Stafford Rosenbaum’s Antitrust and Trade Regulation attorneys possess an in-depth understanding of federal antitrust laws and Wisconsin’s stringent consumer protection laws, including:
- The Sherman and Clayton Acts and their Wisconsin counterparts
- The Robinson-Patman Act (a federal price discrimination statute)
- Wisconsin unfair trade practices laws
- Wisconsin false advertisement laws
One of our attorneys was actively involved in modernizing Wisconsin’s antitrust statute, and another writes the chapter on trade regulation for the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Annual Survey of Wisconsin Law. We achieved victory for a client in one of the seminal cases construing Wisconsin antitrust statutes, and our attorneys have tried to verdict several significant antitrust cases.
Breadth of Experience
Leaders in business and the legal profession turn to us because of our years of experience in all types of antitrust and trade regulation litigation. It’s that breadth of experience that also makes us particularly effective in an advisory role, assisting clients in crafting business practices designed to avoid entanglement in litigation in the first place.
We offer litigation and advisory services to a broad range of entities, including gasoline and other retailers, cable television companies, equipment manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors of a wide variety of products and services, television manufacturers, and numerous trade organizations.
From the handling of high-stakes, complex litigation to the drafting of enforceable distribution agreements, our experience has yielded great success, including:
- Securing a seven-figure verdict for a cable television company against a major city and successfully defending the verdict on appeal
- Representing a major equipment manufacturer in the successful defense of antitrust claims made by a dealer
- Effectively representing the interests of a large distributor of pharmaceuticals in a Wisconsin law based price-fixing suit
- Successfully defending a dairy charged with below-cost pricing in violation of state law