F.3d at 887(citing Snake River Valley Elec. Ass’n v. PacifiCorp, 238 F.3d 1189, 1192 n. 8 (9th Cir.2001)). 9 . General statements that a restraint is hybrid because "the federal anti-trust laws pre-empt state laws authorizing or compelling private parties to engage in anticompetitive behavior,” 324 Liquor, 479 U.S. at 345 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. 720, or because regulations "creating unsupervised private power in derogation of competition are subject to preemption,” Costco, 522 F.3d at 889, must be understood in context. Not all potentially anticompetitive conduct creates an irreconcilable conflict with federal law, either because it is subject to the rule of reason or because it is unilateral action by private parties covered by Sherman Act § 2's fact-specific analysis. See id. at 891 n. 11 (<HOLDING>). 10 . See Rebel Oil Co. v. Atlantic Richfield
recognizing that a regulation akin to a nonprice vertical restraint would be analyzed under the rule of reason recognizing rule recognizing that claims arising under the ihra are analyzed under the same standards as title vii claims holding that prior restraint analysis applies to commercial speech but that the general health claim regulation 21 cfr  10114 was sufficiently welldefined to survive prior restraint analysis holding that a regulation was not a prior restraint because it did not authorize suppression of speech in advance of its expression