Originally Posted by Nicnac
No. I merely asked if anyone had bothered to read any of the filings or the related Acts.
The filings are merely allegations and the language of the Acts themselves is not nearly as important as the interpretation the courts have given that language. Back in the 60s, the US Supreme Court (which not coincidentally was much more liberal at the time) defined a market under the Sherman Antitrust Act much differently than how it has been defined in recent years. Without getting into too much legalese, I think the chances of UD's actions being found to have substantially
lessened competition (there are still several authorized internet retailers and hundreds of authorized B&M locations) or created a monopoly in the sports card market (assuming the court(s) define the market that narrowly; it wouldn't shock me if the market is defined more broadly to include, say, team merchandise that is also licensed by the various leagues) are almost zero. Topps and Panini are bigger companies with bigger market shares within the very same market.
Without getting too lawyery, the best example I can give would be what Apple recently did with the iPhone. If you wanted an iPhone, you had to buy it from one of the few authorized retailers (Apple, AT&T, etc.) and you had to have AT&T service. What wasn't that wasn't illegal or unlawful? IMO, it was because you could buy the iPhone from multiple retailers (even though, like UD, Apple placed pricing restrictions on those retailers) and because Apple didn't have a monopoly within the defined market which was defined as the broader mobile telephone market, not the more narrow iPhone market.