The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a district court should not have certified a class of cable subscribers asserting antitrust violations by their cable provider because the plaintiffs did not adequately demonstrate that their damages could be measured on a class-wide basis. A district court declined, for the moment, to certify a class of former high-tech employees to pursue antitrust claims because the broadly defined proposed class could have included members who were not harmed by the employers’ alleged agreements to restrict employee mobility and suppress their compensation.
Other antitrust developments of note included an amendment to Kansas antitrust law providing that resale price maintenance claims are not per se unlawful but rather subject to rule of reason review and a ruling by a district court that a breach of supply provisions in a "reverse payment" settlement of a patent dispute did not violate antitrust law.
