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
A bipartisan coalition of 16 AGs and the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Apple, Inc. for alleged monopolization of the smartphone market in violation of the Sherman Act and certain states’ antitrust laws....more
A jury in the Northern District of California in Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLP found that Google maintained an unlawful monopoly of the Google Play app store and Google Play Billing service in violation of Sections 1 and 2...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
A recent decision from Judge Edward M. Chen in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California focuses on the sufficiency of allegations of market definition to state a claim for federal antitrust...more
The U.S. antitrust laws are slow to keep up with technical innovation and changing marketplaces. Nowhere is that more evident than in the tech sector, where companies and other players in the market do not fit neatly into...more
A bipartisan group of 37 AGs, led by Utah AG Sean Reyes, New York AG Letitia James, North Carolina AG Josh Stein, and Tennessee AG Herbert Slatery, sued Google, LLC and related entities (collectively, “Google”) over...more
Attorney General William P. Barr Announces Publication of Cryptocurrency Enforcement Framework - "The Framework provides a comprehensive overview of the emerging threats and enforcement challenges associated with the...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 Tuesday I wrote about how Epic Games’ CEO Tim Sweeney was engaging Apple on at least three battlefronts. I missed a battlefront and I’m here today to rectify that mistake. I mentioned Epic’s groundbreaking and lucrative...more
Tim Sweeney, the Colossus of Cary, is fighting even bigger foes – Apple and Google. The multibillionaire chief executive of Epic Games has opened a multi-front war on the tribute that app developers are forced to pay to reach...more
Apple has removed spectacularly popular video game Fortnite from its App Store after accusing maker Epic Games of violating App Store Guidelines. Specifically, Epic has been encouraging users to make app payments directly to...more
In May, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), holding that consumers of Apple’s App Store could bring suit against the tech giant for antitrust claims. ...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