Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman
Apple Loses First 'Big' Case to MobileMedia, Lawyer Says
Hot Companies in Digital Health
This article is the second article in a three-part series. The first article detailed the procedural posture of the failed executive actions to create a TikTok ban. This article discusses the current Congressional attempt to...more
California AG Rob Bonta submitted an amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., that did not support either party but called for a broad and flexible interpretation of...more
The United States Supreme Court infrequently hears antitrust cases but when it decides to hear a case, the Court has the power to shape the framework of American antitrust laws. In this episode, we’re examining the...more
Still-new TIkTok CEO Kevin Mayer has stepped down, “just months after taking the helm of the viral short video app.” ByteDance had appointed Mayer in May in an effort “to make the case that TikTok operates as a separate...more
Following recent histrionics from the White House, ByteDance, “the Chinese internet giant that owns TikTok, has offered to sell all of the popular video app’s American operations as a way to save the business from being...more
Gilead Sciences Inc. reports that its remdesivir virus treatment has been positively correlated with a 62% reduction in death risks compared with the standard of care in an initial analysis....more
As businesses and other organizations in the private sector cautiously open their doors in the wake of the pandemic, DCT enables more efficient tracing of infected employees and notification to those at-risk. DCT also offers...more
In an effort to battle COVID-19, Google and Apple have announced an agreement to roll-out an API (essentially a software platform on which to develop an application or “App”) to allow the creation of Apps that can track...more
Apple recently revised its review guidelines to allow push notifications that include “advertising, promotions, or direct marketing.” This changes a prior -and longstanding- prohibition on push notices that contain such...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision holding that iPhone owners who purchased applications through Apple’s App Store were “direct purchasers” who could sue Apple for monopolization....more
In May 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Apple v. Pepper, one of the Court's most significant antitrust rulings of the last several years. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court...more
In a 5–4 decision, in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) followed the its 1977 precedent in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, which limits the assertion of antitrust damage claims to the first purchaser...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its most recent decision relating to antitrust class action litigation. The case, Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, could represent a significant shift in antitrust class action...more
In a 5-4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have reworked a longstanding precedent that has been a foundation of antitrust litigation for more than 40 years—the “direct purchaser” rule of Illinois Brick, which...more
In a recent decision decided on May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court allowed an antitrust suit to move forward against Apple. Consumers brought suit based on Apple’s operation of its App Store – which serves as the exclusive...more
In a 5-4 ruling issued on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Apple Inc. v. Pepper determined that iPhone users may proceed with their claims against Apple over its alleged anticompetitive app store practices. The decision...more
• The U.S. Supreme Court split 5-4 on how to apply Illinois Brick’s prohibition on federal indirect purchaser lawsuits to a case where plaintiff app purchasers bought apps from the Apple App Store, paying a price set by the...more
The United States Supreme Court decided this week that purchasers of apps through the Apple App Store have standing under federal antitrust law to bring a class-action lawsuit against the tech giant....more
Wondering if you’re a direct purchaser from a monopoly? There’s a Supreme Court ruling for that. Our Antitrust Team downloads the Court’s Apple v. Pepper decision and considers its conclusions and implications....more
On May 13, 2019, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the views of the U.S. Solicitor General, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, and the Federal Trade Commission when it kept alive a putative class...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of iPhone owners who are suing Apple. The iPhone owners claim that Apple, through its App Store, has established a monopoly and uses that power to charge consumers more for...more
In APPLE INC. v. PEPPER ET AL., case number 17-204, the United States Supreme Court considered a case alleging Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to...more
On May 13, 2019, in a 5-4 decision in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court held that consumers of iPhone apps are direct purchasers of Apple and therefore have standing to sue the company for alleged monopolization of...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, holding that iPhone owners who purchase apps from Apple’s App Store are “direct purchasers” from Apple and may sue Apple for alleged monopolization...more
Fascinating weekend feature from the Journal exploring how Sears Roebuck went from the dominant force in American retailing to the bankrupt shell of a company that it is now—all within a period of just 40 years....more