Cinemark: Difference between revisions

Line 55:

These conditions shift risk and legal protections away from users by embedding restrictive clauses in mandatory account agreements—especially where users are unlikely to read or understand fine-print ToS.

== Anti-consumer legal cases ==

==Anti-consumer legal cases==

=== Anti-competitive behavior ===

===Anti-competitive behavior===

==== U.S. and State of Texas v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al. (May 2013—August 2013) ====

====U.S. and State of Texas v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al. (May 2013—August 2013)====

The U.S. and the State of Texas brought civil antitrust action against Cinemark Holdings, Inc. in an effort to "prevent the proposed acquisition by Cinemark Holdings, Inc. (“Cinemark”) of thirty-two movie theatres owned and operated by Rave Holdings, LLC (“Rave Cinemas”)"<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2013-05-20 |title=U.S. and State of Texas v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al. |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/491746/dl |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref>. The Cinemark acquisition of Rave Holdings constituted a $220 million dollar deal, where Cinemark was to acquire 35 of Rave Holdings' theaters across 12 states<ref>{{Cite web |date=2013 |title=United States and Texas v. Cinemark Holdings et al., No. 13-727 (D.D.C. 2013) |url=https://www.naag.org/multistate-case/united-states-and-texas-v-cinemark-holdings-et-al-no-13-727-d-d-c-2013/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=National Association of Attorneys General}}</ref>. Rave Holdings constituted a large majority of the competition facing Cinemark "in and around Voorhees and Somerdale in southern New Jersey, the eastern sector of Louisville, Kentucky, and the area in and around Denton, Texas"<ref name=":0" />. so the acquisition of Rave Holdings by Cinemark was seen by the Department of Justice as a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, which states that "No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock... the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly"<ref>{{Cite web |date=1914-10-15 |title=Acquisition by one corporation of stock of another |url=https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title15-section18&num=0 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=Office of the Law Revision Counsel}}</ref>.

The U.S. and the State of Texas brought civil antitrust action against Cinemark Holdings, Inc. in an effort to "prevent the proposed acquisition by Cinemark Holdings, Inc. (“Cinemark”) of thirty-two movie theatres owned and operated by Rave Holdings, LLC (“Rave Cinemas”)"<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2013-05-20 |title=U.S. and State of Texas v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al. |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/491746/dl |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref>. The Cinemark acquisition of Rave Holdings constituted a $220 million dollar deal, where Cinemark was to acquire 35 of Rave Holdings' theaters across 12 states<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2013 |title=United States and Texas v. Cinemark Holdings et al., No. 13-727 (D.D.C. 2013) |url=https://www.naag.org/multistate-case/united-states-and-texas-v-cinemark-holdings-et-al-no-13-727-d-d-c-2013/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=National Association of Attorneys General}}</ref>. Rave Holdings constituted a large majority of the competition facing Cinemark "in and around Voorhees and Somerdale in southern New Jersey, the eastern sector of Louisville, Kentucky, and the area in and around Denton, Texas"<ref name=":0" />. Additionally, Cinemark's founder and Chairman of the Board was noted as owning Movie Tavern, Inc. ("Movie Tavern"), which was a significant competitor to Rave Cinemas in western Forth Worth, Texas.

Thus, the acquisition of Rave Holdings by Cinemark was seen by the Department of Justice as a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, which states that "No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock... the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly"<ref>{{Cite web |date=1914-10-15 |title=Acquisition by one corporation of stock of another |url=https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title15-section18&num=0 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=Office of the Law Revision Counsel}}</ref>.

Final judgement was passed on August 15, 2013 which ordered Cinemark to divest Movie Tavern, Inc., as well as three Texas based theaters<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2013-08-15 |title=U.S. and State of Texas v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al. - Final Judgment |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/491711/dl |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref>.

==References==

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 These conditions shift risk and legal protections away from users by embedding restrictive clauses in mandatory account agreements—especially where users are unlikely to read or understand fine-print ToS.
-== Anti-consumer legal cases ==
+==Anti-consumer legal cases==
-=== Anti-competitive behavior ===
+===Anti-competitive behavior===
-==== U.S. and State of Texas v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al. (May 2013—August 2013) ====
+====U.S. and State of Texas v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al. (May 2013—August 2013)====
-The U.S. and the State of Texas brought civil antitrust action against Cinemark Holdings, Inc. in an effort to "prevent the proposed acquisition by Cinemark Holdings, Inc. (“Cinemark”) of thirty-two movie theatres owned and operated by Rave Holdings, LLC (“Rave Cinemas”)"<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2013-05-20 |title=U.S. and State of Texas v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al. |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/491746/dl |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref>. The Cinemark acquisition of Rave Holdings constituted a $220 million dollar deal, where Cinemark was to acquire 35 of Rave Holdings' theaters across 12 states<ref>{{Cite web |date=2013 |title=United States and Texas v. Cinemark Holdings et al., No. 13-727 (D.D.C. 2013) |url=https://www.naag.org/multistate-case/united-states-and-texas-v-cinemark-holdings-et-al-no-13-727-d-d-c-2013/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=National Association of Attorneys General}}</ref>. Rave Holdings constituted a large majority of the competition facing Cinemark "in and around Voorhees and Somerdale in southern New Jersey, the eastern sector of Louisville, Kentucky, and the area in and around Denton, Texas"<ref name=":0" />. so the acquisition of Rave Holdings by Cinemark was seen by the Department of Justice as a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, which states that "No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock... the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly"<ref>{{Cite web |date=1914-10-15 |title=Acquisition by one corporation of stock of another |url=https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title15-section18&num=0 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=Office of the Law Revision Counsel}}</ref>.
+The U.S. and the State of Texas brought civil antitrust action against Cinemark Holdings, Inc. in an effort to "prevent the proposed acquisition by Cinemark Holdings, Inc. (“Cinemark”) of thirty-two movie theatres owned and operated by Rave Holdings, LLC (“Rave Cinemas”)"<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2013-05-20 |title=U.S. and State of Texas v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al. |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/491746/dl |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref>. The Cinemark acquisition of Rave Holdings constituted a $220 million dollar deal, where Cinemark was to acquire 35 of Rave Holdings' theaters across 12 states<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2013 |title=United States and Texas v. Cinemark Holdings et al., No. 13-727 (D.D.C. 2013) |url=https://www.naag.org/multistate-case/united-states-and-texas-v-cinemark-holdings-et-al-no-13-727-d-d-c-2013/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=National Association of Attorneys General}}</ref>. Rave Holdings constituted a large majority of the competition facing Cinemark "in and around Voorhees and Somerdale in southern New Jersey, the eastern sector of Louisville, Kentucky, and the area in and around Denton, Texas"<ref name=":0" />. Additionally, Cinemark's founder and Chairman of the Board was noted as owning Movie Tavern, Inc. ("Movie Tavern"), which was a significant competitor to Rave Cinemas in western Forth Worth, Texas.
+Thus, the acquisition of Rave Holdings by Cinemark was seen by the Department of Justice as a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, which states that "No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock... the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly"<ref>{{Cite web |date=1914-10-15 |title=Acquisition by one corporation of stock of another |url=https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title15-section18&num=0 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=Office of the Law Revision Counsel}}</ref>.
+Final judgement was passed on August 15, 2013 which ordered Cinemark to divest Movie Tavern, Inc., as well as three Texas based theaters<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2013-08-15 |title=U.S. and State of Texas v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al. - Final Judgment |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/491711/dl |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref>.
 ==References==