mthoopsfan
Well-known member
"In a decision issued Thursday, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs failed to meet a fundamental requirement in antitrust litigation by not adequately defining a relevant market, according to Bloomberg. The unsigned opinion emphasized that without a clearly established market, the court could not assess whether the Ivy League institutions wielded the kind of market power necessary to violate competition laws.
“The alleged Ivy-only markets do not ‘encompass all interchangeable substitute products,’” the court stated. “Moreover, the alleged Ivy-plus markets for sale of educational services to and purchase of athletic services from AAHA students are insufficiently defined, as the complaint does not ‘include a plausible explanation as to why [these markets] should be limited to exclude possible substitutes.’”
www.pymnts.com
“The alleged Ivy-only markets do not ‘encompass all interchangeable substitute products,’” the court stated. “Moreover, the alleged Ivy-plus markets for sale of educational services to and purchase of athletic services from AAHA students are insufficiently defined, as the complaint does not ‘include a plausible explanation as to why [these markets] should be limited to exclude possible substitutes.’”
Ivy League Wins Antitrust Case Over Athletic Scholarship Policy | PYMNTS.com
A federal appeals court has affirmed the Ivy League’s long-standing policy of prohibiting athletic scholarships, rejecting claims from student-athletes