Skip to Content

Antitrust Lawyer Representing Businesses and Consumers in Antitrust Litigation

Antitrust laws protect both businesses and the people who buy their products and services. This is done primarily by combating anticompetitive activities that tip the scales in favor of companies that do not play by the rules. At Glancy Prongay & Murray, any antitrust lawyer at our firm can represent people and businesses in a wide range of legal disputes, and we have done so for more than three decades.  We have a strong track record of success on behalf of clients in a wide range of antitrust cases, from those involving price fixing and bid rigging allegations to unfair trade practices of all types.

We offer clients comprehensive and personalized legal services.  Our antitrust lawyer will take the time to fully understand your situation and needs before crafting a legal strategy. We take many cases on a contingency basis, which allows clients to assert their legal rights without having to worry about fees on the front end.  It also means that we take on much of the financial risk that comes with pursuing these cases.

Antitrust Law Basics Explained by an Antirust Lawyer 

Antitrust disputes are largely governed by a trio of federal laws that have been in place for decades.  Although these laws are designed to provide some rules of the road for businesses and consumers, the disputes that arise from them often turn on the specific facts of the particular case.

Antitrust lawsuits are generally brought to challenge a certain business deal or practice that has a harmful impact on competition.  The idea is that a competitive market is, at the end of the day, better for businesses and consumers than allowing one or a small number of entities to dominate the space.

These lawsuits are also often brought as class actions, which is an option that allows a variety of people and companies harmed by a specific violation to pool their resources in one single court action.

The Sherman Act

The Sherman Act prohibits certain “unreasonable” business activities that are deemed to be restraints on trade.

The question in Sherman Act cases is often whether a certain practice or activity unreasonably restrains competition in a certain market.  Some activities, however, are considered “per se” violations of the law.  That is, they are nearly always going to be deemed illegal.  Price fixing, bid rigging, arrangements among competitors to carve out pieces of the market and group boycotts are some of the most common per se violations.

In per se cases, a person or entity challenging the activity does not need to show that it has actually had an anticompetitive impact.  Instead, the person or business, through a knowledgeable antitrust attorney, need only prove that the activity occurred.

The Clayton Act

This law is designed to build on the Sherman Act by banning certain moves that could create a monopoly.  Clayton Act cases commonly focus on mergers and acquisitions that would give one company exclusive or near exclusive control of a commodity or supply chain.

The law also bans a number of other anticompetitive activities. This includes forcing buyers and sellers in a certain supply chain to deal exclusively with a single company in the market, as well as the selling of the same goods at different prices for different buyers.  The Clayton Act additionally bans certain bundling arrangements that require people or businesses to buy one product or service in order to have the opportunity to purchase another product or service.

The Federal Trade Commission Act

The Federal Trade Commission Act is a separate federal law that bans “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” This includes the full gamut of Sherman Act violations, but it also extends to other anticompetitive behavior that may not be challengeable under the law.

The Federal Trade Commission is a government agency that has the sole authority to enforce the FTCA. It does so through investigations and enforcement actions seeking monetary penalties.

Antitrust Lawyers for Class Action Lawsuits 

The thought of taking on a large, powerful company on your own can be daunting.  However, you do not have to deal with them on your own. Let an antitrust attorney at our firm help you. The good news is that there are a number of options for people and businesses who have been victimized by antitrust violations to ensure that those responsible are made fully accountable.

A class action is a common, efficient and effective way to pursue antitrust disputes.  These lawsuits allow a full spectrum of people or entities who have been harmed by the same antitrust violations to combine their claims into a single legal action.  That makes it easier for those with relatively smaller claims to share the cost of pursuing a lawsuit.  It also gives them the chance to leverage their claims in order to get a company’s attention.

To bring a class action, a group must meet a number of requirements.  Chief among them is that the members are raising similar legal claims involving similar alleged injuries.  The class must also appoint a class representative, which is a person who volunteers to essentially be the face of the lawsuit. This individual will serve as an example of the negative impact caused by the alleged antitrust violation.

