No Sherman § 1 Conspiracy Between Jaguar Land Rover and Its Dealers to Enforce a No-Export Policy

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Sherman § 1 claims because plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege concerted action between defendants and their dealers. “Plaintiff only alleges that the dealers comply with the Policy; he does not allege anywhere that the dealers actually conspired with Defendants to develop and implement the Policy. The Complaint makes clear that Defendants unilaterally implemented the Policy and required their dealers to enforce it. ‘Independent action is not proscribed. A manufacturer of course generally has a right to deal, or refuse to deal, with whomever it likes, as long as it does so independently.’ Furthermore, ‘Department of Justice guidelines addressing vertical restraints have approved the argument that it is inappropriate to consider intrabrand restraints as “agreements” to conspire and manufacturers are permitted to unilaterally impose appropriate restraints without giving rise to a cognizable antitrust violation.’ Plaintiff, therefore, fails to allege concerted action between Defendants and their dealers.”

Baar v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC et al, 2-17-cv-04142 (NJD 2018-01-09, Order) (William J. Martini)

2018-01-11T13:52:03+00:00 January 11th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|