Joseph Alioto

Joseph Alioto began practicing antitrust law in 2001, then took a hiatus from 2012 to 2019 to serve as an assistant U.S. attorney focusing on prosecuting racketeering cases against violent organized crime groups.

In his current antitrust practice, Alioto exclusively represents plaintiffs, mainly consumers and small businesses, in a variety of significant cases under various sections of antitrust law.

In one of his noteworthy cases, he represented 50 independent pharmacies against major pharmaceutical companies under the Cartwright Act. Clayworth v. Pfizer (2010) 49 Cal.4th 758.

Although initially dismissed at summary judgment and affirmed on appeal, Alioto successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of California, turning the case into one of the most-cited California antitrust cases in recent decades. This achievement garnered him a California Attorney of the Year award in antitrust law.

Alioto’s expertise extends to representing credit card users against banks for charging unlawful fees, trucking companies against monopolistic railroads and consumers challenging major airline mergers, including the InBev acquisition of Anheuser Busch. He has briefed and argued antitrust appeals before various U.S. Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court of California.

Currently, Alioto is lead counsel in Garavanian v. JetBlue Airways Corp. and Spirit Airlines, Inc., a case challenging the JetBlue and Spirit Airlines merger under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

This case is particularly significant as it represents a rare consumer challenge to a major merger, Alioto said. His work, in this case, reflects a broader trend in his practice of challenging mergers, spurred by the drastic consolidation in various industries resulting from government-approved mergers. This consolidation often leads to higher prices, lower service quality and fewer consumer options.

In addressing challenges in his cases, Alioto frequently encounters defense strategies that question plaintiffs’ standing, especially in merger cases. He emphasizes the importance of recognizing and encouraging the right of individual consumers to challenge unlawful mergers, as intended by federal law.

“With respect to merger law, the biggest need I see is for greater recognition of the right of individual consumers to challenge unlawful mergers. These actions should be encouraged in the same manner as Congress intended and as the Supreme Court originally interpreted the law,” Alioto said. “The appeal I litigated in the Clayworth case in 2010 dealt with the ‘indirect purchaser vs. direct purchaser’ framework created by the Supreme Court’s 1977 Illinois Brick decision. Twelve years later, in 2022, I litigated an appeal in the Second Circuit that dealt with essentially the same issues. Sooner or later, the courts will need to address the arbitrary ‘direct purchaser vs. indirect purchaser’ doctrine that has bogged down federal and state courts for too long. It is time to set the Illinois Brick doctrine out to pasture and adopts a framework that more closely aligns with the dissent in that opinion.”