Federal Trade Commission v. CCC Holdings Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
605 F.Supp.2d 26 (D.D.C. 2009).
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
CCC Information Services (CCC) (defendant), Mitchell International, Inc. (Mitchell) (defendant), and Audatex North America, Inc. (Audatex) were the three major US producers of estimatics software and total-loss-valuation software systems (TLV). All major automobile insurers and most automotive-repair shops subscribed to estimatics software, relying on it to estimate the cost of vehicle repairs. Most insurers also subscribed to TLV to determine the value of replacement vehicles for vehicles that were total losses. Together, CCC, Mitchell, and Audatex accounted for 99 percent of the estimatics-software market and over 90 percent of the TLV market. CCC and Mitchell attempted a merger of equals, meaning a merger of two companies with roughly equal financial strength into one company with combined management. If the merger took place, the combined CCC-Mitchell entity would hold about 70 percent of the estimatics market and 65 percent of the TLV market. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (plaintiff) sued CCC and Mitchell, seeking a preliminary injunction preventing the merger. The FTC argued that reducing the number of market competitors from three to two would obviously and substantially harm market competition. CCC and Mitchell countered that market realities reduced the likelihood of anticompetitive effects. The district court considered the parties’ arguments.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Collyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.