Digital Ally, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.

This is an anti-trust case arising out of the use of “commercial bribery” in connection with the sale of portable video recording devices known as “body cams.” Citing news reports as well as the official findings of governmental auditors, Petitioner Digital Ally, Inc. (“Digital”) sued Respondent Taser International, Inc. (“Taser”) in the District of Kansas. Digital alleged that that Taser had excluded it and some 20 other competitors from the relevant market by bribing government officials to purchase its body cams, exclusively. In so doing, Taser had violated not only the anti-bribery provisions that appear in § 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Amendments to the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13(c) but other federal and state antitrust laws. On motion, the District Court dismissed all of Digital’s anti-trust claims. Citing City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 499 U.S. 365 (1991), the District Court held that Taser had a constitutional right to “petition” these government officials to purchase its products, including through the use of bribery, and, accordingly, that Digital’s anti-trust claims were barred under the “Noerr-Pennington Doctrine.” That order of dismissal was then affirmed by the Federal Circuit, without opinion. The following represent important questions of federal anti-trust law that either should be settled by this Court or have been decided in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court: 1. In a case of first impression, the District Court held that since the sales in question were to “governmental” purchasers, Noerr-Pennington