injury is distinct from injury to competition and that “proof of a[n antitrust] violation and of antitrust injury are distinct matters that must be shown independently”) (quoting Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Fundamentals of Antitrust Law ¶ 334.2c, at 330 (1st ed. Supp.1989)). Courts have identified two scenarios constituting an injury to competition for purposes of the third element of a Section 1 claim. First, agreements between competitors to harm or exclude other competitors (referred to as “horizontal collusion”) are deemed to injure competition because they insulate the colluding parties from horizontal competition. See F.T.C. v. Ind. Fed’n of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447, 106 S.Ct. 2009, 90 L.Ed.2d 445 (1986); see also Realcomp II, Ltd. v. FTC, 635 F.3d 815 (6th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Horizontal collusion is not at issue here.
holding that a horizontal agreement among seven associations of competing realestate brokers relating to a web advertising policy unreasonably restrained competition in the market for the provision of residential realestate brokerage services holding there were no grounds for challenging in a termination proceeding the alleged failure to comply with the ada in the provision of services because services are not required by the termination statute holding that competition among class members is insufficient to demonstrate antagonistic interests holding that a plaintiff claiming monopolization is obligated to establish the relevant market because the power to control prices or exclude competition only makes sense with reference to a particular market holding that fair market value was proper measure of damages for stock brokers breach of margin agreement caused by sale of plaintiffs shares without authorization noting that generally speaking fair market value is proper measure of damages for breach of contract relating to sale of goods which have an ascertamable value on the market