4:["$","div",null,{"className":"min-h-screen bg-white flex flex-col","children":[["$","div",null,{"className":"px-6 pt-6 pb-4 border-b border-gray-100","children":[["$","div",null,{"className":"flex items-center gap-1.5 text-xs text-gray-400 mb-4","children":[["$","a",null,{"href":"/","className":"hover:text-[#26a69a] transition-colors","children":"Market"}],["$","span",null,{"children":"›"}],["$","span",null,{"className":"text-gray-600","children":"Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society"}]]}],["$","div",null,{"className":"text-[10px] text-gray-400 uppercase tracking-widest mb-1","children":"Company Profile"}],["$","h1",null,{"className":"text-2xl font-bold text-gray-900","children":"Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society"}],null]}],["$","div",null,{"className":"flex-1 px-6 py-6","children":[["$","p",null,{"className":"text-sm text-gray-600 leading-relaxed mb-8","children":"Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332 (1982), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving antitrust law. A society of doctors in Maricopa County, Arizona, established maximum fees that their members could claim for seeing patients who were covered by certain health insurance plans. Arizona charged them with violations of state antitrust law regarding price fixing. The society tried to rebut the state's charges by claiming that the maximum-fee arrangement was necessary to allow doctors to see these patients, and therefore generated economic benefits."}],["$","div",null,{"className":"columns-1 md:columns-2 gap-10","children":[["$","div","0",{"className":"mb-8 break-inside-avoid","children":[["$","div",null,{"className":"text-xs font-semibold text-gray-400 uppercase tracking-wide mb-3 border-b border-gray-100 pb-1","children":"Facts"}],["$","div",null,{"className":"text-sm text-gray-600 leading-relaxed wiki-content","dangerouslySetInnerHTML":{"__html":"Maricopa County Medical Society, by agreement of their member doctors, established the maximum fees the doctors may claim in full payment for health services provided to policyholders of specified insurance plans. Arizona filed a complaint against MCMS in Federal District Court, alleging that they were engaged in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. ==Judgment=="}}]]}],["$","div","1",{"className":"mb-8 break-inside-avoid","children":[["$","div",null,{"className":"text-xs font-semibold text-gray-400 uppercase tracking-wide mb-3 border-b border-gray-100 pb-1","children":"Judgment"}],["$","div",null,{"className":"text-sm text-gray-600 leading-relaxed wiki-content","dangerouslySetInnerHTML":{"__html":"In a 4–3 decision, the court held that the maximum fee agreements, as price-fixing agreements, are per se unlawful under § 1 of the Sherman Act. ==Significance=="}}]]}],["$","div","2",{"className":"mb-8 break-inside-avoid","children":[["$","div",null,{"className":"text-xs font-semibold text-gray-400 uppercase tracking-wide mb-3 border-b border-gray-100 pb-1","children":"Significance"}],["$","div",null,{"className":"text-sm text-gray-600 leading-relaxed wiki-content","dangerouslySetInnerHTML":{"__html":"The ruling stipulates not just that maximum price fixing among competitors is unlawful, but that it is unlawful per se. This precludes any significant inquiry into potential procompetitive justifications for such an arrangement. According to one author, the result of the decision was to make \"antitrust analysis once again confused and haphazard.\" ==See also=="}}]]}]]}],"$Lf"]}],"$L10"]}]