Editing United States antitrust law (section)

==Scope of antitrust law==
{{see also|US labor law|Consumer protection|Parker immunity doctrine}}
Antitrust laws do not apply to, or are modified in, several specific categories of [[Entrepreneurship|enterprise]] (including sports, media, utilities, [[Health care in the United States|health care]], [[Insurance in the United States|insurance]], [[Bank regulation in the United States|banks]], and [[Securities regulation in the United States|financial markets]]) and for several kinds of actor (such as employees or consumers taking [[collective action]]).<ref>See Areeda (2004) 80-92. On consumer boycotts, see ''[[Missouri v. National Organizationfor Women, Inc.]]'' 620 F.2d 1301 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 101 S. Ct. 122 (1980) and MA Harris, 'Political, Social and Economic Boycotts by Consumers: Do They Violate the Sherman Act?' (1979–1980) 17 Houston Law Review 775, discussing the justifications for wholly exempting consumer action.</ref>

===Collective actions===
First, since the [[Clayton Act 1914]] §6, there is no application of antitrust laws to agreements between employees to form or act in [[labor union]]s. This was seen as the "Bill of Rights" for labor, as the Act laid down that the "labor of a human being is not a [[commodity]] or article of commerce". The purpose was to ensure that employees with [[unequal bargaining power]] were not prevented from combining in the same way that their employers could combine in [[corporations]],<ref>See the [[National Labor Relations Act 1935]] §1</ref> subject to the restrictions on mergers that the Clayton Act set out. However, sufficiently autonomous workers, such as professional sports players have been held to fall within antitrust provisions.<ref>See ''[[American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League]]'', 560 U.S. --- (2010) NFL teams held to fall under the antitrust laws.</ref>

=== Pro sports exemptions and the NFL cartel ===
[[File:Wrigley field 720.jpg|thumb|right|Since 1922 the courts and Congress have left [[Major League Baseball]], as played at [[Chicago]]'s [[Wrigley Field]], unrestrained by antitrust laws.]]
Second, professional sports leagues enjoy a number of exemptions. Mergers and joint agreements of professional football, hockey, baseball, and basketball leagues are exempt.<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|15|1291}} ''[[et seq]]''</ref> [[Major League Baseball]] was held to be broadly exempt from antitrust law in the Supreme Court case ''[[Federal Baseball Club v. National League]]''.<ref>{{ussc|259|200|1922}}</ref> The court unanimously held that the baseball league's organization meant that there was no commerce between the states taking place, even though teams traveled across state lines to put on the games. That travel was merely incidental to a business which took place in each state. It was subsequently held in 1952 in ''[[Toolson v. New York Yankees]]'',<ref>{{ussc|346|356|1952}}</ref> and then again in 1972 ''[[Flood v. Kuhn]]'',<ref>{{ussc|407|258|1972}}</ref> that the baseball league's exemption was an "aberration". However Congress had accepted it, and favored it, so retroactively overruling the exemption was no longer a matter for the courts, but the legislature. In ''[[United States v. International Boxing Club of New York]]'',<ref>{{ussc|348|236|1955}}</ref> it was held that, unlike baseball, boxing was not exempt, and in ''Radovich v. National Football League (NFL)'',<ref>{{ussc|352|445|1957}}</ref> professional football is generally subject to antitrust laws. As a result of the [[AFL-NFL merger]], the [[National Football League]] was also given exemptions in exchange for certain conditions, such as not directly competing with college or high school football.<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|15|1292}}, {{UnitedStatesCode|15|1293}}, ''[[et seq]]''</ref> However, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in [[American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League|American Needle Inc. v. NFL]] characterised the NFL as a "cartel" of 32 independent businesses subject to antitrust law, not a single entity.

