Trifecta

Where can you get baseball, the NCAA, and the Sherman Antitrust Act all in one place? Right here, of course. It is your lucky day!

batter

The Plaintiff manufactures aluminum baseball bats. As bat technology developed, the NCAA realized that even wimpy left-handed knuckleball pitchers could smack the ball 500 feet. In response, the NCAA implemented a testing policy which prohibited bats that exceeded a certain bouncy coefficient (yes, bouncy coefficient is a measure widely recognized in both the sports and cosmetic surgery industries).

The NCAA’s policy excluded many of Plaintiff’s bats, and sales plummeted. Accordingly, Plaintiff looked to the courts to replace lost income.  Plaintiff claimed that the NCAA and wood bat manufacturers conspired to unlawfully restrain the trade of aluminum bats.

Plaintiff struck out with the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The Court said the factual allegations did not support a conspiracy theory, and that the claim would fall on other grounds even if properly pleaded.

The opinion contains a nice overview of the Sherman Act.

 

Advertisements

Send me a nastigram

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s