UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION

https://aepiot.com/search.html?q=UNITED%20STATES%20DEPARTMENT%20OF%20JUSTICE%20ANTITRUST%20DIVISION

MultiSearch Tag Explorer

aéPiot

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), also known as the Justice Department, is a federal executive department of the U.S. government that oversees the domestic enforcement of federal laws and the administration of justice. It is equivalent to the justice or interior ministries of other countries. The department is headed by the U.S. attorney general, who reports directly to the president of the United States and is a member of the president's Cabinet. Pam Bondi has served as U.S. attorney general since February 4, 2025. The Justice Department contains most of the United States' federal law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The department also has eight divisions of lawyers who represent the federal government in litigation: the Criminal, Civil, Antitrust, Tax, Civil Rights, Environment and Natural Resources, National Security, and Justice Management Divisions. The DOJ includes the U.S. Attorneys' Offices for each of the 94 U.S. federal judicial districts. The U.S. Congress created the Justice Department in 1870, during the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. Its functions originally date to 1789, when Congress created the office of the Attorney General.

In connection with: United States Department of Justice

Title combos: States United of Justice Department Justice of United States

Description combos: also the Ulysses directly the to The Alcohol since

United States antitrust law

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that govern the conduct and organization of businesses in order to promote economic competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization. Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. The Robinson–Patman Act, an amendment to the Clayton Act, prohibits price discrimination. Federal antitrust laws provide for both civil and criminal enforcement. Civil antitrust enforcement occurs through lawsuits filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and private parties who have been harmed by an antitrust violation. Criminal antitrust enforcement is done only by the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. Additionally, U.S. state governments may also enforce their own antitrust laws, which mostly mirror federal antitrust laws, regarding commerce occurring solely within their own state's borders. The scope of antitrust laws, and the degree to which they should interfere in an enterprise's freedom to conduct business, or to protect smaller businesses, communities and consumers, are strongly debated. Some economists argue that antitrust laws actually impede competition, and may discourage businesses from pursuing activities that would be beneficial to society. One view suggests that antitrust laws should focus solely on the benefits to consumers and overall efficiency, while a broad range of legal and economic theory sees the role of antitrust laws as also controlling economic power in the public interest. Surveys of American Economic Association (AEA) members since the 1970s have shown that professional economists generally agree with the statement: "Antitrust laws should be enforced vigorously." A 1990 survey of AEA members found that 72 percent generally agreed that "Collusive behavior is likely among large firms in the United States", while a 2021 survey found that 85 percent generally agreed that "Corporate economic power has become too concentrated."

In connection with: United States antitrust law

Title combos: United States United States antitrust law United antitrust States

Description combos: the create generally Act monopolies in occurring Act Section

United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948) (also known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948, the Paramount Case, or the Paramount Decision), was a landmark United States Supreme Court antitrust case that decided the fate of film studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their movies. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. It also opened the door for more foreign and independent films to be shown in U.S. theaters. The Supreme Court affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's ruling that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of United States antitrust law, which prohibits certain exclusive dealing arrangements. The decision created the Paramount Decree, a standard held by the United States Department of Justice that prevented film production companies from owning exhibition companies. The case is important both in American antitrust law and film history. In the former, it remains a landmark decision in vertical integration cases; in the latter, it is responsible for putting an end to the old Hollywood studio system. As part of a 2019 review of its ongoing decrees, the Department of Justice issued a two-year sunsetting notice for the Paramount Decree in August 2020, believing the antitrust restriction was no longer necessary as the old model could never be recreated in contemporary settings.

In connection with: United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

Title combos: United States States United Pictures Inc Pictures Paramount States

Description combos: contemporary decision recreated known 334 Justice Paramount Inc affirmed

United States Department of Justice War Division

The United States Department of Justice War Division was a subdivision of the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) that was created on May 19, 1942 during World War II. The purpose of the War Division was to combine several war-related activities spread across the Department. It consisted initially of the Special War Policies Unit, the Alien Property Unit, and the Alien Enemy Control Unit. The War Division later included the War Frauds Unit, which originated as the Economic Section of the Antitrust Division. With the end of the war, the War Division was abolished on December 28, 1945.

In connection with: United States Department of Justice War Division

Title combos: War United United Division of War Department United of

Description combos: Special the United Division War May II It was

Lysine price-fixing conspiracy

The lysine price-fixing conspiracy was an organized effort during the mid-1990s to raise the price of the animal feed additive lysine. It involved five companies that had commercialized high-tech fermentation technologies, including Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Ajinomoto, Kyowa Hakko Kogyo, Sewon America Inc. and Cheil Jedang Ltd. A criminal investigation resulted in fines and three-year prison sentences for three executives of ADM who colluded with the other companies to fix prices. The other four companies settled with the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division in September through December 1996. Each firm and four executives from the Asian firms pleaded guilty as part of a plea bargain to aid in further investigation against ADM. The cartel had been able to raise lysine prices 70% within their first nine months of cooperation. The investigation yielded $105 million in criminal fines, a record antitrust penalty at the time, including a $70 million fine against ADM. ADM was fined an additional $30 million for its participation in a separate conspiracy in the citric acid market and paid a total fine of $100 million. Three former high-ranking ADM executives were convicted in September 1998 after a ten-week jury trial. Buyers of lysine in the United States and Canada sued and recovered $80 to $100 million in damages from the five cartel members, and ADM paid $38 million to settle mismanagement suits by its shareholders. The lysine cartel was the first successful prosecution of an international cartel by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in more than 40 years. Since then, the DOJ has discovered and successfully prosecuted nearly 20 international cartels.

In connection with: Lysine price-fixing conspiracy

Title combos: conspiracy price fixing price Lysine Lysine price fixing conspiracy

Description combos: including million 105 total lysine participation the 1990s including

United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division

The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division is a division of the U.S. Department of Justice that enforces U.S. antitrust law. It has exclusive jurisdiction over federal criminal antitrust prosecutions, and it shares jurisdiction over civil antitrust enforcement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The Division is headed by an assistant attorney general, who is appointed by the president of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who reports to the associate attorney general. The current Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division is Gail Slater.

In connection with: United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division

Title combos: Division Antitrust Antitrust Division Justice of United Justice States

Description combos: United shares and Antitrust to Department over Federal States

High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation is a 2010 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action and a 2013 civil class action against several Silicon Valley companies for alleged "no cold call" agreements which restrained the recruitment of high-tech employees. The defendants were high-technology companies Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay, each of which was headquartered in Silicon Valley, in the southern San Francisco Bay Area of California. The civil suit was filed by five plaintiffs. It accused the tech companies of collusion between 2005 and 2009 to refrain from recruiting each other's employees.

In connection with: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Title combos: Litigation Tech Tech Antitrust Litigation High Litigation Antitrust Tech

Description combos: call action for which action High accused the DOJ

Quick Access