=== Media ===
Third, antitrust laws are modified where they are perceived to encroach upon the [[News media (United States)|media]] and free speech, or are not strong enough. Newspapers under joint operating agreements are allowed limited antitrust immunity under the [[Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970]].<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|15|1801}}, ''[[et seq]]''</ref> More generally, and partly because of concerns about [[media cross-ownership in the United States]], regulation of media is subject to specific statutes, chiefly the [[Communications Act of 1934]] and the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]], under the guidance of the [[Federal Communications Commission]]. The historical policy has been to use the state's licensing powers over the airwaves to promote plurality. Antitrust laws do not prevent companies from using the legal system or political process to attempt to reduce competition. Most of these activities are considered legal under the [[Noerr-Pennington doctrine]]. Also, regulations by states may be immune under the [[Parker v. Brown|Parker immunity doctrine]].<ref>See ''[[Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.]]'', 365 U.S. 127 (1961) and ''[[United Mine Workers v. Pennington]]'', 381 U.S. 657 (1965)</ref>

*''Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc., v. Columbia Pictures'', 508 U.S. 49 (1993)
*''Allied Tube v. Indian Head, Inc.'', 486 U.S. 492 (1988)
*''FTC v. Superior Ct. TLA'', 493 U.S. 411 (1990)

===Other===
Fourth, the government may [[Government-granted monopoly|grant monopolies]] in certain industries such as [[utilities]] and infrastructure where multiple players are seen as unfeasible or impractical.<ref name=areeda2>Areeda, pp. 80-92.</ref>

Fifth, [[insurance]] is allowed limited antitrust exemptions as provided by the [[McCarran-Ferguson Act]] of 1945.<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|15|1011}}, ''[[et seq]]''.</ref>

Sixth, M&A transactions in the defense sector are often subject to greater antitrust scrutiny from the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] and the [[Federal Trade Commission]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Dubrow|first1=Jon|title=Leading Antitrust Considerations for Aerospace & Defense M&A Transactions|url=https://www.transactionadvisors.com/insights/leading-antitrust-considerations-aerospace-defense-ma-transactions|journal=Transaction Advisors|issn=2329-9134|access-date=2015-04-29|archive-date=2015-05-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150528033335/https://www.transactionadvisors.com/insights/leading-antitrust-considerations-aerospace-defense-ma-transactions|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*''[[United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association]]'', 322 U.S. 533 (1944) the insurance industry was not exempt from antitrust regulation.
*''[[Credit Suisse v. Billing]]'', 551 U.S. 264 (2007) 7 to 1, the industries regulated by the [[Securities Act 1933]] and the [[Securities and Exchange Act 1934]] are exempt from antitrust lawsuits.
*''[[Parker v. Brown]]'', 317 U.S. 341 (1943) actions by state governments were held to be exempt from antitrust law, given that there was no original legislative intent to cover anything other than business combinations.
*''[[Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar]]'', 421 U.S. 773 (1975) the Virginia State Bar, which was delegated power to set price schedules for lawyers fees, was an unlawful price fixing. It was no longer exempt from the Sherman Act, and constituted a per se infringement.
*''[[California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.]]'', 445 U.S. 97 (1980) the state of California acted contrary to the Sherman Act 1890 §1 by setting fair trade wine price schedules. 
*''[[Rice v. Norman Williams Co.]]'', 458 U.S. 654 (1982) the Sherman Act did not prohibit a California law which prohibited the importation of goods that were not authorised to be imported by the manufacturer. 
*''[[Tritent International Corp. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky]]'', 467 F.3d 547 (2006) Kentucky had not acted unlawfully by giving effect to a Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, because there was no illegal behavior in it. 
*''[[United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association]]'', 166 U.S. 290 (1897) the antitrust laws applied to the railroad industry, even though there was a comprehensive scheme of legislation applying to the railroads already. No specific exemption had been given.
*''[[Silver v. New York Stock Exchange]]'', 373 U.S. 341 (1963) the NYSE was not exempt from antitrust regulation, even though many of its activities were regulated by the [[Securities and Exchange Act 1934]]. 
*''[[American Society of Mechanical Engineers v. Hydrolevel Corporation]]'', 456 U.S. 556 (1982) 6 to 3, that the [[American Society of Mechanical Engineers]], a non profit standard developer had violated the Sherman Act by giving information to one competitor, used against another.
*''[[National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston]],'' 594 U.S. ___ (2021) 9 to 0, the [[National Collegiate Athletic Association|National Collegiate Athletic Association's]] caps on player compensation, most notably its restrictions on education benefits for players, restrain competition among colleges and thereby violate the nation's antitrust laws.