The state-action antitrust exemption grew out of the 1943 decision of Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), in which the Supreme Court explained that “nothing in the language of the Sherman Act or in its history suggests that its purpose was to restrain a state or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislatures.” And, relying on principles of federalism, the Supreme Court gave deference to the state as a sovereign body.
Subsequent decisions expanded the reach of state-action to state and local governmental agencies (including counties and municipalities ...
On December 14, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the Texas Medical Board's ("TMB") motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit brought by Teladoc, one of the nation's largest providers of telehealth services.[1] Teladoc sued the TMB in April 2015, challenging a rule requiring a face-to-face visit before a physician can issue a prescription to a patient. Following two recent Supreme Court cases stringently applying the state action doctrine, this case demonstrates the latest of the continued trend where state-sanctioned boards of market ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- In Confirmation Hearings, AG Nominee Pledges to Defend the Constitutionality of the False Claims Act
- A Primer on Executive Orders and a Preview of the Road Ahead
- At Long Last, DEA’s Remote Prescribing Rules 2.0 Are (Really) Here! (Pending Further Consideration by the Incoming Administration . . .)
- Massachusetts District Court Applies “But-For Causation” Standard, Dismisses AKS-Based FCA Case After Evaluating Facts and Circumstances of Independent Contractor Arrangements
- DOJ’s False Claims Act Recoveries Top $2.9 Billion in FY 2024, but Health Care Numbers Dip—What Could FY 2025 Hold for Health Care Enforcement?