Trouble on the Ice: Attorney General Bonta Throws Support Behind Hockey Players in Antitrust Case

Following court dismissal, attorneys general advocate for strong antitrust enforcement in labor market allocation schemes — no matter where the conduct took place

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 15 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division v. National Hockey League, in support of current and former hockey players who allege the Canadian junior hockey leagues that feed into the National Hockey League (NHL) illegally divided North America into exclusive recruiting territories and agreed not to recruit players from one another’s regions. These kinds of agreements are considered antitrust violations because they reduce competition for labor, which can lead to lower wages and fewer opportunities for workers. The case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because the conduct did not specifically target Washington, where the lawsuit was filed, and separately based on international comity. In the brief, the attorneys general ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court’s dismissal and argue that the district court’s ruling could prevent enforcers, like states, from challenging future legal violations that harm U.S. citizens and residents if those violations extend across multiple states or international borders. 

“Dividing a labor market is just as anticompetitive as dividing a product market. Agreements among competitors not to poach one another’s workers restrict worker mobility, depress wages, and harm our economy,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Antitrust violations know no borders and enforcement to stop these violations shouldn’t be unjustly limited either — the hockey leagues in this case deployed their anticompetitive scheme throughout Canada and the United States. I urge the court to reverse the dismissal of this case. Failing to do so would set a dangerous precedent and jeopardize states’ own ability to protect our residents by pursuing multistate and transnational antitrust cases.” 

The plaintiffs in this case, current and former players in the three major Canadian junior hockey leagues, allege that the three major Canadian junior hockey leagues agreed to divide North America into exclusive recruiting territories and not to recruit players from one another’s regions, suppressing competition for player services. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the case citing personal jurisdictional concerns. The court determined the defendants, many of which are based in Canada, lacked sufficient contact with Washington, where the case was filed, and that even allocating the Washington market was insufficient contact because the scheme targeted all of North America. Personal jurisdiction is a court's authority over the parties in a lawsuit, requiring them to have sufficient minimum contacts with the court's state to ensure fairness. 

In the brief, the attorneys general argue that the court’s decision to dismiss the case due to personal jurisdiction concerns — because the lawsuit was filed in Washington and the scheme targeted all of North America — raises concerns that may implicate future state enforcement authority. Courts should not allow conspirators to escape liability because they targeted fifty states, instead of one state, or because their conspiracy affected the U.S. and another country. The attorneys general argue that, if allowed to stand, this dismissal might embolden conspirators of these schemes to extend their wrongdoing across multiple jurisdictions in hopes of avoiding liability. 

In filing the brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Washington, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.  

A copy of the brief can be found here.