United States: United States: Private Antitrust Litigation

Out of the many immunities and exemptions precluding or limiting the application of antitrust laws in the United States, state action may be the most widely relied upon immunity. It offers numerous state and local government entities immunity from federal antitrust law challenges. In a rare and much-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court recently explained and limited the application of this immunity where private parties purport to act pursuant to government authority. This ruling invigorated and encouraged other lawsuits, and will likely inspire litigants to continue to bring claims against government entities into the immediate future. These emerging cases, however, also offer valuable guidance to government entities on how to avoid antitrust problems.

The state action immunity

For more than 100 years, Congress has enacted legislation that explicitly exempts everything from specific conduct to entire industries from the reach of federal antitrust laws. At the same time, federal courts developed immunities and exemptions from federal antitrust laws, while both interpreting legislation enacted by Congress and resolving the occasional discord between the antitrust laws, federalism and constitutional principles. Of these judicially created immunities and exemptions, state action immunity is, perhaps, the most widely relied upon in the United States.

The state action immunity, developed in Parker v Brown, recognises that states are sovereign entities that may exercise their authority to enact legislation that would otherwise run afoul of federal antitrust laws.1In recognising this immunity, the Supreme Court explained that federal antitrust laws (specifically the Sherman Act) were not intended by Congress to 'restrain a state or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislature'.2

Since Parker, the Supreme Court has recognised at least three different situations where state action immunity may exist.3 First, a state's own actions are considered, ipso facto, exempt from the antitrust laws.4 Second, government entities below the state level, like counties and municipalities, 'receive immunity from antitrust scrutiny when they act pursuant to a 'clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed' state policy to displace competition.'5 Third, private parties acting through state or local government entities may enjoy state action immunity provided their conduct meets two prongs explained in California Retail Liquor Dealers Association v Midcal Aluminum, Inc:6

  • the conduct is undertaken pursuant to a 'clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed' state policy; and
  • is 'actively supervised by the State itself '.

This third situation – private parties acting within governmental entities – has exploded in number across the United States since Parker. Today, state and local governments frequently delegate the management of an array of public services, including water, sewer, schools, utilities, and hospitals to boards, commissions, or other quasi-government entities. Similarly, many states delegate the regulation of professions to boards consisting of participants in those professions – including, regulatory or licensing boards for doctors, dentists, chiropractors, nurses, veterinarians, lawyers, architects, plumbers, engineers, brokers, and accountants.7 California alone claims to have 31 such boards,8 and studies have shown that market participants constitute a majority of the members on most professional boards.9 In the course of their operations, these entities often award contracts, issue licences and impose discipline – all of which could be challenged as anti-competitive by the parties not awarded contracts, denied licenses, or subjected to discipline. Whether such actions by private parties fall within the state action immunity is the subject of frequent antitrust litigation, most recently, before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's North Carolina Dental Ruling

In North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v Federal Trade Commission, the Supreme Court provided unusually detailed guidance on state action immunity questions that had vexed lower courts for years.10 In that case, North Carolina delegated a dentist licensing system to its Board of Dental Examiners. Its members were selected by dentists in the state, with most being dentists with active practices, including providing teeth-whitening treatments. After nondentists began offering teeth-whitening services, the Board decided that teeth whitening is the practice of dentistry and then launched an aggressive campaign to stop non-dentists from providing teeth whitening in North Carolina. The FTC claimed the Board's actions unreasonably restrained trade. The Board responded by arguing the state action doctrine provides state-designated entities with immunity from the FTC's lawsuit. The Fourth Circuit concluded, with little analysis, that 'when a state agency is operated by market participants who are elected by other market participants, it is a "private" actor' and required to satisfy both Midcal prongs.11 This conclusion effectively decided the case, as the Board did not argue it could meet Midcal's second prong.

The Supreme Court affirmed with an opinion addressing the very core of the state action doctrine. The Court explained that the doctrine is not 'unbounded' and its application is 'disfavoured'. These limits on state action, the Court said, are 'most essential' when a state attempts to delegate its regulatory power to participants in the very market they are regulating due to the risk that those participants will pursue private interests that restrain trade. Consequently, the Court reasoned, immunity does not automatically apply to non-sovereign actors, even if they are delegated regulatory authority by a state. In blunt terms, the Court observed that 'active market participants cannot be allowed to regulate their own markets free from antitrust accountability'. Despite this, the Court left open the possibility of state delegated, private actor immunity from the antitrust laws, but only when there is a process sufficient to attribute that conduct to a state. This process, the Court iterated, must satisfy the two-prong test in Midcal, which requires that states must have foreseen and implicitly endorsed the anti-competitive effects as consistent with its policy goals, and state officials must exercise power to review the anti-competitive acts and to disapprove those not in accord with the state's policy goals.12

With this framing of state action, the Supreme Court handily rejected the immunity claimed by the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners. The Court noted that teeth whitening did not exist when the Board was created, suggesting the state could not have clearly articulated displacement of competition in that market as required by Midcal's first prong. The Court also noted that the Board failed to contend that the state actively supervised the Board's conduct, so Midcal's second prong could not be met. Overall, the Court concluded, with no evidence that the state was aware of the Board's anti-competitive teeth-whitening conduct, it could not be attributed to the state, and the state action doctrine could not immunise the Board from an antitrust suit.13

Litigation developments following North Carolina Dental

The Supreme Court's forceful state action ruling reinvigorated ongoing cases and encouraged new cases by both government enforcers and private litigants, and will likely inspire litigants to test and define remaining state action uncertainties in the immediate future.

