Opinion ID: 2750914
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Basic Legal Concepts

Text: The district court noted that the existence of an agreement is the hallmark of a Section 1 Sherman Act claim. Mem. Op. at 5 (quoting In re Baby Food Antitrust Litig., 166 F.3d 112, 117 (3d Cir. 1999), (Page ID 21908). This agreement, in turn, can be found when the conspirators have a unity of purpose, common understanding, or a “meeting of minds in an unlawful arrangement.” Am. Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 810 (1946). Antitrust cases under Section 1 involve two modes of analysis depending on the nature of the claim. The “rule of reason” governs most allegations of restraints on trade. Under this analysis the court evaluates specific information about the industry, “its condition before and after the restraint was imposed, and the restraint’s history, nature, No. 12-5947 Hyland, et al.v. HomeServices of Am., et al. Page 10 and effect.” In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 332 F.3d at 906 (quotation omitted). A “restraint” is unlawful it if is “unreasonable.” In re Se. Milk Antitrust Litig., 739 F.3d at 270. In some cases, however, those restraints “are deemed unlawful per se because they have such predictable and pernicious anticompetitive effect, and such limited potential for procompetitive benefit.” In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig. 332 F.3d at 906 (quotation omitted). Horizontal price-fixing, which is alleged in this case, falls generally under the per se category. Nat’l Coll. Ass’n v. Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. 85, 100 (1984).