain monopoly power violates § 2 of the Sherman Act, and using exclusive deals to do so violates § 1 of the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act. The court also held that CREXi stated claims under the “unfair” and “unlawful” prongs of the Unfair Competition Law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of CREXi’s tortious interference claims as they were improperly raised. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "COSTAR GROUP, INC. V. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE, INC." on Justia Law

PharmacyChecker.com LLC, an online pharmacy accreditation and price comparison service, sued its competitor LegitScript LLC for allegedly engaging in a group boycott in violation of antitrust laws. LegitScript moved for summary judgment, arguing that PharmacyChecker lacked antitrust standing because its business facilitated the illegal importation of foreign drugs, thus precluding any legally cognizable injury under Section 4 of the Clayton Act.The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied LegitScript's motion for summary judgment. The court found that PharmacyChecker's business was legal and that LegitScript had not shown that PharmacyChecker itself engaged in illegal activity. The court also noted that the facilitation of potentially illegal activities by some of PharmacyChecker's users did not bar its antitrust standing. LegitScript's motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal was granted, and the case was brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that PharmacyChecker had antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act. The court relied on Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedents, including Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., and Memorex Corp. v. IBM. These cases established that neither the equitable defense of in pari delicto nor unclean hands could bar a plaintiff from bringing an antitrust suit, even if the plaintiff's business involved some illegal conduct. The court concluded that PharmacyChecker's facilitation of potentially illegal drug importation by some users did not negate its standing to sue for antitrust violations. View "PHARMACYCHECKER.COM LLC V. LEGITSCRIPT LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) seeking a preliminary injunction to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc., a major video game developer. The FTC argued that the merger would likely violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act by substantially lessening competition in the U.S. markets for gaming console devices, gaming subscription services, and gaming cloud-streaming services. The FTC's primary concern was that Microsoft would make Activision's popular game, Call of Duty, exclusive to its Xbox console, thereby harming competition.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the FTC's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court held a five-day evidentiary hearing and concluded that the FTC had not raised serious questions regarding whether the proposed merger would likely substantially lessen competition. The court found that Microsoft lacked the incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, as doing so would harm its financial interests and reputation. The court also noted that Activision Blizzard had historically resisted putting its content on subscription services, and there was insufficient evidence to show that this would change absent the merger.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision and affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction. The appellate court agreed that the district court applied the correct legal standards and did not abuse its discretion or rely on clearly erroneous findings. The Ninth Circuit held that the FTC failed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its Section 7 claim. The court concluded that the FTC had not demonstrated that the merger would likely substantially lessen competition in the relevant markets. View "FTC V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION," on Justia Law