Chris Yates, former Global Co-Chair of the firm’s Antitrust & Competition Practice, litigates precedent-setting cases across the US, with particular focus on monopolization and sports antitrust litigation.

Leveraging more than two decades experience at the forefront of antitrust law, Mr. Yates guides household brands and world-leading sports and entertainment properties through nuanced and novel competition issues, including:

  • Defending challenges to sports governing bodies 
  • Claims at the intersection of IP and antitrust 
  • Protecting distribution, pricing policies, and go-to-market strategies
  • Industry group’s ability to set standards 
  • Allegations of aftermarket monopolization 
  • Successfully mitigating class actions

He has a track record of success in federal trial courts across the country, including in California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and Delaware, and has won appeals before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and other courts of appeal.

A recognized thought leader, Mr. Yates regularly speaks on current antitrust litigation issues and is an active member of the American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section.

Mr. Yates maintains an active pro bono practice, including work on behalf of seniors — for which he and his team received the Justice Walker Pro Bono Award — as well as for veterans and Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), an organization that focuses on unaccompanied and separated children’s rights in the US.

Mr. Yates currently serves on the firm’s Associates Committee.

Mr. Yates’ experience includes representing:

Sports and Entertainment

  • World Aquatics (formerly FINA), the International Federation for aquatic sports, in defeating certification of a damages class of elite swimmers and in obtaining summary judgment of monopolization and monopsony claims brought by elite swimmers and a swimming league, for which he earned Litigator of the Week Honors from The American Lawyer
  • The US Soccer Federation in many matters over more than a decade, including wins at trial and also wins that garnered recognition from The American Lawyer and as GCR’s Litigation of the Year, such as:
    • Securing a victory at summary judgment, defeating claims brought by a promoter alleging that the Federation and Major League Soccer entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade
    • Defeating a preliminary injunction brought by the North American Soccer League (affirmed by the Second Circuit) alleging the Federation’s Professional League Standards are the product of a conspiracy
    • Defending claims that the Federation conspired with FIFA to exclude regular season Spanish league games from the United States, earning him Runner Up for Litigator of the Week by The American Lawyer and recognition as GCR’s Litigation of the Year
    • Defending the Federation in an arbitration before the US Olympic Committee
  • UFC in an ongoing monopsony class action brought by fighters
  • Waddell & Reed in obtaining complete dismissal of a complaint alleging that W&R and boxing manager Al Haymon entered into an unlawful conspiracy, in a result The American Lawyer called an “unequivocal win”
  • Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), the organizer of the Golden Globes, in litigation alleging that antitrust laws require the HFPA open its membership to “all objectively qualified applicants”; the court granted HFPAs motion to dismiss with prejudice, earning Runner Up honors for Litigator of the Week from The American Lawyer
  • National Women's Soccer League in litigation challenging the Leagues age requirement
  • Fanatics in actions brought by consumers and retailers challenging Fanatic’s exclusive agreement with the NFL and MLB and in separate litigation brought by a trading card competitor alleging that Fanatics’ exclusive agreements to license league and player intellectual property violates the antitrust laws
  • The Atlantic Coast Conference in the In re Name, Image and Likeness Litigation and in another class action brought by current or former college athletes

Technology and IP

  • Apple in monopolization and conspiracy cases over two decades, including:
    • Defeating a series of individual cases and a putative class action, at trial and on appeal, brought by resellers who alleged that Apple violated California’s antitrust and unfair competition laws by opening its own retail stores
    • Defeating a nationwide consumer class action, at the class certification stage, brought by plaintiffs claiming that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising laws
    • Defeating a putative class action, at the class certification stage, asserting that Apple and AT&T Mobility violated antitrust and other laws when introducing the iPhone 
    • Securing a summary judgment win against claims that Apple monopolizes a claimed aftermarket of software applications for the iPhone
  • Alcatel-Lucent in obtaining summary judgment in the Eastern District of Texas against allegations of conspiracy to remove the plaintiff’s technology from a wireless standard
  • Capital One in prosecuting antitrust claims against Intellectual Ventures, a notorious patent troll
  • SanDisk in connection with antitrust counterclaims alleging that Round Rock (a patent assertion entity) violated the antitrust laws
  • Oracle in many matters over 20 years, including as trial counsel in defeating the DOJ’s efforts to enjoin a merger, in a jury trial against competitors, and in defeating monopolization claims and obtaining tens of millions of dollars in recovery against unauthorized service providers; secured over US$100 million in damage judgments for Oracle

Healthcare and Life Sciences

  • Genentech against MedImmune’s allegations that one of Genentech’s settlement agreements was collusive and designed to extend a patent monopoly; the Federal Circuit affirmed the order granting Genentech summary judgment on Noerr grounds
  • NorthBay Healthcare in successful defense of conspiracy claims brought by a surgeon and in asserting claims against a large integrated healthcare insurer/provider


  • Hyatt in securing a favorable settlement in litigation alleging that it conspired to prevent online travel companies' use of trademarked keywords after the plaintiffs recognized that they could not obtain class certification
  • Orbitz in multiple matters, including securing dismissal of all claims in multidistrict litigation alleging that it and other online travel companies conspired and entered into resale price maintenance agreements with hotel chains

Consumer Products/Distribution

  • EssilorLuxottica in the early stages of a set of class actions targeting EssilorLuxottica and 48 other subsidiaries, manufacturers, retailers, and intellectual property licensors in relation to the pricing and distribution of eyewear products
  • An American multinational retail corporation in a series of antitrust cases related to the sale of disposable batteries
  • CooperVision, a leading contact lens manufacturer, in multidistrict litigation alleging that it conspired to implement unilateral pricing policies
  • DoorDash in successfully convincing plaintiffs’ counsel not to name DoorDash in the amended complaint for antitrust litigation alleging a conspiracy among food delivery companies to implement certain contractual terms
  • Guitar Center in securing dismissal with prejudice in a multidistrict litigation alleging that it orchestrated a conspiracy among manufacturers to fix resale prices through minimum advertised pricing programs; Ninth Circuit affirmed
  • Emerson Electric in:
    • Securing dismissal with prejudice in litigation alleging that Emerson and others unlawfully boycotted an innovative technology
    • Resolving litigation alleging that it monopolized the market for garbage waste disposers without any payment by Emerson
  • Reyes Holdings and Harbor Distributing in obtaining dismissal of all antitrust claims brought by a craft brewer seeking damages and divestiture of prior acquisitions
  • StarKist and Dongwon Industries, as lead counsel, in multidistrict litigation proceedings alleging that StarKist entered into a price-fixing conspiracy with Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea
  • U.S. Sugar, as co-lead trial counsel, in defeating the DOJ’s efforts to block U.S. Sugar’s acquisition of Imperial Sugar, including cross-examining the DOJ’s key witnesses and economist and showing the court that the economist’s assumptions were “flawed” and that his testimony was “internally inconsistent” and “unpersuasive”

Bar Qualification

  • California


  • JD, Columbia University School of Law, 1992
    Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar
  • BA, University of California, Berkeley, 1989
Light Christmas Golden Luxury Glitter Background.
December 28, 2023 Recognition

Encore! One Last Look at 2023’s Litigators of the Week

Four Latham teams were honored as winners of The American Lawyer’s prestigious Litigators of the Week column in 2023. The wins spanned multiple litigation practices and industries, including antitrust, intellectual property, securities, environmental and product liability, technology, and sports, among others.