Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman
Nota Bene Episode 46: America’s Existential Antitrust Crisis with Thomas Dillickrath
Instapundit: America's IP Laws Need to be "Pruned Back"
$300 Million Dairy Settlement Will Bring Reform, Lawyer Says
The Justice Department has a long and rich history of targeting dominant companies using antitrust monopolization tools — looking back to the 1980s, it was AT&T; in the 1990s, it was Microsoft; and in 2023, DOJ has brought a...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
On November 13, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Northern District of California’s denial of class certification in an action against Apple, Inc., holding that the plaintiffs’ expert’s wait-and-see approach to calculating the...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
That massive thud? That would be the other shoe dropping in the form of Chinese counter tariffs on another $60 billion in US goods in response to the White House’s trade moves last week....more
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear Apple Inc. v. Pepper, a major case involving antitrust standing, interested parties across the political spectrum are weighing in with their ideas of how the case should be resolved....more
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and will hear, next term, an appeal from Ninth Circuit’s decision in In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, a case we previously reported on. In In re Apple iPhone, the Ninth Circuit...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently addressed again when plaintiffs have standing to pursue federal antitrust claims under the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431...more