On April 10, United States District Court Judge Michael Baylson (S.D.N.Y.) dismissed antitrust claims brought by a former AXA Equitable Life Insurance agent against AXA, holding that AXA’s refusal to permit plaintiff to continue to sell AXA products through his new employer, an independent broker dealer, did not state a claim under the antitrust laws.

In the action, Moody v. AXA Advisors, the plaintiff claimed that AXA retaliated against him for resigning from AXA by seeking to harm plaintiff’s business opportunities with his new employer, The Leaders Group, an independent securities broker dealer. In addition to alleging that AXA had defamed him and committed other business torts, Mooney claimed that AXA had refused to consent to his sale of AXA annuities at his new employer, which was required to obtain such consent from AXA pursuant to its contract with AXA, for anticompetitive purposes, thus violating federal and state antitrust laws.

AXA moved to have the antitrust claims dismissed, claiming that plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege competitive harm to any relevant market. In response, plaintiff argued that by preventing AXA-affiliated agents from selling AXA-affiliated products if they choose to leave AXA, the AXA restriction “chills insurance agents from leaving AXA.” However, the Court rejected plaintiff’s argument, finding that the relevant market was not limited to just AXA agents, and that “the restriction encourages former AXA-affiliated agents to sell non-AXA products,” which “increases competition, not diminishes it.” Accordingly, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s antitrust claims, with prejudice, while permitting plaintiff’s breach of contract and tort claims to proceed into discovery.