News Stream

Antitrust charges against a board must be more than conclusory statements

A licensee charging that a board violated antitrust law may not simply allege that "the parties agreed," said the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut in a January 20 ruling. The case was brought by a veterinarian who contended that a disciplinary action against him stemmed from anticompetitive motivations. The court found that "the ultimate existence of an agreement under antitrust law is a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation, and thus plaintiff must allege facts affirmatively demonstrating such an agreement" (Robb v. Connecticut Board of Veterinary Medicine, 2016 WL 236209).

A licensee charging that a board violated antitrust law may not simply allege that "the parties agreed," said the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut in a January 20 ruling.

The case was brought by a veterinarian who contended that a disciplinary action against him stemmed from anticompetitive motivations. The court found that "the ultimate existence of an agreement under antitrust law is a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation, and thus plaintiff must allege facts affirmatively demonstrating such an agreement" (Robb v. Connecticut Board of Veterinary Medicine, 2016 WL 236209).

To read more, please subscribe.