"Absolutely spectacular on every level. Knowledgeable, tough, and hardworking."
The Legal 500 US 2024
"A voice of wisdom. He is very practical."
Chambers USA 2024
"Chris has a depth of knowledge of the space."
Chambers USA 2024
Leading Lawyer ‒ Antitrust: Civil Litigation/Class Actions Defense
The Legal 500 US 2024
"Hailed as a 'renowned attorney' whose presence 'indicates a committed legal defense' by national media outlets covering his cases."
Newsweek's coverage of select 2024 matters
Litigation Star
Benchmark Litigation 2025
"The 'well-prepared, consistent, detailed, and energetic' Christopher Yates offers significant trial experience involving high profile clients."
The Legal 500 US 2023
Profile
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, Chris 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 and recipient of multiple AmLaw Litigator of the Week honors, Chris regularly speaks on current antitrust litigation issues and is an active member of the American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section.
Chris 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.
Chris also served on the firm’s Associates Committee from 2011-2024.
Experience
Chris' experience includes representing:
Sports and Entertainment
NASCAR in high-profile, fast moving, antitrust litigation brought two racing teams, one owned by Michael Jordan. We secured an early victory in the case by persuading the court to deny a preliminary injunction, a decision recognized as Runner Up for Litigator of the Week by 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
World Aquatics (formerly FINA) in class action litigation alleging the league monopolized market for elite swimming events
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 HFPA’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, earning Runner Up honors for Litigator of the Week from The American Lawyer
National Women's Soccer Leaguein litigation challenging the League’s 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
SanDiskin 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
Travel
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 Centerin 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 Electricin:
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”
Qualifications
Bar Qualification
California
Education
JD, Columbia University School of Law, 1992 Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar
In the leading competition publication’s annual review of the strongest antitrust practices around the globe, the firm dominated in every category, ranking second across all specialties.
Former Global Co-Chair of the Antitrust & Competition Practice Christopher Yates was named a Sports & Betting MVP by Law360 for his work on precedent-setting cases across the US, with particular focus on monopolization and sports antitrust litigation.
Appellate opinion cements earlier multi-court successes against the US Department of Justice high-profile challenge to U.S. Sugar’s purchase of Imperial Sugar.
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.