Eric S. Hochstadt is a partner in Weil’s Litigation Department. Mr. Hochstadt’s practice focuses on civil antitrust, class action, and other complex litigation, as well as criminal cartel investigations and antitrust counseling. He has represented clients in a broad range of industries, including broadcasting, e-commerce, electronics, financial services, pharmaceuticals, private equity, and transportation. Mr. Hochstadt has been recognized as a 2015 Competition “Rising Star” by Law360 and an “Up and Coming” lawyer for Antitrust in New York by Chambers USA.
Mr. Hochstadt has extensive experience with consumer and antitrust class action litigation, as well as antitrust lawsuits between rivals or suppliers and distributors, in state and federal courts around the country. He has litigated numerous dispositive and strategic motions, appeals, and has facilitated a number of favorable settlements, on behalf of litigation teams representing clients including eBay, Houghton Mifflin, GE, MasterCard, and StubHub, among others.
Mr. Hochstadt is a Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School teaching an advanced seminar on “U.S. Civil and Criminal Enforcement of International Cartels.” He also is a leader on the Economics Subcommittee of the ABA Section of Litigation’s Expert Witness Committee.
Mr. Hochstadt has served as an appointed member of the Executive Committee of the New York City Bar Association’s Antitrust Committee, a Vice-Chair of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law’s Membership & Equal Opportunity and Legislative Committees, and has been an active member of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law’s International Committee and New York State Bar Association’s Class Action Committee. In addition, he serves as an appointed officer of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Alumni Association’s Executive Committee. Mr. Hochstadt also regularly speaks and writes on a wide variety of issues.
Mr. Hochstadt began his career with the firm in 2003, following the receipt of his J.D. degree, magna cum laude and Order of the Coif, from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where he was a Notes Editor on the Cardozo Law Review. Mr. Hochstadt received his B.A. degree in Political Science, High Distinction, from the University of Michigan in 2000. From 2006-07, Mr. Hochstadt served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Loretta A. Preska, now Chief Judge of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Lightbourne v. Printroom, et al., No. 8:13-cv-00876-JLS (C.D. Cal.) – Represented CBS Interactive in a putative nationwide right of publicity class action regarding photographs of NCAA student-athletes made available for sale on universities’ athletic department websites names. Mr. Hochstadt and the Weil team successfully obtained a denial of class certification and grant of summary judgment dismissing the named plaintiff’s individual claims.
- Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishers, Inc. et al., No. 7:13-cv-4577 (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Houghton Mifflin entities and an employee in a putative nationwide Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action regarding alleged facsimiles advertising educational products that were supposedly sent to schools without their consent and without a proper opt-out notice. Weil successfully compelled arbitration of the school’s claim on an individual basis.
- Marshall et al v. ESPN Inc. et al., No. 3:14-cv-01945 (M.D. Tenn.) – Represented CBS in a putative nationwide right of publicity and antitrust class action regarding names, images and likenesses of student athletes in college football and basketball broadcasts. With counsel for other defendants, Mr. Hochstadt and the Weil team successfully moved to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.
- In re Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2557 (M.D. Fla.) – Defending Farmers Insurance entities in nearly twenty cases brought by auto repair shops across the country alleging antitrust, RICO, and other violations of state law to artificially suppress reimbursement rates. With counsel for other insurance carriers, Mr. Hochstadt and the Weil team successfully consolidated these cases for pretrial proceedings. All of the antitrust complaints have thus far been dismissed or recommended for dismissal.
- Meredith Corporation, et al. v. SESAC LLC, et al., No. 09-cv-9177 (S.D.N.Y.) – Successfully represented a group of local television stations as plaintiffs in a putative class action alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act based on SESAC’s licensing practices for access to its repertory of musical performances. Mr. Hochstadt served as a lead attorney in successfully opposing summary judgment thus ensuring that plaintiffs would get to a jury trial, and subsequently entered into a very favorable industry-wide class action settlement that provided $42.5 million in refunds and placed various restrictions on SESAC's dealings with local television stations over a 20-year period.
- Adams Book Company, Inc. v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, No. 1:14-cv-04069 (E.D.N.Y.) – Representing Houghton Mifflin in a lawsuit by Adams Book Company claiming its distribution policies for resellers of its textbooks are anticompetitive and otherwise unlawful. Weil successfully opposed the application by Adams for a preliminary injunction to force Houghton Mifflin to do business with Adams on the same terms and conditions from when they did business in 2012. In July 2014, the court concluded that Adams failed to show irreparable harm from not being able to obtain Houghton Mifflin textbooks.
