《美国最高法院 加利福尼亚牙科医生协会诉联邦贸易委员会案（CALIFORNIA》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《美国最高法院 加利福尼亚牙科医生协会诉联邦贸易委员会案（CALIFORNIA（26页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、单击此处编辑母版标题样式单击此处编辑母版副标题样式*1加利福尼亚亚牙科医生协协会诉诉联联邦贸贸易委员员会案CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOCIATION v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION美国最高法院Facts & Procedural HistoryThe California Dental Association (CDA), a nonprofit association of local dental societies to which 75% of California dentists belong, provides its members wi
2、th insurance and financing arrangements, and engages in lobbying, litigation, marketing, and public relations for members benefit. Members agree to abide by the CDAs Code of Ethics, which prohibits false or misleading advertising. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought a complaint against the CD
3、A, alleging that the CDAs guidelines restricted two types of truthful, non-deceptive advertising: price advertising and advertising relating to the quality of dental services and therefore had violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held th
4、at the FTC had jurisdiction over the CDA and found a violation of section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC adopted most of the ALJs factual findings and held that the price advertising, as well as the non-price, restrictions were violations of the Sherman and FTC Acts under an abbreviated rule-of-reason an
5、alysis. Code of Ethics (Code) including the following 10: “Although any dentist may advertise, no dentist no dentist shall advertise or solicit patients in any form shall advertise or solicit patients in any form of communication in a manner that is false or of communication in a manner that is fals
6、e or misleading in any material respect.misleading in any material respect. In order to properly serve the public, dentists should represent themselves in a manner that contributes to the esteem of the public. Dentists should not misrepresent their training and competence in any way that would be fa
7、lse or misleading in any material respect.” FTC found: On its face, the Code of Ethics governing CDA members barred false and misleading advertising. In practice, CDA banned advertisements that (i) dental fees were “reasonable”; (ii) offered across-the-board discounts; (iii) made quality claims. The
8、 FTC found that restrictions on discount advertising were per se unlawful. Alternatively, the FTC concluded that the price (as well as non-price) restrictions on advertising were unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason analysis. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sustains the FTCs jurisdi
9、ction and affirmed the FTCs conclusions on the quick-look rule of reason but found the per se analysis erroneous. After granting certiorari, the Supreme Court, Justice Souter, held that: (1) nonprofit professional association was subject to jurisdiction of FTC, and (2) agreed with the Ninth Circuit
10、that the advertising restrictions fell outside the per se rule, but abbreviated or “quick look” rule-of-reason analysis was not appropriate for associations advertising restrictions. Vacated and remanded Facts & Procedural HistoryISSUE:1.联邦贸易委员会（FTC）对加州牙医协会（CDA）这样的非营利性社团是否具有管辖权？2. (Does the Federal
11、Trade Commission have jurisdiction over the California Dental Association , a nonprofit professional association? )2.用“简略的”或“快速审查”（quick-look）合理规则分析方法是否足以合理的认定牙医协会对特定广告的限制规定违反了反托拉斯法？3. (Does an abbreviated or “quick look” rule-of-reason analysis suffice to justify the conclusion that the CDAs advert
12、ising restrictions violated the Sherman and Federal Trade Commission Act? )争议议一： 联联邦贸贸易委员员会对对加州牙医协协会这样这样 的非营营利性社团团是否具有管辖权辖权 ？法官裁定及推理: 联联邦贸贸易委员员会对对非营营利性的专业团专业团 体具有管辖权辖权 ； 管辖权辖权 基础础联联邦贸贸易委员员会法 联邦贸易委员会法第五条a (2)款：依照本法，委员会（FTC）有权阻止个人（persons）、合伙(partnerships)或社团（corporations）在商业或影响商业的领域中采用不公平的竞争方法、不公平或欺骗
13、性的行为或惯常做法。 而同法第4条将上述“corporation”定义为 ：包括“除合伙之外的，其成立的目的在于为了自己或其成员的利益进行经营活动的任何公司或社团” （any company . or association, incorporated or unincorporated, without shares of capital or capital stock or certificates of interest, except partnerships, which is organized to carry on business for its own profit or
14、 that of its members。 ） 联邦贸易委员会法的管辖范围不但包括了“为自己营利而进行经济活动”的商业实体。也包括了为其成员营利而进行活动的实体。牙医协会 向其成员提供有利的保险和优惠的财务安排； 为了其成员的利益进行游说、诉讼、营销以及公关活动。争议议二：用“快速审查审查 ”（quick-look）的方法是否足以合理的认认定牙医协协会对对特定广告的限制规规定违违反了反托拉斯法？ 法官裁定及推理: 不能如上诉诉法院一样简单样简单 地采用“快速审审查查”方式来认认定违违法性。 简化的合理规则 简化的合理规则 “structured” rule of reason； “trunca
15、ted ” rule of reason； “abbreviated or quick-look” rule of reason analysis 20世纪70年代后期以来，本身违法和合理原则截然分离的二元分析模式受到了挑战，法院或反垄断执法机构试图将这两种原则作为反垄断分析的整体方法，运用到案件的分析中，被称为一元序列分析模式(a unified continuum model)，在该模式中，本身违法原则和合理分析原则并非对峙的两极，而是一个单一的分析进程的组成部分。这种模式根据各种限制竞争的商业行为的性质的不同进行不同层次的合理分析。 定义：在适用程序上，“简化的合理规则”先要对案件进行初
16、步的合理性分析，以决定是适用本身违法规则还是适用合理规则，这种方法既能顾及案件的具体情况，也能尽可能满足效率的要求。 适用条件：当对经济学具有初步常识的观察者可能得出被诉的安排对消费者和市场具有反竞争的影响时，“简化的合理规则”分析是适当的。 (An abbreviated or “quick-look” analysis is appropriate when an observer with even a rudimentary understanding of economics could conclude that the arrangements in question have an anticompetitive effect on customers and markets. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 85, 104 S.Ct. 2948, 82 L.Ed.2d 70. ) 先例： 国家运动学员协会诉奥克兰大学董事会委员案（Nat
