Antitrust

Fast food outlets apparently aren’t the only businesses that put no-poach provisions into their franchise agreements. The complaint for this class action brings this antitrust case claiming that H&R Block, Inc. and H&R Block Tax Services, LLC also engaged in this anticompetitive practice.

What’s a doorskin? It’s a part of the most popular type of interior door sold in North America, the interior molded door. The complaint for this class action claims that Masonite Corporation and Jeld-Wen, Inc. violated antitrust laws despite a US Department of Justice (DOJ) effort to avoid this. 

Papa John’s is the fourth-largest pizza company in the world, the complaint for this class action says. As such, the complaint alleges, its no-poach agreements are likely to have an anticompetitive effect on the labor market.

This antitrust class action takes on the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA), or the International Federation of Swimming. The complaint alleges that FINA controls swimmers’ access to participation in the Olympics and uses that control to keep swimmers’ pay low and to prevent any similar organization from entering the market. 

Jiffy Lube has more than 2,000 shops across the US, and the complaint for this class action claims that it has no-poach provisions in its standard franchise agreements. The complaint alleges that wages at Jiffy Lube shops are low and that the no-poach provisions are part of the reason. 

The complaint for this class action alleges that Burger King franchises are required to agree to no-poach agreements and that these agreements are anticompetitive and illegal and keep worker wages down.

When the patent on a drug expires, another company may make a generic version of it. But even these generics must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The complaint for this class action claims that Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited and its associates engaged in dishonest behavior in rushing generic applications to the FDA in order to get exclusive rights to make certain generics.

The complaint for this class action alleges that Burger King’s franchise agreement contains an anticompetitive clause that prevents one Burger King franchise from hiring or soliciting employees from another Burger King franchise or from hiring employees who have worked at another franchise in the past six months. The complaint claims that this no-poach agreement is an illegal conspiracy that violates federal antitrust laws.