United States v. H & R Block, Inc.

833 F. Supp. 2d 36 (2011)

From our private database of 47,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. H & R Block, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
833 F. Supp. 2d 36 (2011)

  • Written by Nicholas Decoster, JD
Play video

Facts

H & R Block, Inc. (H&R) (defendant), is the market leader in retail tax services in the United States. H&R also offers digital do-it-yourself (DDIY) tax-preparation products. Recognizing that DDIY tax preparation was becoming increasingly popular with customers, H&R made plans to acquire 2SS Holdings, Inc. (2SS) (defendant), which owned the TaxACT line of DDIY tax-preparation products. Prior to the proposed acquisition, H&R and 2SS were the second and third most popular providers of DDIY tax-preparation products. The United States brought an action seeking to enjoin H&R’s acquisition, alleging that the acquisition would violate § 7 of the Clayton Act.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Howell, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 967,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 967,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 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.
  • AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 967,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,500 briefs - keyed to 1,007 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Antitrust

Key Terms

  • Clayton ActShort for the Clayton Antitrust Act, a federal statute enacted as an amendment to the Sherman Antitrust Act that prohibits price discrimination, exclusive-dealing and tying agreements, and mergers and acquisitions if such conduct could significantly reduce competition or create a monopoly in a particular line of commerce.
  • Clayton Act, § 7Enacted in 1914 as an amendment to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, section 7 provides that no person (including a corporation) engaged in commerce shall acquire another (or part of another) person (or corporation) engaged in commerce if the effect may be substantially to lessen competition or would tend to create a monopoly.
  • Hypothetical Monopolist TestA test used to determine the relevant product market for purposes of an antitrust analysis where a court considers whether it would be hypothetically profitable for a firm to have a monopoly over a proposed set of products. If the monopolist could raise the price of the products by more than 5 percent without significant loss of profits due to customers switching to alternative products, then the products should be considered as part of the same product market.

Understand your casebook readings in seconds

Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.

Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,007 law school casebooks.

Case book preview
Start your free 7-day trial