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Sabre, Inc., et al., No. 067-249214-10 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Tarrant County); American Airlines Inc. v. Travelport Ltd., et al., No. 11-0244 (N.D. Tex.) – Represented American Airlines in antitrust litigation arising out of disputes with the nation’s two largest global airline ticket distribution system (GDS) companies (Sabre Holdings and Travelport), as well as Orbitz Worldwide, an online travel agency partially owned by Travelport. American Airlines alleged that Sabre and Travelport imposed artificial barriers through their dealings with travel agencies, software developers and others to the adoption of American’s new “direct connect” technology that would allow American’s flight and fare information to bypass the GDSs and go directly to travel agencies. American Airlines sued in federal and state court for unlawful monopolization, unreasonable restraints of trade, and an illegal group boycott under federal and state antitrust law. With co-counsel, Mr. Hochstadt was involved in drafting the complaints, successfully opposing multiple motions to dismiss, participating in fact and expert discovery, and, in the case against Sabre, a jury trial. American Airlines ultimately secured favorable resolutions with each defendant.
- Klein et al v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC et al., No. 1:07-cv-12388 (D. Mass.) – Represented Thomas H. Lee Partners (THL), one of the world's largest private equity firms, in a putative nationwide antitrust class action in which shareholders of publicly-traded companies that were taken private in “club” leveraged buyouts that occurred between 2003 and 2007, and that involved purchase prices in excess of $2.5 billion. Plaintiff alleged that THL and ten of the other largest private equity firms and investment banks in the world conspired to artificially suppress the prices paid to shareholders through horizontal agreements to allocate deals, rig auction bids and refrain from competing with one another in violation of the Sherman Act. Mr. Hochstadt was a lead attorney in successfully obtaining summary judgment for THL.
- Sirius XM Radio, Inc., v. SoundExchange, Inc., et al., No. 12-cv-2259 (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented leading satellite radio service provider suing the SoundExchange performance rights organization and an industry trade association for licensing practices and conduct that violate the federal antitrust laws, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. Mr. Hochstadt was a lead attorney in securing favorable settlements with each defendant to stop and prevent the conduct that gave rise to the lawsuit.
- Hill v. StubHub, Inc., et al., No. COA11-685 (N.C. Ct. App.) – Represented StubHub, Inc. in securing a reversal on appeal and judgment in its favor in a putative consumer class action lawsuit alleging violations of North Carolina’s ticket statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-344, and North Carolina’s unfair and deceptive trade practices act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, in connection with the resale of tickets to a “Miley Cyrus as Hannah Montana” concert. The case involved the scope of immunity under the Communications Decency Act – an issue of first impression under North Carolina law. Mr. Hochstadt was a primary drafter of the appellate brief.
- Precision Associates, Inc., et al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et al., No. 1:08-cv-00042 (E.D.N.Y.) – Representing Vantec World Transport entities in a putative treble damage class action lawsuit alleging that numerous air cargo freight forwarders conspired to fix or pass-on certain charges to customers. Mr. Hochstadt was a lead attorney involved in facilitating a favorable class action settlement in this matter, obtaining final approval at the district court, and having a most-favored nation’s clause upheld against an objection from certain non-settling defendants.
- Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., et al. v. General Electric Co., No. 10-5087 (W.D. Ark.) – Represented GE in a lawsuit brought by a competitor alleging that GE is attempting to monopolize the U.S. market for variable speed wind energy turbines through the unlawful enforcement of its patents. Mr. Hochstadt was a primary drafter of GE’s successful motion to stay Mitsubishi's antitrust and other claims in favor of the ongoing patent cases between the parties.
- Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al v. Sandoz, Nos. 3:07-cv-02762 and 3:08-cv-02693 (D.N.J.) – Represented the patent holder and exclusive licensee in defending antitrust counterclaims asserted by a generic drug maker in patent infringement litigation involving Eloxatin®. Mr. Hochstadt was a lead drafter of the successful motion to bifurcate and stay discovery of the antitrust counterclaims pending resolution of the underlying patent case. He also provided settlement counseling and has been involved in successfully defending against a generic drug maker's challenge to its settlement.