This decision affirms a judgment against Anthem for violating the Cartwright Act by a vertical boycott. Anthem announced that it would not accept “wrapped” health insurance plans of the type that Ben-E-Lect offered to small employers, and Anthem said it would terminate any of its agents who attempted to offer Anthem insurance plans in a “wrapped” package, such as those offered through Ben-E-Lect. Anthem could conspire with its agents since they operated as separate economic units, often operating as agents for competitors as well as Anthem. Anthem was shown to hold market power in the Central Valley and several other parts of California where it held up to 80% of the market. Anthem’s ban on wrapped plans was not justified by its concern that such plans would be uneconomical because they would encourage higher utilization rates. In making that judgment, Anthem relied on theoretical principles but ignored its actual experience and the actual experience of wrapped plans with other insurers in California. The ban on wrapped plans caused antitrust injury by severely limiting the use of wrapped plans by employers and the sale of those plans by brokers and agents. In awarding damages, the trial court relied largely on Anthem’s own damage expert, and so its award was well supported by the evidence.