Tag: Horizontal Restraints

The FTC’s complaint against the Music Teachers National Association, Inc. (MTNA), which represents over 20,000 music teachers nationwide, alleges that the association and its members restrained competition in violation of the FTC Act through a code of ethics provision that restricted members from soliciting clients from rival music teachers.  The proposed order requires MTNA to stop restricting or declaring it unethical for its members to solicit teaching work from other music teachers.  The order also requires MTNA to maintain an antitrust compliance program. In addition, MTNA is an umbrella organization for more than 500 state and local music teaching association affiliates throughout the country. Some of these affiliates have codes of ethics that restrain their members from charging fees that are lower than the average in the community, offering free lessons or scholarships, or advertising free scholarships or tuition. The proposed settlement requires MTNA to, among other things, stop affiliating with any association that MTNA knows is restricting solicitation, advertising, or price-related competition by its members.

According to the FTC complaint, the California Association of Legal Support Professionals (CALSPro), which represents companies and individuals that provide legal support services in California, violated the FTC Act through code of ethics provisions that restrained its members from competing against each other on price, disparaging each other through advertising, and soliciting legal support professionals for employment.  The proposed order requires the association to cease and desist from such practices in the future.  The order also requires CALSPro to maintain an antitrust compliance program.

The FTC issued an administrative complaint on 7/17/2010 alleging that the state dental board in North Carolina is harming competition by blocking non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services in the state. The FTC charged that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners impermissibly ordered non-dentists to stop providing teeth-whitening services, which has made it harder to obtain these services and more expensive for North Carolina consumers. According to the FTC’s administrative complaint, teeth-whitening services are much less expensive when performed by non-dentist than when performed by dentists. In an Initial Decision issued July 14, 2011, the ALJ found that non-dentists compete with dentists to provide teeth whitening services in North Carolina and that the Dental Board's concerted action to exclude non-dentist-provided teeth whitening services from the market had a tendency to harm competition. The ALJ further found that the Dental Board's action had no valid pro competitive justification and constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade and an unfair method of competition. On February 8, 2011, the Commission denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, ruling that the Board's actions were not entitled to state action immunity. The Commission ruled that because the Board is controlled by practicing dentists, its condcut must be actively supervised by the state. OnDecember 7, 2011, the Commission issued an Opinion concluding that the Dental Board violated of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and agreed with the ALJ that the Dental Board's conduct "constituted concerte action, . . . had a tendency to harm competition and did in fact harm competition," and had no legitimate pro-competitive justification. The Commission concluded that the Dental Board's conduct could be deemed illegal under the "inherently suspect" mode of analysis because the challenged conduct had a clear tendency to suppress competition and lacked any countervailing procompetitive virtue. On May 3, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied the Board's petition to review the Commission's decision and on 2/25/15, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.