Arrangement is a priorianti-competitive, but allows for an escape valve b/c existence of industry practice or rationale warrants some form of horizontal restraints if the product to be produced at all (availability of television vs. ticket sales)
Garners full analysis – output-limiting arrangement, cannot have blind per se rule
California Dental Assoc. (1999)
J. Souter – questioned the a priori presumption of anti-competitive behavior on the part of the cartel-like behavior by proof of the arrangement; a more sedulous look is necessary b/c the price and non-price restraints are not strictly anticompetitive
Reviews justifications – preventing fraudulent advertising has pro-competitive effect (inaccurate information is anticompetitive); however, assessment of competitiveness s/n rely on truthfulness; FTC must present empirical evidence that the restraints would raise prices and decrease output (new requirement) increased burden on π
J. Breyer dissent – would have found price restraints as illegal under the quick-look analysis (Indiana Fed. Dentists), but the non-price restraints as worthy of a full rule of reason analysis