Category:Antitrust
Own Thyself: IP and competition issues in modern Name Image and Likeness claims
Name. Image. Likeness. Three words which, when taken together, evoke increasingly complex meanings. Recently, a number of high profile cases have spotlighted the growing concerns over the meaning and implications of “self” ownership, a concept traditionally lying at the intersection of intellectual property and tort law, connections to privacy law, as well recently implicated issues of antitrust-competition and emerging technology (i.e. AI) regulation.
In an ever-evolving and interconnected technological landscape, issues of Name Image and Likeness (NIL) reveal broad and far reaching implications for today’s courts and regulators. From the scope of traditionally limited contracts to licensing to perpetual ownership and indefinite use, state regulation and limited judicial decisions may finally prove insufficient for the task at hand. However, new applications combined with time-tested legal tools may help even the playing field, both by protecting competition and preventing exploitation.
Recent cases in the sports and entertainment industries (NCAA and SAAG-AFTRA) validate the importance of modern-regulation as a supplement to less-than-binding jurisprudence. While U.S. federal agencies have expressed interest and states have individually taken important steps toward governing NIL controversies, countries like England, France, Spain, Italy and Germany offer clear, robust protections, benefits which U.S. lawmakers and regulators should carefully consider.
Returning to the Roots of College Sports: Pathways Forward
College sports once featured iconic teams of students that would return year after year to compete for glory in tournaments like March Madness and the College Football Playoff. Now, teams are sparsely populated with returning players. Prior to the start of the 2025 March Madness tournament, more than half of the players that competed in the tournament played for a different D1 team before the start of the season. Following the advent of NIL (“Name, Image, and Likeness”), and recent rule changes surrounding the transfer portal, college sports are more like a professional, free-agent market. Team loyalty and the once classic “underdog” Cinderella stories are a thing of the past.
To Compete Or Not to Compete: A Legal Question
Today, federal and state antitrust laws are as important as ever. However, modern courts struggle to apply the traditional interpretation and application of antitrust law to modern technology and related anti-competitive practices. This is particularly true in the realm of emerging technologies, where algorithms, automation, and artificial intelligence increasingly dominate. As a result, regulators face a host of unique challenges in an increasingly interconnected, data driven, and automated era. From business to finance, healthcare to housing, the importance of anti-competition law cannot be easily understated.
Who Owns the Airwaves? FCC Compliance and the Fight for Free Expression
The struggle to balance government oversight, corporate power, and free expression has placed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at the heart of America’s media debate. The FCC plays a central role in U.S. media regulation, overseeing licensing, national ownership limits, and broadcasters’ statutory “public interest” obligations. The FCC’s national television ownership rule prevents any one company from controlling stations that reach more than 39% of U.S. households. This mandate was designed to ensure that no single corporation could dominate the public airwaves. Yet, as recent events surrounding FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna Inc., and the temporary suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live reveal, these safeguards are under mounting pressure. What began as a technical question of regulatory compliance has evolved into a broader confrontation over free speech, political influence, and the fragility of democratic guardrails in American broadcasting.
Continuity Across Administrations in Antitrust Law
In April 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) decided to pursue an antitrust trial against Meta. This conflict was initiated back in 2020 during the Trump administration, which continued throughout Biden’s time in office, and is now being brought to fruition. This case involves the alleged monopoly of social networking services as a result of Meta’s acquisition of Instagram and, more recently, WhatsApp. Regardless of the administration, antitrust agencies remain committed to challenging harmful business practices in the tech sector.
Rearming Innovation: The Rise of New Players in U.S. Defense
In recent decades, the U.S. defense sector has undergone a significant transformation with innovative companies such Palantir, Space X, and Anduril pushing for the federal government to reconsider its current procurement process. The goal of these “New Age” companies is to level the playing field in government contracting so that they can continue developing the world’s most advanced and effective defense technologies.
The Corporate Transparency Act: Now Featuring Much Less Transparency
Among some of the big changes being made by the new Administration is the intention to no longer enforce the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) against U.S. citizens and domestic reporting companies. The CTA, enacted back in 2021, was designed and implemented to enhance corporate accountability and combat financial crimes like money laundering, fraud, tax evasion, and the like. It requires certain businesses to disclose their beneficial owners to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) with the goal of increasing transparency in corporate structures and organization. However, some recent developments have led to significant changes in the ability to enforce this act, sparking a lot of debate on the implications of (or without) the act.
Eggflation: The Rising Cost of Eggs and Its Impact on Consumers
Egg prices are soaring, but is it just supply issues—or something more? While avian flu and regulations have strained production, major suppliers are raking in record profits, raising suspicions of price manipulation. A federal jury recently found top producers guilty of price-fixing, fueling concerns that consumers are being taken advantage of. As grocery bills climb, the question remains: who’s really cracking under pressure?
Regulatory Framework for Airline Mergers: Recent Scrutiny by Regulators Leads to Splitting Antitrust Decisions by the DOJ and DOT
Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines’ proposed $1.9 billion merger has survived litigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) following recent scrutiny of airlines by regulators. Earlier this year, a federal judge blocked the $3.8 billion acquisition of Spirit Airlines by JetBlue due to antitrust concerns. The DOJ successfully blocked the acquisition by arguing it would stifle competition and raise prices for consumers. The Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines merger managed to survive an inquiry by the DOT leading to split decisions by regulators.
Playing Hardball: MLB’s Antitrust Immunity Goes into Extra Innings
Major League Baseball’s (MLB) century-long immunity from antitrust law may soon come to an end depending on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the pending Tri-City ValleyCats, Inc. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball. The petitioners, a pair of minor league baseball teams, are seeking to overrule years of precedent that allow the league to function as both a monopsonist (only buyer in the market) and monopolist (only seller in a market) given its unique control over the professional baseball market. While other professional sports leagues are subject to competition laws, MLB is uniquely positioned to have complete control over licensing, geographic exclusivity for teams, broadcasting, and salaries. Unsurprisingly, MLB’s unrestricted control of the multibillion-dollar professional baseball market has raised concerns about the continued exemptions.