Cooperation among competitors is usually the kind of activity that raises antitrust concerns.  However, with thousands of barrels of dirty crude oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico on a daily basis, the head of Federal Trade Commission is seeking to ease concerns that cooperation among competing energy companies to help the federal government solve the crisis in the Gulf would face scrutiny under federal antitrust laws.

In response to a letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy seeking the FTC’s position on such collaboration, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz wrote that “[a]lthough we must always be watchful when competitors collaborate, industry efforts to work with Federal officials and provide expertise to combat this ecological disaster are unlikely to raise concerns under the antitrust laws, and we would be unlikely to challenge such an effort.”  Chairman Leibowitz added that the “impact of the oil spill appears likely to be an enormous tragedy for the people and economy of the Gulf and we would like to help any way that we can.”

The issue of collaboration among energy companies was raised because BP officials have acknowledged that they were not technologically prepared to deal with a disaster such as the one now unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico.  A number of BP’s competitors, including ExxonMobile, Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron, have provided support to BP and government officials to help get the oil leak under control.

The Bundeskartellamt, Germany’s version of the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, has announced it is fining eight coffee roasters 30 million euros ($35.9 million) for illegally fixing the price of wholesale coffee sold to bulk customers such as restaurants and hotels.

Bundeskartellamt President Andreas Mundt spoke strongly about the need for antitrust regulation, saying that “cartels … are highly damaging to society and therefore have to be rigorously prosecuted” and noting that “coordinated price increases for consumer goods such as coffee have a direct impact on consumers’ wallets,”

The Bundeskartellamt is  assessing a fine for the German Coffee Association (GCA) and 10 employees.  The eight coffee roasters (Tchibo GmbH, Kraft Foods Außer Haus Service GmbH, J.J. Darboven GmbH & Co. KG, Melitta SystemService GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Luigi Lavazza Deutschland GmbH, Seeberger KG, Segafredo Zanetti Deutschland GmbH and Gebr. Westhoff GmbH & Co. KG) include local units of two U.S. companies, Kraft Foods Inc. and Luigi Lavazza SpA. 

According to the Bundeskartellamt’s investigation, from at least 1997 through mid-2008, a group of directors and sales managers at the roasters within the GCA coordinated price hikes and cuts – but mostly hikes – for roasted coffee supplied to restaurants, caterers, hotels, vending machine companies and other bulk consumers.

The Bundeskartellamt has a Leniency Programme, which allows for fines to be waived or reduced for cartel members who report price-fixing or cooperate.  It was a leniency filing from cartel member Alois Dallmayr Kaffee OHG that triggered the Bundeskartellamt’s investigation in the first place, and it has escaped a fine as a result.  Two other coffee makers – Melitta and Darboven – cooperated with the investigation and have apparently received reduced penalties as a result, though the amount of the fines for each cartel member have not been released.  The GCA has admitted liability and said it regretted the infringement in a separate statement.

German law allows the Bundeskartellamt  to fine member companies up to 10 percent of their revenues from the previous fiscal year if they uncover a cartel in the course of an investigation.  With the potential for such a mammoth fine, it is not surprising that six of the companies and their employees have already agreed to settle the regulator’s claims instead of fighting. 

This week’s activity is part of increased scrutiny the Bundeskartellamt has placed on the coffee industry in Germany in recent years.  Though this investigation has only been underway since 2009, the Bundeskartellamt already fined three of the coffee roasters (Tchibo, Melitta and Alois Dallmayr) and six of their employees approximately 159.5 million euros in December based on a similar price-fixing cartel in the retail sector that allegedly ran from early 2000 until July 2008.  A separate investigation into cappuccino makers based on similar price-fixing suspicions remains underway, and is expected to be completed soon.

On Wednesday afternoon, the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee will hold a general oversight hearing on the two federal antitrust enforcement agencies, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition.

The heads of these agencies, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Christine Varney and Federal Trade Commission Chair Jon Leibowitz will testify.  The hearing is scheduled for June 9, 2010, at 2 p.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.    

A general oversight hearing allows the Subcommittee to consider the overall performance of the agencies without reference to a particular topic or piece of legislation.  Members of the Subcommittee are free to ask the witnesses questions about any matter within the purview of their respective agencies.  The House and Senate Judiciary Committees usually hold such a hearing about once a year.         

More information on the hearing can be found on the Senate Judiciary Committee website.

Maybe comedian Jon Stewart had a point about Apple.  Last month, he chastised the chic technology company, saying: “You guys were the rebels, man, the underdogs – people believed in you!  But now, are you becoming … The Man?”

It seems that the U.S. Department of Justice might agree.  According to the New York Times, the DOJ is investigating Apple for using its successful iTunes online music store to muscle Amazon out of the way.

According to the Times, Amazon annoyed Apple by offering promotions to music labels in exchange for an exclusive window to sell those labels’ new songs.  In response, Apple withdrew its own marketing support for the songs that Amazon highlighted.  According to Billboard magazine, which broke word of Apple’s practices in March, one music executive described Apple’s response as: “They are . . . diverting their energy from ‘let’s make this machine better’ to ‘let’s protect what we got.’” 

That’s precisely the sort of attitude that attracts antitrust enforcers, especially when it comes from an industry leader.  And in the world of music sales, no other company is even close to Apple.  According to the Times, Apple has 69 percent of the market for online music sales, compared to 8 percent for Amazon, which is the number two in the market.  Indeed, Apple is also the largest music distributer over any platform, surpassing WalMart two years ago.   According to the Times, Apple now has over 25 percent of the entire music sales market.

As Apple has grown, it has triggered an increasing amount of antitrust scrutiny.  Earlier this month, reports emerged that DOJ or the Federal Trade Commission may investigate Apple for prohibiting writers of programs for its iPhone, iPod, and iPad line from using third-party software to create their applications.  It is also possible that DOJ is investigating Apple and other companies (including Google) for agreeing not to poach each others’ employees.  And last year, the FTC criticized Apple for having Google CEO Eric Schmidt serve on its board, which led soon after to Schmidt’s departure from Apple.

This is not the first time that the government has taken a hard look at online music prices.  In 2006, DOJ started a similar probe of record labels, for trying to raise the change the price of music sales on Apple’s iTunes.  Ultimately, Apple last year introduced more flexible pricing for iTunes music than it initially offered.

The timing for the antitrust story about Apple seems right on the money: on May 26, 2010, Apple became the largest technology company in the world, surpassing Microsoft.  And we all know what happened between DOJ and Microsoft.

Although the Hamptons may be renowned as an exclusive vacation spot on New York’s Long Island, its real estate brokers may be getting some unwanted attention from the U.S. Department of Justice for expanding that exclusivity into the way they do business.

Apparently, the real estate industry has attracted the attention of antitrust investigators because of an online listing service – OpenRealNet Exchange, run by Hamptons Real Estate Online Inc. – that charges an annual fee of $50,000.  Brokers in the Hamptons use this service instead of Long Island’s Multiple Listing Service – which is open to all – or an East End service run by the Hamptons and North Fork Realtors Association. 

In recent years, East End real estate agents have complained about, and even sued, OpenRealNet Exchange.  Such brokers have complained that the exclusive listing service is designed to keep commissions within a limited pool of brokers, rather than having to split them with additional brokers.

According to some real estate brokers, investigators have been contacting brokers in the area to question them about the online listing service.

While the antitrust division of the DOJ has declined to comment on whether they have started an investigation, it would not be surprising if the federal enforcers take action.  Certainly the immense fees charged by OpenRealNet Exchange could be considered a barrier to entry, effectively denying smaller real estate companies access to listings, and shutting them out of the Hamptons real estate business.