Welcome! Your membership in the chair of the Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section offers the networking, education, practice, and skills development to grow your practice and accomplish your goals.
Nominations are being excepted for the Antitrust Lawyer of the Year. The deadline is January 19. See the 2018 nomination form.
Two Locations, and Via Live Webcast! Earn 1.0 Hours MCLE Credit
Free for members of the Judiciary and CYLA members
These days, cybersecurity is on everyone’s minds, particularly lawyers’ minds. After all, it’s difficult to practice law without using technology, but at the same time, lawyers also have important ethical obligations to maintain client confidentiality. Join cybersecurity and privacy experts as they provide you an overview of ethical duties for protecting electronic files, and give you some practical and hands on tips for meeting those obligations.
Register for the In-Person program in San Francisco
12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Lunch will be provided
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
139 Townsend Street, Suite 150
San Francisco, CA 94107
Moderator: Dr. Garrett Glasgow, NERA Economic Consulting
Luncheon generously sponsored by KCC
Register for the Live Webcast on January 16
Register for the In-Person program in Los Angeles
12 noon – 1:30 p.m.
Lunch will be provided
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA
Moderator: Lori Chang, Greenberg Traurig
Luncheon generously sponsored by Heffler Claim Group
The Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section was pleased to honor Cheryl Lee Johnson as the 2017 Antitrust Lawyer of the Year. Cheryl, who is in the Antitrust Section of the California Department of Justice, is the Editor-in-Chief of the California Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law (Matthew Bender, publisher, and available online on Lexis and Westlaw) treatise, dating back to its original publication in 1991. She chairs the National Association of Attorneys General Pharmacy Industry Working Group, and has handled numerous significant pharmaceutical cases, including Androgel, DDAVP, Lidoderm, Suboxone, and Tricor, and has authored several amicus briefs before the United States Supreme Court and California Supreme Court on reverse payment and other pharmaceutical antitrust issues. Read more about her at Lawyer of the Year.
Rebekah S. Guyon and Breeanna N. Brewer
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
In Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., __ F. 3d __, 2017 WL 3480695 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2017), on remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit clarified when an intangible injury is “sufficiently concrete” for Article III’s standing requirements. The Ninth Circuit recognized that in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (“ Spokeo II”), the Supreme Court made clear that “a plaintiff does not ‘automatically satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right.’” Robins, 2017 WL 3480695, at *3 (quoting Spokeo II, 136 S. Ct. at 1549). Read More
David M. Goldstein
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
In a decision welcomed by the defense bar, the Second Circuit held that Uber and its former CEO could compel arbitration of an Uber user’s claim alleging that Uber’s software application allowed third-party drivers to unlawfully fix prices. The Second Circuit’s decision provides helpful guidance to companies regarding the types of website disclosures that may be sufficient to put customers on notice of arbitration provisions in their contracts, at least under New York choice of law rules and Second Circuit precedent. Spencer Meyer v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Nos. 16-2750-cv, 16-2752-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2017). Read More
Pritzker Levine, LLP
On July 28, 2017, Judge Lucy H. Koh denied Apple, Inc.’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended complaint in Grace v. Apple Inc., 2017 WL 3232464 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2017), rejecting Apple’s arguments that plaintiffs lacked the requisite Article III standing and finding that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged claims for trespass to chattel and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), when Apple disabled FaceTime on iPhones with iOS6 or operating earlier systems. Read More
Andrew Hasty, Karen Porter and Jason Bussey
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
Plaintiffs face several key strategic considerations in deciding whether to challenge corporate mergers under Section 16 of the Clayton Act or, alternatively, alongside the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. The standards to secure injunctive relief under the two statutes differ. And as two recent district court decisions highlight, a plaintiff’s post-suit ability to recover the costs of litigation—including attorneys’ fees—may, too. Read More
Cheryl Lee Johnson, Editor-in-Chief
Gain authoritative understanding of California antitrust and unfair competition statutes, policies and issues with one-volume convenience. This treatise brings you up to speed on everything from horizontal combinations and vertical restraints to public enforcement of California antitrust laws and trial considerations.
You get full coverage of The Cartwright Act along with related California consumer and unfair competition laws, and how they apply to the health industry, regulated industries, the labor market, electronic media, the internet and other fields. Additionally, there are chapters covering damages, defenses to liability including exemptions and immunities, injunctive relief, class actions, attorney’s fees and costs, insurance issues, and much more. This publication includes contributions from over 120 highly experienced antitrust practitioners in both the private and government sectors, as well as the executive members of the Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section.
$260, 1 volume, loose-leaf, updated annually, Pub. #01577, ISBN 9780769856896
To order, call 800-223-1940 or visit the LexisNexis Store.
Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Competition Section
California Lawyers Association
180 Howard Street, Suite 401
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639