Some experts and advocacy groups criticized the Supreme Court's 5-4 Ohio v. American Express issued Monday as having significant implications for tech firms in two-sided markets. The dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer raised the idea of the opinion treating internet retailers differently from other businesses in antitrust evaluations. It's "an enormous setback for consumers who rely upon the antitrust laws to promote market competition," Public Knowledge said, "a particularly dangerous setback that will open the door for communications and internet platforms to continue building dominant market positions virtually impenetrable to innovation from smaller competitors." The decision was "a HUGE victory for platform providers who can now escape antitrust liability" by claiming -- and not proving -- even a fraction of overages on one side of the two-sided market went to customers on the other side, tweeted economist Hal Singer. Open Markets Institute called the decision "a huge and intellectually unjustifiable obstacle to effective antitrust enforcement." OMI said special treatment of two-sided markets "greatly rais[es] the burden that plaintiffs must carry at the very earliest stages of litigation" and gives more power to monopolies. OMI said it argued in its amicus brief that federal law traditionally looked at both credit card companies and communications firms as intermediaries, but the decision makes tech platforms into "de facto regulators of these markets." OMI said DOJ and the FTC should "use their full legal authorities" to "limit the damage from this poorly reasoned decision" and Congress should "take immediate action." Others defended the decision. The court was "exactly right" when it said plaintiffs didn't meet the burden of proof when they focused on the fees paid by merchants, tweeted International Center for Law & Economics Executive Director Geoffrey Manne. "Gov’t can’t meet its burden by showing 'some' effect on 'some part' of the market. Output didn’t go down and price didn’t go up. If it were pointing to a real effect, they would have." The U.S. and states sued AmEx for contractual provisions with merchants stopping them from steering consumers from using their credit cards in favor of another that charges lower merchant fees. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion holding anti-steering provisions don't violate the Sherman Act.

Some experts and advocacy groups criticized the Supreme Court's 5-4 Ohio v. American Express issued Monday as having significant implications for tech firms in two-sided markets. The dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer raised the idea of the opinion treating internet retailers differently from other businesses in antitrust evaluations. It's "an enormous setback for consumers who rely upon the antitrust laws to promote market competition," Public Knowledge said, "a particularly dangerous setback that will open the door for communications and internet platforms to continue building dominant market positions virtually impenetrable to innovation from smaller competitors." The decision was "a HUGE victory for platform providers who can now escape antitrust liability" by claiming -- and not proving -- even a fraction of overages on one side of the two-sided market went to customers on the other side, tweeted economist Hal Singer. Open Markets Institute called the decision "a huge and intellectually unjustifiable obstacle to effective antitrust enforcement." OMI said special treatment of two-sided markets "greatly rais[es] the burden that plaintiffs must carry at the very earliest stages of litigation" and gives more power to monopolies. OMI said it argued in its amicus brief that federal law traditionally looked at both credit card companies and communications firms as intermediaries, but the decision makes tech platforms into "de facto regulators of these markets." OMI said DOJ and the FTC should "use their full legal authorities" to "limit the damage from this poorly reasoned decision" and Congress should "take immediate action." Others defended the decision. The court was "exactly right" when it said plaintiffs didn't meet the burden of proof when they focused on the fees paid by merchants, tweeted International Center for Law & Economics Executive Director Geoffrey Manne. "Gov’t can’t meet its burden by showing 'some' effect on 'some part' of the market. Output didn’t go down and price didn’t go up. If it were pointing to a real effect, they would have." The U.S. and states sued AmEx for contractual provisions with merchants stopping them from steering consumers from using their credit cards in favor of another that charges lower merchant fees. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion holding anti-steering provisions don't violate the Sherman Act.

Some experts and advocacy groups criticized the Supreme Court's 5-4 Ohio v. American Express issued Monday as having significant implications for tech firms in two-sided markets. The dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer raised the idea of the opinion treating internet retailers differently from other businesses in antitrust evaluations. It's "an enormous setback for consumers who rely upon the antitrust laws to promote market competition," Public Knowledge said, "a particularly dangerous setback that will open the door for communications and internet platforms to continue building dominant market positions virtually impenetrable to innovation from smaller competitors." The decision was "a HUGE victory for platform providers who can now escape antitrust liability" by claiming -- and not proving -- even a fraction of overages on one side of the two-sided market went to customers on the other side, tweeted economist Hal Singer. Open Markets Institute called the decision "a huge and intellectually unjustifiable obstacle to effective antitrust enforcement." OMI said special treatment of two-sided markets "greatly rais[es] the burden that plaintiffs must carry at the very earliest stages of litigation" and gives more power to monopolies. OMI said it argued in its amicus brief that federal law traditionally looked at both credit card companies and communications firms as intermediaries, but the decision makes tech platforms into "de facto regulators of these markets." OMI said DOJ and the FTC should "use their full legal authorities" to "limit the damage from this poorly reasoned decision" and Congress should "take immediate action." Others defended the decision. The court was "exactly right" when it said plaintiffs didn't meet the burden of proof when they focused on the fees paid by merchants, tweeted International Center for Law & Economics Executive Director Geoffrey Manne. "Gov’t can’t meet its burden by showing 'some' effect on 'some part' of the market. Output didn’t go down and price didn’t go up. If it were pointing to a real effect, they would have." The U.S. and states sued AmEx for contractual provisions with merchants stopping them from steering consumers from using their credit cards in favor of another that charges lower merchant fees. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion holding anti-steering provisions don't violate the Sherman Act.

