Toys \R\ US, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that exclusive-dealing agreements between a retailer and manufacturers that were contrary to the manufacturers’ individual self-interest but consistent with their collective interest supported the inference of a horizontal conspiracy in which the retailer participated
• explaining that the defendants’ sudden “decision to stop dealing,” which was an “abrupt shift from the past,” provided more reason to infer a horizontal agreement
• holding that exclusive-dealing agreements between a retailer and manufacturers that were contrary to the manufacturers’ individual self-interest but consistent with their collective interest supported the inference of a horizontal conspiracy in which the retailer participated
• explaining that the defendants’ sudden “decision to stop dealing,” which was an “abrupt shift from the past,” provided more reason to infer a horizontal agreement
• explaining that “coordination of action among competitors” that prevents them “from having to lower . . . prices” is “proof of actual anticompetitive effects”
• stating that market power may be proven “through direct evidence of anticompetitive effects” or “by proving relevant product and geographic markets and by showing that the defendant’s share exceeds whatever threshold is important for the practice in the case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).