Antitrust Competition Law
In October 2020, the DOJ (Federal Department of Justice) filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google, a very large search engine company. The lawsuit claimed that over its two decades, Google has amassed a monopoly that is unfair to competition and consumers. Supporters of the antitrust lawsuit say Google has hurt consumers by restricting people`s freedom to choose a search engine when they have their choice. Due to the nature of the Internet, there will always be options for consumers to choose from. This defense is likely to result in the antitrust lawsuit not taking immediate action against Google. While a major legal battle against Google is unlikely, we don`t yet know what will emerge from the lawsuit. Antitrust laws, also known as competition laws, are laws developed by the U.S. government to protect consumers from predatory business practices. They ensure fair competition in an open market economy. These laws, as well as the market, have evolved and are vigilantly protecting themselves against potential monopolies and disruptions to the productive ebb and flow of competition.
The classic competitive perspective was that certain agreements and business practices could constitute an unreasonable restriction on the individual freedom of operators to earn a living. The courts have held that restrictions are permissible or inadmissible when new cases arise and that the evolution of the case situation is taken into account. Therefore, the courts have concluded that certain categories of agreements, specific clauses, violate their doctrine of economic fairness and that they do not invent a global conception of market power. Earlier theorists such as Adam Smith rejected any monopoly power on this basis. Sign up to receive the latest news, resources, and updates on antitrust-related events. Any violation of antitrust laws is a blow to the free enterprise system envisioned by Congress. This system depends on strong competition for its health and vitality, and strong competition, in turn, depends on compliance with antitrust law. With the passage of these laws, Congress had many ways to punish offenders. For example, violators could have been required to compensate federal, state, and local governments for the estimated damage to their respective economies caused by the violations. But this remedy was not selected. Instead, Congress chose to allow all individuals to sue in order to receive three times their actual damages each time they were injured in their business or property by a cartel violation.
Antitrust laws ensure competition in a free and open market economy, which is the foundation of any dynamic economy. And healthy competition among sellers in an open market offers consumers the benefits of lower prices, better products and services, greater choice and greater innovation. Secondly, professional sports leagues benefit from a number of exceptions. Mergers and joint agreements of professional football, hockey, baseball and basketball leagues are excluded.  Major League Baseball was considered largely exempt from antitrust law in Federal Baseball Club v. National League.  Holmes J. held that the organization of the baseball league meant that there was no exchange between states, even if teams crossed state borders to host games. This trip was only incidental to a business that took place in each state. It was later in 1952 in Toolson v. New York Yankees, and again in 1972 in Flood v. Kuhn, that the baseball league exception was an “aberration.” However, Congress had accepted and favored it, so that the retroactive repeal of the exception was no longer the responsibility of the courts, but of the legislature.
In UNITED STATES v. International Boxing Club of New York, it was found that, unlike baseball, boxing is not exempt and in Radovich v. National Football League (NFL), professional football is generally subject to antitrust laws. Following the merger of the AFL and NFL, the National Football League also received exemptions in exchange for certain conditions, such as.B not direct competition with college or high school football.  However, the 2010 Supreme Court decision in American Needle Inc.c. NFL characterized the NFL as a “cartel” of 32 independent antitrust companies, not a single entity. Attorneys general can sue to enforce state and federal antitrust laws. However, the constant development of antitrust law with the regular adoption of new laws presents businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with the challenge of keeping pace.
Some EU Member States apply their competition law with criminal penalties. .