Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPREME COURT DOCKET: Recent decisions, cases, and petitions pending High Court review, (May 11, 2016)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

This Antitrust Law Daily feature presents a chart highlighting the decisions, arguments, briefs, and petitions on antitrust and trade regulation issues before the 2015 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since the opening of its 2015 Term, the Supreme Court has issued two opinions concerning advertising and privacy cases, granted summary disposition in another case, and heard oral arguments in a RICO case. In addition, the Court has denied 35 petitions in antitrust and trade regulation cases, while 15 other petitions are awaiting review.

Advertising, false health claims. The Supreme Court on May 2 denied POM Wonderful, LLC’s petition for review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., which affirmed an FTC determination that a series of ads touting the benefit of POM’s pomegranate-based products were deceptive. The appellate court agreed that the FTC properly found POM’s efficacy and establishment claims to be deceptive due to inadequate substantiation. “I am pleased that the POM Wonderful case has been brought to a successful conclusion,” FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez stated in response to the Supreme Court’s denial order. “The outcome of this case makes clear that companies like POM making serious health claims about food and nutritional supplement products must have rigorous evidence to back them up. Consumers deserve no less” (POM Wonderful v. FTC, Dkt. 15-525).

Franchising, discrimination. The International Franchise Association, Inc. (IFA) was denied review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which determined that the IFA was not likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to Seattle’s $15 an hour minimum wage ordinance—or more specifically, to the municipality’s decision to group franchisees in with the category of “large employers” that will be subjected to the steeper schedule of incremental wage hikes over the next five years. The appellate court affirmed a district court decision denying preliminary injunctive relief from the $15 an hour minimum wage ordinance. The question presented was: Whether a state or local law that discriminates against certain in-state businesses based solely on their ties to interstate commerce discriminates against interstate commerce? (International Franchise Association, Inc. v. Seattle, Dkt. 15-958).

RICO, proximate causation. The Supreme Court additionally denied review in an action in which a group of telemarketing companies, chiropractic clinics, and affiliated law offices challenged a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which concluded that sufficient evidence existed to support a jury’s finding that the petitioners violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and Ohio’s RICO statute, committed fraud, and were unjustly enriched. The petitioners engaged in a scheme to defraud insurance companies, including Allstate Insurance Co., by contacting not-at-fault victims in vehicle accidents and convincing them to receive unnecessary chiropractic services, the appellate court found. The petition for review asks: When, if ever, can the plaintiff in a civil RICO case predicated on mail and wire fraud establish proximate causation without showing that someone—the plaintiff or a third party—relied on the defendants’ misrepresentations to the plaintiff’s detriment? (Plambeck v. Allstate Insurance Co., Dkt. 15-949).

For details about these and other petitions and cases pending before the Supreme Court, please consult the chart of antitrust and trade regulation cases awaiting decision in the 2015 term. Issued opinions, granted petitions, pending petitions, and denied petitions are listed separately, along with a summary of the questions presented and the current status of each case.

News: Advertising FranchisingDistribution RICO