Whether, absent evidence of a marketwide price increase or output reduction, a reduction in competition between two members to a joint venture is sufficient to prove a substantial anticompetitive effect at step one of the rule of reason; Whether, to meet its burden at step two of the rule of reason, a defendant must disprove other potential causes for the asserted procompetitive benefits and prove that the asserted procompetitive benefits were not offset by out-of-market anticompetitive effects

Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits “unreasonable restraint[s] on competition.” Leegin Creative Leather Prods, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. , 551 U.S. 877, 885 (2007) (citation omitted). Because courts have long recognized their procompetitive potential, joint ventures are subject to antitrust law’s “rule of reason.” National Collegiate Athl etic Ass’n v. Alston , 594 U.S. 69, 96-97 (2021). Under this three-step framework, (1) a plaintiff must first prove “‘the challenged restraint has a substantial anticompetitive effect’”; (2) if the plaintiff carries that initial burden, “the burden then ‘shifts to the defendant to show a procompetitive rationale for the restraint’”; and (3) if th e defendant “make[s] that showing, ‘the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the procompetitive efficiencies could be reasonably achieved through less anticompetitive means.’” Id. (quoting Ohio v. American Express Co., 585 U.S. 529, 541-42 (2018)). This inquiry aims to ensure that courts prohibit only agreements “that are harm ful to the consumer.” Id. at 96 (citation omitted). The questions presented are: 1. Whether, absent evid ence of a marketwide price increase or output reduction, a reduction in competition between two members to a joint venture is sufficient to prove a substantial anticompetitive effect at step one of the rule of reason. 2. Whether, to meet its burden at step two of the rule of reason, a defendant must disprove other potential causes for the asserted procompetitive benefits and prove that the asserted procompetitive benefits were not offs et by out-of-market anticompetitive effects.