The state-action antitrust exemption grew out of the 1943 decision of Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), in which the Supreme Court explained that “nothing in the language of the Sherman Act or in its history suggests that its purpose was to restrain a state or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislatures.” And, relying on principles of federalism, the Supreme Court gave deference to the state as a sovereign body.
Subsequent decisions expanded the reach of state-action to state and local governmental agencies (including counties and municipalities ...
On December 14, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the Texas Medical Board's ("TMB") motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit brought by Teladoc, one of the nation's largest providers of telehealth services.[1] Teladoc sued the TMB in April 2015, challenging a rule requiring a face-to-face visit before a physician can issue a prescription to a patient. Following two recent Supreme Court cases stringently applying the state action doctrine, this case demonstrates the latest of the continued trend where state-sanctioned boards of market ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- DOJ’s Final Rule on Bulk Data Transfers: The First 180 Days
- California Governor Signs SB 351, Strengthening the State’s Corporate Practice of Medicine Doctrine
- No Remuneration Plus No "But-For" Causation (Between an Alleged Kickback and Claims Submitted to the Government) Means No FCA Violation, District Court Says
- Novel Lawsuits Allege AI Chatbots Encouraged Minors’ Suicides, Mental Health Trauma: Considerations for Stakeholders
- DOJ Creates Civil Division Enforcement & Affirmative Litigation Branch: Implications for Health Care and Beyond