In an unsigned per curiam opinion yesterday in Gonzalez v. Google, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment— which had held that plaintiffs’ complaint was barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – and remanded it. But the Court’s opinion entirely skirted a highly-anticipated issue: whether Section 230 does, in fact, shelter as much activity as courts have held to date.
The Potential Antitrust Impact Of High Court Section 230 Case
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was originally thought of as “force for securing decency on the Internet,” as the late Judge Robert A. Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explained in a dissenting opinion in the 2019 Force v. Facebook Inc. case.
But its enactment under Title 47 of the U.S. Code, Section 230 also represented a commitment to the preservation of “the vibrant and competitive free market.”[2]
The free market ideal — explicitly codified in the statute — has taken prominence over the decent-internet ideal, and Section 230 has become the most powerful legal protection for online platforms that rely on content created or shared by others.
FTC Announces Inquiry into the Infant Formula Shortage
On May 24, 2022, the FTC announced a widespread inquiry into the ongoing infant formula shortage. The agency had been tasked by the White House with investigating any price gouging or unfair market practices in the industry. The agency is seeking public comments on “various factors that may have contributed to the infant formula shortage…as well as its impact on families and retailers.”
In its press release, the agency identified issues of particular concern, including:
- Fraud, deception, or scams consumers may have experienced when trying to buy infant formula,
- Retailers’ experiences since the formula recall began in February,
- How mergers and acquisitions, and FDA regulations, have affected the number of suppliers of infant formula, capital investment in the market, and the overall manufacturing capacity of suppliers, and
- Whether regulatory barriers have blocked non-US companies from entrance to the market.
The Privacy and Antitrust Paradox in the Age of Data
It used to be privacy was largely the domain of constitutional law and patient health care law: the Fourth Amendment, and then the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Today, privacy is the practice of navigating the state-by-state patchwork of data security laws and regulations, subject matter specific privacy laws
When Governors Bite Back: Circuit Court Upholds Hawaii Governor’s Emergency Powers
As mentioned in our previous post, the legality of state Governors’ emergency powers have come under scrutiny during the pandemic. Michigan’s Supreme Court, for example, recently struck down Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s emergency powers. The Hawaii Circuit Court, however, recently dismissed a legal challenge to Hawaii Governor David Ige’s emergency powers. In response to the victory, Hawaii Attorney General Clare Connors stated “[t]his decision sends an important message at an important time—the Governor’s emergency proclamations are lawful. By continuing to follow these rules, all residents and visitors protect each other and promote public health during this pandemic crisis.”
Annual Contract Renewals at the Intersection of Price Gouging and Antitrust Laws
As annual supply contracts come up for renewal, businesses may be wondering whether price increases for annual contracts are permitted under the panoply of price gouging laws currently in effect. Parties may want to negotiate contracts with “normal” price increases, operating under the assumption that, at some point during the contract year, price controls will expire. But if states of emergency remain in effect when the new contract prices become effective, parties can find themselves facing questions about how the agreement can be carried out.
Pricing Controls under the Defense Production Act
With the federal government’s increasing focus on enforcing price gouging compliance, attention has turned to the Defense Production Act (the “DPA”). Passed in 1950 in response to the Korean War, the DPA is modelled on the War Powers Acts of 1941 and 1942 and gives the President, among other things, sweeping power to control the