As for government enforcers, North Carolina Dental is a boon. One FTC commissioner called the ruling a 'crucial victory' and predicted it 'could have the most significant impact on competition and consumer welfare' of any FTC case on state action.14 Soon after North Carolina Dental, the FTC noted the opinion's impact in announcing a quasi-government hospital board's decision to abandon a proposed merger rather than continue to resist the FTC's litigation challenge.15 More recently, the FTC cited North Carolina Dental while voicing strong disapproval of a New York state regulation that purports to provide antitrust immunity to certain community-level health-care organisations.16 Given the FTC's embrace of North Carolina Dental, government enforcers will likely continue to rely on it to support ongoing and new antitrust challenges to private parties acting pursuant to state delegated authority.

As for private litigation, multiple cases have been filed challenging the decisions of market participants acting through government entities as falling outside the state action immunity as explained in North Carolina Dental. In June 2015, for instance, online legal services provider LegalZoom revived long-running litigation with the North Carolina State Bar,17 alleging that the Bar's actions to exclude LegalZoom from the North Carolina legal market is an unlawful restraint of trade and monopolisation. In that action, LegalZoom contends the Bar's actions are not immunised by the state action doctrine because the Bar is comprised almost exclusively of lawyers who practice law in North Carolina, and none of them are actively supervised by government officials.18

In another June 2015 case, a veterinarian sued Connecticut's State Board of Veterinary Medicine after the Board voted to bring disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff for allegedly administering less-than-recommended doses of a vaccine to dogs.19 The plaintiff claims the Board's disciplinary decision constitutes an unlawful conspiracy to monopolise that does not fall within the state action immunity because the Board is comprised of market participants that are not actively supervised by the state. These cases illustrate the most likely challenges government entities with market participant members will face – seemingly straightforward allegations that such entities are not adequately supervised by government officials and do not qualify for state action immunity. Considering the sheer number of government entities with a market participant majority, cases with these allegations may be filed with regularity.

Parties will also likely explore the state action doctrine uncertainties remaining after North Carolina Dental. The Supreme Court implicitly acknowledged some uncertainty when recognising that application of the doctrine requires a 'flexible and context-specific' analysis. Justice Alito's dissent put a finer point on the uncertainty, identifying the lack of clarity on what constitutes 'active market participants' or how to define the markets in which they participate.20 One FTC commission agreed that these are 'key questions that need to be addressed'.21 The battle has already begun in Teladoc, Inc v Texas Medical Board, in which Texas is vigorously contesting allegations that its physician licensing board comprised mostly of physicians in Texas who cannot qualify for state action immunity.22 Focusing on questions left unanswered by North Carolina Dental (eg, whether judicial review of quasi-government decisions is adequate state supervision) and facts that are different than in North Carolina Dental (eg, no physicians on Texas board compete directly against the party excluded from the market), Texas seeks dismissal of the case on the rationale that the physician board is immune. As this and similar cases progress through the courts, further clarity on these and other areas of uncertainty about the state action doctrine should be realised.

Considerations for non-sovereign actors after North Carolina Dental

Even while the state action doctrine continues to develop in the courts, non-sovereign actors should carefully consider the apparent implications of North Carolina Dental and any possible steps necessary to avoid clashing with its key principles as identified by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the state action immunity is limited to the anti-competitive effects that states had clearly anticipated and endorsed as consistent with their policy goals.23 Quasigovernment entities should consider reviewing the legislation that established them to verify whether it authorises or at least implicitly endorses actions that may have an anti-competitive effect, and whether the legislation articulates a policy rationale for the anticompetitive effect. Of course, entities should avoid acting outside the scope of their founding legislation or consider seeking an expansion of legislation or other form of government-delegated authority as needed to encompass their functions.

