Amicus Briefs

Joint amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging the Georgia Supreme Court to reject a ruling by the Georgia State Bar Standing Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law, which had determined that real estate closings must be conducted by licensed attorneys. The brief points out that allowing non-lawyers to conduct closings is likely to lower prices and increase consumer choice, and that there is no indication that such lay closings will harm consumers in any way.

Joint amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging the Court to deny the petition for certiorari. The brief explains that, although the court of appeals applied the wrong test in concluding that the Sherman Act did not apply to a global price-fixing conspiracy, the case is not appropriate for plenary review in light of the insufficient development of the record below and the absence of any conflict in the circuits on the questions presented.

Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, addressing the proper application of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act where a foreign plaintiff's claimed injury from an alleged antitrust conspiracy does not arise from the effects of that conspiracy on U.S. commerce.

Amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging the grant of Supreme Court review in this case, to determine whether the court of appeals incorrectly invoked theories of "essential facilities" and "monopoly leveraging" to reverse dismissal of a claim against an alleged monopolist.

Amicus brief objecting to the proposed settlement’s claims process and the size of the proposed counsel fee in a case involving the allegedly deceptive marketing of credit repair services. The Commission argued that the claims process was unfair to certain class members and that the proposed legal fee for class counsel was excessive and would deplete the defendants’ resources and affect the FTC’s ability to obtain redress in its own broader case.

Amicus brief for the Federal Trade Commission, supporting argument of generic drug manufacturer that allegedly wrongful listing of patents in the FDA's "Orange Book" is not immune from antitrust liability.

Amicus brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging denial of Supreme Court review in a case raising an issue regarding the extent to which a foreign plaintiff can invoke the Sherman Act for damages flowing from a conspiracy that also has effects on U.S. commerce

Amicus brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, supporting consumer's argument concerning application of statute of limitations to private action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Amicus brief before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California regarding a proposed settlement between American Bioscience, Inc. (ABI) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. regarding the listing of a patent purportedly covering the cancer drug Taxol on the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book. The brief advises the court that, because the Commission had just initiated an investigation of the conduct of ABI and Bristol, the Commission was not taking a position with regard to appropriateness of listing the patent. The brief further explains the potential consequences of the proposed settlement on generic entry and the potential harm to consumers of delaying such entry. The brief expresses concern that the judicial finding that the settlement contemplates — that the patent meets the statutory requirements for listing in the Orange Book — will prejudice parties who may later challenge the listing. The brief requests the court to consider the ramifications for generic entry and the pendency of the Commission’s investigation before entering the order proposed by the parties.