Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that closed networks can allow payers to reduce customer premiums because providers will exchange better rates for guaranteed volume
• finding that closed networks can allow payers to reduce customer premiums because providers will exchange better rates for guaranteed volume
• explaining that horizontal bid rigging is a per se violation of antitrust laws
• “[S]ubstitut[ing] innuendo for analysis [is] fatal” to antitrust claims since antitrust plaintiffs must “explain in detail ... just what the arrangements were and why they plausibly constituted antitrust violations.”
• reviewing a district court’s 6 grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs’ per se claims under Section 1 of the Shearman 7 Act against PBMs and insurers
• finding it “critical to any attack on the exclusive dealing arrangement — and almost any other non-per-se claim one could imagine— that plaintiffs establish a relevánt market and harm within it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).