The Supreme Court emphasised that state action immunity may apply only to conduct actively supervised by the state.24 While this concept remains somewhat undefined, the Court itself provided valuable guidance. It explained that 'day-to-day involvement' or 'micromanagement' by the state of non-sovereign decisions is not required; instead, the state need only establish review mechanisms sufficient to provide 'realistic assurance' that any non-sovereign's anticompetitive conduct promotes state policy.25 This can be achieved by the state retaining the power to veto or modify any non-sovereign decision resulting in anti-competitive effects, and actually reviewing any such decision. Consistent with the Court's guidance, quasigovernment entities should consider verifying that the substance of their decisions is actually reviewed by state officials with the authority to reject or change decisions. If decisions are not reviewed pursuant to an established mechanism, prudent entities should consider other means of obtaining meaningful government review, such as asking state officials to approve potential decisions that could result in anti-competitive effects, or proactively seeking the establishment of a mechanism that would result in the state adopting decisions.

While the Supreme Court ruled state action should be applied flexibly, the Court urged caution when considering immunity for quasi-government entities controlled by market participants.26 These situations can be especially problematic, the Court explained, because such entities are incentivised to make decisions that benefit the interests of those in control of the entities rather than the market at large, and self-regulation is generally contrary to federal antitrust policy. Entities controlled by market participants would be well-advised to proceed cautiously. These entities should also consider taking steps to eliminate the potential for actual or apparent anti-competitive self-dealing. They could, for example, establish procedures that screen members from participating in decisions with potential to impact direct competitors, encourage participation by non-market actors, or establish a method for review of decisions by disinterested members or outside advisers. These entities should also consider establishing or strengthening processes for the disclosure of members' conflicts of interests, as well as the maintenance of a robust antitrust training, compliance and review regimen that could prevent or contain potential anti-competitive situations.


The Supreme Court's recent decision in North Carolina Dental not only provides valuable guidance for quasi-government entities seeking state action immunity, it also sets the stage for continued development of the doctrine in the courts. These cases have begun to demonstrate the types of claims quasi-government entities may face and provide a roadmap for how these entities can avoid antitrust trouble – including making sure their actions are consistent with state policy and actively supervised by the state. As North Carolina Dental and its progeny promise wide-spread impact on state and local government operations, all who believe they operate with state action immunity should proceed with caution and consider reviewing their conformity with the principles explained by the Supreme Court, in addition to assessing whether they remain eligible for immunity.


1 317 US 341 (1941).

2 Id. at 350-51.

3 See generally SC State Bd of Dentistry v FTC, 455 F.3d 436, 442 (4th Cir 2006).

4 Hoover v Ronwin, 466 US 558, 568 (1984).

5 FTC v Phoebe Putney Health Sys, Inc, 133 S Ct 1003, 1011 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

6 445 US 97, 105 (1980).

7 See Brief for Amici Curiae State of W Va and 22 other States at 8-9, NC Bd. of Dental Exam'rs v FTC, No. 13-534 (May 30, 2014).

8 See Brief for Amici Curiae Cal. Optometric Ass'n at 5, NC Bd of Dental Exam'rs v FTC, No. 13-534 (May 30, 2014).

9 See, eg, Aaron Edlin & Rebecca Haw, Cartels by Another Names: Should Licensed Occupations Face Antitrust Scrutiny?, 162 U PA LAW REV 1093, 1157-64 (2014).

10 135 S Ct 1101 (2015).

11 NC Bd of Dental Exam'rs v FTC, 717 F.3d 359, 370 (4th Cir 2013).

12 See NC Dental, 135 S. Ct. at 1110.

13 See id. at 1116-17.

14 See Statement of Maureen K Ohlhausen, Comm'r, FTC, Reflections on the Supreme Court's North Carolina Dental Decision and the FTC's Campaign to Rein in State Action Immunity at 13, 21 (31 March 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_ statements/634091/150403hertiagedental.pdf.

15 See Statement of FTC, In the Matter of Phoebe Putney Health Sys, Inc et al, No. 9348 (Mar. 31, 2015), available at https:// www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/ 634181/150331phoebeputneycommstmt.pdf.

16 See FTC Ltr to NY State Dep't of Health, Center for Health Care Policy and Res Dev (April 22, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/ files/documents/advocacy_ documents/ftc-staff-comment-centerhealth- care-policy-resource-development-office-primary-care- healthsystems/ 150422newyork health.pdf..

17 See, eg, Suzanne Monyak, LegalZoom Rides Teeth Whitener Case to Fight with North Carolina Bar, DAILY REPORT, June 15 2015; Jacob Gershman, LegalZoom Sues North Carolina State Bar, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, 7 June 2015.

18 See LegalZoom, Inc v NC State Bar, et al, Complaint, No. 1:15:-CV-439 (MDNC 2015).

19 See Robb v Conn Bd of Veterinary Med, et al, Complaint, 3:2015cv00906 (D Ct 2015).

20 See NC Dental, 135 S Ct at 1122-23.

21 See Ohlhausen Statement at 13.

22 No. 1:15-cv-00343-RP (WD Tex 2015).

23 See NC Dental, 135 S Ct at 1112.

24 See id. at 1114.

25 See id. at 1116.

26 See id. at 1111.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions