Dr. Janet S. Netz and applEcon assisted counsel representing indirect purchasers in securing a $82.5 million settlement in conjunction with an agreement with Varsity and its co-Defendants to abandon many of their anticompetitive business practices to prevent future harms. The non-monetary settlement provisions include (1) the participation in end-of-season championship competitions will no longer require previous participation at a Varsity-owned Cheer Camp; (2) Varsity will not require exclusive purchasing agreements to participate in Varsity Family Plan, Network Program, or a rebate or discount relating to Cheer Competitions; (3) Varsity will no longer require participants in 35% or more of its Cheer Competitions to stay at Varsity-approved accommodations; and (4) the U.S. All Star Federation (USASF) will not disclose confidential information regarding cheer competition schedules or attendance records to other, competing, members.
Indirect purchasers Jessica Jones and Christina Lorenzen represent parents of Competitive Cheer Athletes who allege they paid artificially inflated prices for Varsity Cheer Competitions, Varsity Cheer Apparel, and Varsity Cheer Camp Fees when Varsity and other defendants violated state and federal antitrust laws, and state unfair competition, consumer deception, and consumer protection laws. Broadly, Plaintiffs allege that Varsity engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude rivals and acquire, enhance, and maintain monopoly power in the relevant markets for Cheer Competitions, Cheer Apparel, and Cheer Camps, so that it could charge supracompetitive prices for these products and services.
Competitive Cheer is a distinct sport for teams associated with private gyms and schools. Unlike traditional sideline cheerleading, Competitive Cheer teams compete head-to-head against each other in events with unique, choreographed, and highly acrobatic routines.
Dr. Janet Netz was retained on behalf of the Plaintiffs by the Joseph Saveri Law Firm. Dr. Netz testified to the relevant markets, whether or not Varsity possessed market power in the relevant markets, whether the challenged conduct allowed Varsity to acquire or maintain its monopoly power, and the anticompetitive effects of the challenged conduct.
For further information on Jessica Jones, et al., v. Varsity Brands, LLC, et al. (2:20-cv-02892-SHL-tmp (Western District of Tennessee, Western Division)):