CTA applied June 18 to register as a “certification mark” a second logo it designed for “personal sound amplification and enhancement devices” to be sold over-the-counter to consumers with mild or moderate hearing loss, Patent and Trademark Office records show. CTA created the logo as a means of identifying reputable OTC hearing aids that meet “minimum performance requirements” as specified in the ANSI/CTA-2051 standard it approved in January 2017 with the American National Standards Institute. CTA applied for the first logo in October (see 1710170016), but PTO rejected it on grounds it was “sufficiently similar” to the trademarked logo Bose uses for its Bose Hear listening-enhancement headphone app, raising the “likelihood” of consumer “confusion” between the two (see 1803040001). CTA had until midnight Sunday to challenge PTO’s rejection but let the deadline lapse without responding, rendering it likely that the agency will now declare the application abandoned. CTA spokeswoman Izzy Santa confirmed Monday that the new logo will be used "in conjunction with CTA-2051." CTA President Gary Shapiro keynoted the Hearing Loss Association of America convention Thursday in Minneapolis but didn't unveil the logo there, said Santa. "His remarks focused on our standards work being done." The FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, which President Donald Trump signed into law in August, created a new category of OTC hearing aids for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. The law gives the FDA three years to develop rules on how OTC hearing aids will be regulated.

Gray Television agreed to buy Raycom for $3.6 billion, creating the No. 3 U.S. broadcast group, they announced Monday. It includes divestiture of nine stations in markets where the companies overlap, and their combined reach would be 24 percent without the UHF discount, executives told investors. That’s intended to give the acquisition a smooth ride through the regulatory approval process, said Gray Executive Vice President Kevin Latek. “We are doing that on purpose,” he said, calling the plan “the realistic approach.” Latek expects the deal to close in Q4.

Cable and direct broadcast satellite interests are locking horns over FY 2018 regulatory fees, echoing what has become an annual fight since the FCC instituted DBS regulatory fees in 2015 (see 1507080013, 1607060023 and 1706230027). Docket 18-175 comments were due Thursday and mostly posted Friday, with replies July 6. An FCC staffer said the International Bureau likely is still digesting the comments and there haven't been wide discussions on the eighth floor about how the agency might view cable or DBS arguments about the FY 2018 regulatory proposal. Small satellite regulatory fees also are coming under fire from commercial and academic interests, and there's jousting about a tiered international bearer circuits (IBC) fee structure.

USTelecom companies, in a deal with member Windstream, changed a proposal so that it would now increase by almost twice the amount of time telcos wouldn't be able to raise prices for unbundled network element connections that competitors can use to reach their own customers. Other telecom companies using such UNEs weren't swayed by the association's changed FCC forbearance proposal posted Friday in docket 18-141, after the past version drew a letter of protest earlier last week to leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee from companies including Windstream. With the changes, Windstream is now on board. Incompas remains concerned, its chief told us.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 police generally need a warrant to collect cellphone location data from carriers, in what some see as a landmark privacy decision but one the ruling noted only dealt with the specific case. It's the first time the court directly tackled Fourth Amendment protection of cellphone records. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision. Carpenter v. U.S. was heard in November (see 1711290043).

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 police generally need a warrant to collect cellphone location data from carriers, in what some see as a landmark privacy decision but one the ruling noted only dealt with the specific case. It's the first time the court directly tackled Fourth Amendment protection of cellphone records. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision. Carpenter v. U.S. was heard in November (see 1711290043).

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 police generally need a warrant to collect cellphone location data from carriers, in what some see as a landmark privacy decision but one the ruling noted only dealt with the specific case. It's the first time the court directly tackled Fourth Amendment protection of cellphone records. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision. Carpenter v. U.S. was heard in November (see 1711290043).