63. Consistent with its monopoly status and the behavior of other monopolists, BAR/BRI has also reduced the quality of the course services it provides to plaintiffs, for example, increasingly replacing live lectures with video lectures, then curtailing student questions even at such live lectures.
64. By reason of the violations of the federal antitrust laws alleged herein, Plaintiffs will be injured in their business and property and suffer substantial damages in an amount presently undetermined, unless the injunctive relief sought here is granted.
UNLAWFUL MONOPOLIZATION; VIOLATION OF SECTION 2
OF THE SHERMAN ACT
65. Paragraphs 1 to 64 are incorporated by reference herein.
66. BAR/BRI has monopolized the full-service bar review course market in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2.
67. BAR/BRI has unlawfully acquired and/or maintained a monopoly of the full-service bar review course market through the ways and means set forth above.
68. As a direct and proximate result of BAR/BRI’s abuse of its monopoly power, competition in the full-service bar review course market has been substantially restrained, and meaningful new entry is substantially unlikely to occur.
69. Unless BAR/BRI’s anticompetitive acts as alleged herein are enjoined by this Court, there is a reasonable probability that it will continue to monopolize the full-service bar review course submarket and will continue to unreasonably restrict and eliminate competition therein.
70. BAR/BRI’s monopolization of the full-service bar review course market will injure Plaintiffs in at least the following ways:
a. The prices of the full-service bar review courses they purchase will be far higher than they would be but for its violation of the antitrust laws; and,
b. Opportunities to choose among various courses, each with its own unique attributes, that would be available in the absence of the unlawful course of conduct alleged herein, have been lost to Plaintiffs; and
71. Plaintiffs have been required to retain the law firms of the Disner Law Corporation and Harris and Ruble to prosecute this claim and to suffer all the burdens that accrue from the prosecution of this case.
72. Plaintiffs will be substantially damaged unless the Court orders appropriate injunctive relief herein, including but not limited to the creation of a fully-operational, competitive, full-service bar review business capable of competing successfully against it throughout the United States, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 26.
73. Should Plaintiffs and the Class prevail herein, they are also entitled to a reasonable multiple of the lodestar of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs accrued by them herein, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15(a).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
1. As to their claim for violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) that West be held liable pursuant thereto; ;
2. That appropriate injunctive relief be entered, including an order creating a fully-operational, competitive, full-service bar review business capable of competing successfully against Bar/Bri throughout the United States, and other equitable relief needed to ameliorate its wrongdoing here, all to be provided pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 26;
3. That Plaintiffs obtain for their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined according to pertinent case law authority (15 U.S.C. § 15(a)); and
4. That Plaintiffs have the costs of suit incurred herein by them and such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DATED: August 7, 2007 DISNER LAW CORPORATION
Eliot G. Disner
A Professional Corporation
Attorneys for Plaintiffs