Jd n hand wrote:
You have no thoughts wrote:To have thoughts you have to have a brain. You obviously don't have one. Actually, the suit is almost certain to prevail. Don't be surprised if some very large corporations jump in on the action or file their own suits.
This ^^^^
And it's not even close. Defendants may survive a TRO request but not summary judgment. Especially with the trials looming.
I'd love to see siegels face when his attys tell him that he is going to lose.
My quick take is that this case seems quite weak.
The complaint alleges vertical and horizontal restraints. Vertical restraints (between USOC and USATF) are easy enough to show, though the defendants can probably make colorable arguments that they're entitled to state action immunity or that USATF is essentially a subsidiary of USOC. The real problem for the plaintiff is that vertical restraints are reviewed under the "rule of reason," which in practice means it's very difficult to prove that they're unlawful.
As for the horizontal component, the claim is that the apparel companies themselves have conspired to exclude other advertisers. If there were evidence of such an agreement, this would be promising, because horizontal agreements are reviewed under a far more stringent standard. But there's nothing in the complaint from which you could infer an agreement between apparel companies.
The plaintiff also has trouble with market definition. It's very hard to see how advertising at a single event constitutes a relevant market for antitrust purposes, at least vis a vis the gum. The market for fitness advertising is huge.
A more promising suit might have the athletes as plaintiffs. They could argue that the USATF has market power (in their labor market) and that USATF violates section 2 of the Sherman Act by unreasonably prohibiting the athletes from "working" for other sponsors. Unlike the gum, which can advertise anywhere, the athletes pretty much have to run at the trials and the olympics. And as a condition of participation, USATF prevents them from realizing a potentially huge percentage of their total endorsement value.
You could also add in a section 1 claim regarding their agreement with Nike. One-year exclusive dealing agreements are considered presumptively lawful, but the extraordinary duration of USATF's sponsorship deal would raise serious red flags before any court. If I were drafting such a complaint, I'd say that the real purpose of the agreement is to make it unprofitable for any company besides Nike to sponsor track and field athletes, meaning that Nike can artificially suppress their compensation.