The Antitrust Implications of Licensed Occupations Choosing Their Own Exclusive Jurisdiction
Jarod M. Bona
Bona Law PC
August 9, 2011
University of St. Thomas Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2011
State and local government restraints, with a few exceptions, receive little attention from the antitrust laws because they are limited by the "state action immunity" doctrine. These public restraints take many forms, from limiting the number of taxicab licenses in a city to professional advertising restrictions to actual price or output limitations. This article focuses on state and local licensing restrictions. In doing so, it examines two instances where state boards that are predominantly made up of licensed occupations enact policies that expand the sphere of commerce that is reserved by law to these occupations. These examples present compelling circumstances for antitrust regulation because the deciding state entity is dominated by members with private incentives to expand the scope of their occupation to the detriment of consumers.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 24
Keywords: antitrust, regulation, anticompetitive, licensing, state action immunity, competition, administrative agencies, state boards, monopoly, federalism, Midcal, FTC, Federal Trade CommissionAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: September 10, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.469 seconds