Class actions also offer antitrust victims an opportunity to opt out in the event that they want to pursue an individual case instead.  It is important to discuss this option with an experienced antitrust attorney before deciding whether to opt out.

Direct Action and Opt-Out Antitrust Claims

Institutions or companies with high damages may benefit from bringing a claim directly against an antitrust defendant. We fully evaluate your claim and advise on whether to opt out of a putative or certified class. Our strategies may include filing a direct action immediately or negotiating directly with the defendant upon opting out of a settlement class.

How an Antitrust Law Firm Can Help

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP represents plaintiffs who have been harmed by anticompetitive practices in direct action and class action lawsuits. An antitrust lawyer from our firm assist with claims involving:

  • Unlawful monopolization occurs when a company purposely acquires or maintains monopoly control in a given market. An unlawful monopoly is distinguished from a company’s natural acquisition of monopoly power because of its superior product or business acumen.
  • Price fixing occurs when competing companies agree on terms or practices that keep prices at an established level across competitors. This restraint on competition typically results in higher prices for consumers and other entities in the supply chain. These actions involve companies which collude on price and scheme to allocate the market.
  • Bid rigging involves undermining the bidding process to win a company or government contract by colluding with competitors. Companies may rig bids by agreeing to take turns submitting the winning proposal or by agreeing to award the losing bidder a subcontract.
  • Unfair trade practices are unlawful actions used to obtain business. An unfair trade practice might involve fraud, misrepresentation, bid rigging, price fixing, market allocation, false advertising or other deceptive practices.
  • Sherman antitrust actions are claims involving unreasonable restraint of trade. Our law firm often brings illegal monopoly and market manipulation claims under the Sherman Act on behalf of companies, institutions, and individuals who have been financially damaged. .
  • Indirect purchaser rules prohibit indirect purchasers from bringing federal antitrust claims. However, some scenarios give an indirect purchaser standing in a claim against the antitrust violator based upon state law claims.
  • Generic drug litigation includes a number of schemes that keep pharmaceutical prices high for patients. For example, two companies may agree to a price fixing arrangement or a company may accept compensation for withholding the competing drug from the market, also known as “pay for delay.”

Consult an Experienced Antitrust Lawyer

If you have been harmed by anticompetitive behavior, a seasoned antitrust lawyer can help you explore your rights and options.  An experienced lawyer will help you understand your case and guide you through the legal process to ensure that those responsible are made accountable.

At Glancy Prongay & Murray, our attorneys have been representing people in unfair trade practice cases, as well as other types of cases since 1988.  We have the resources and experience necessary to handle complex, high-stakes antitrust claims. Our firm also has a strong track record of success in these cases, many of which we take on a contingency fee basis. 

Call us at (310) 201-9150 or contact us online to speak with an antitrust lawyer today.


Court Recognition

“And without question, the Court is of the opinion that the value of benefit that’s been conferred to the class is extremely sizable and that this Court is certainly aware that the skill and efficiency of plaintiff’s counsel is what attributed to this settlement, and they are learned securities counsel. The Court is mindful of that, and as a result they were able to sort of weed their way through the complex issues in this case, and also to bring this about — bring about a settlement rather in short order as these matters go. So the Court certainly attributes that to counsel’s skill and efficiency, as well as the ability to work with the adversaries in this matter.”

–Hon. Susan D. Wigention, U.S. District Judge, District of New Jersey

“Class Counsel has conducted the litigation and achieved the Settlement in good faith and with skill, perseverance and diligent advocacy”

— Hon. Donovan W. Frank, U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota

“The court finds that the Settlement Fund… created by Class Counsel is an exceptional result… The settlement is significantly above the average securities class action settlement when measured as a percentage of losses recovered… The court finds that Class Counsel, particularly Co-Lead Counsel, exerted tremendous effort on behalf of the class in the prosecution of this action… The Court finds that Class Counsel skillfully prosecuted this action, particularly given that this case was unusually complex relative to most securities fraud class actions. ”

–Hon. Dickran M. Tevrizian (Ret.), U.S. District Court Judge, Central District of California

More Testimonials