Bates White is a leader in the analysis of conduct related to allegations of monopolization, monopoly maintenance, and other restraints of trade. Our experts assess competitive effects, identify efficiencies, define relevant markets, and measure market power in some of the most prominent and challenging Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 disputes. We advise clients on a wide range of business practices including allegations of bundling, aftermarkets abuse, predation, patent misuse, loyalty rebates, exclusionary practices, raising rivals’ costs, and refusals to deal. A number of our clients are party to high-stakes antitrust disputes in many countries, including cases requiring coordination across multiple jurisdictions.
- Retained by Amex in connection with DOJ's investigation and subsequent lawsuit as well as private litigation against Amex.
- Provided expert testimony on behalf of Songkick in Complete Entertainment Resources LLC v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al., its antitrust suit against Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation.
- In the matter ACCC v. Informed Sources, provided economic analysis on behalf of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in its Federal Court of Australia proceedings against Informed Sources.
- In the matter Anderson News, LLC v. American Media, Inc., supported testifying expert on behalf of Anderson News regarding allegations that leading magazine publishers and distributors engaged in a conspiracy to boycott magazine wholesaler Anderson.
- Served as lead consulting expert in Monsanto v. DuPont.
- Provided support for expert testimony on damages on behalf of American Airlines in American Airlines v. Sabre, a suit filed in Texas state court.
- In Kolon v. DuPont, testified on behalf of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company on the competitive effects of DuPont’s para-aramid supply agreements in response to an antitrust suit brought by Kolon Industries.
- Served as the lead expert on behalf of AMD in the landmark microprocessor antitrust case AMD v. Intel.
- In Sheridan Healthcorp v. AvMed, provided economic analysis and testimony on alleged monopolization of the market for certain physician services following a series of mergers, affiliations, and exclusive arrangements.