The Common Application, Inc. v. CollegeNET, Inc.

Whether the Ninth Circuit departed from this Court’s precedent in holding that an antitrust plaintiff alleging that the defendant’s conduct produced lower prices and higher output can nonetheless satisfy the antitrust injury requirement merely by alleging that its own products are superior to those offered by the defendant.

Whether the petition should be held for this Court’s decision in Ohio v. American Express Co., No. 16-1454, because that case raises the same issue as this one: whether, under the rule of reason, establishing anticompetitive harm on only one side of a twosided market is sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff ’s burden, or whether instead the plaintiff must establish harm to both sides.