Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Rejection of Bar Patron’s Antitrust, RICO Claims Against Bars and Restaurants for Ending Happy Hour Promotions Stands, (Feb 19, 2013)
By Jody Coultas, J.D.
The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition for certiorari seeking review of the dismissal of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and antitrust claims against numerous organizations and individuals involved in the bar and restaurant industry filed by a bar patron (Uhr v. Responsible Hospitality Institute, Inc., Dkt. 12-660).
The patron alleged that a nationwide conspiracy involving thousands of entities and individuals existed to bring an end to "happy hour" and other drink promotions in order to increase the profit margins of bars and restaurants. Included in the suit were four chain restaurants with locations in Minnesota, the owners of several bars in Wisconsin, numerous national retail and wholesale alcohol and restaurant trade associations, the former head of alcohol policy at the American Medical Association, two major financial institutions, several attorneys, a nonprofit organization, and the president of the University of Minnesota.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit upheld a district court’s final order granting the named defendants' motions to dismiss. The complaint failed to properly allege the existence of a conspiracy or any predicate acts of racketeering activity. Also, the district court held, and the appellate court affirmed, that the RICO and antitrust claims were implausible. There was also no evidence of damages or injury to the patron.
The Supreme Court denied the patron’s request to determine whether a complaint alleging a highly sophisticated, decades-old, public price fixing conspiracy on retail alcohol sales carried out under the pretense of promoting the public welfare and lowering dram-shop insurance premiums, involving innumerable parties, should be dismissed as implausible even though the allegations were supported by substantial, direct, and irrefutable evidence. The court also declined to rule on whether the allegations that a plaintiff in a price-fixing action purchased the fixed product from a participant in the price-fixing conspiracy during the course of the price-fixing conspiracy were sufficient to establish the plausibility that plaintiff was overcharged as a result of the conspiracy. Finally, the court refused to consider whether price fixing is a scheme to defraud within the meaning of the mail and wire fraud statutes.
The petition was filed on November 20, 2012.
News: RICO Antitrust