The Texas attorney general has settled his challenge to a deal between sellers of dental products that the state said prevented competition from a new entrant in Texas. This case recalls that local activities may also be subject to antitrust enforcement by prosecutors (…) On 22 July 2016, the NDRC sanctioned 3 pharmaceutical companies for cartels on joint prices and boycotts concerning estazolam tablets and active pharmaceutical substances (APIs), in breach of Article 13(1)(1) and Article 13(1)(5) of the Antimonopoly Law (AMLA). The 3 companies (Huazhong (…) Specific “unsuscited” acts prohibited by U.S. anti-boycott regulations include refusing to do business with or in a boycotted country; discrimination against the United States against persons who work on the basis of race, religion, sex or national origin; provide information on trade relations with a boycotted country because of its relations with a boycotted country; and the use of accrediting persons containing, among other things, terms related to the boycott.  U.S. persons, a term that includes all individuals, companies, and associations established in the United States without legal unions, including permanent domestic subsidiaries of foreign groups that receive requests to participate in an unauthorized boycott, are required to report the incident to the Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC).  Boycotts that prevent a company from entering the market or penalize an existing competitor are also illegal. The FTC cases involved a group of doctors accused of using a boycott to prevent a management care organization from creating a competing healthcare facility and retailers who took advantage of a boycott to force manufacturers to limit sales through a competing catalog provider. Boycotts aimed at “price cutters” are particularly likely to raise concerns about cartels and abuse of dominance and can be obtained with the help of a joint distributor or supplier. This is the case of the complaint filed by the FTC against a national toy distributor who, at the same time, had obtained agreements from several toy manufacturers not to supply cheap “Club” stores with a complete assortment of toys. As a result of the supplier boycott organized by the large retailer, consumers found it difficult to compare the value of various toys in different retail stores, the type of comparative purchases that could have prompted retailers to reduce their toy prices. The EAA lists a number of sanctions for violating anti-boycott rules. .