Sixteen universities known for their exclusivity and high price tags have been accused of violating antitrust laws and artificially inflating the cost of attendance for students receiving financial aid.
A bipartisan group of state attorneys general argues that Google has used improper anti-competitive methods to force developers and consumers to use its app store.
In an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, Inc., Apple has asked the court to dismiss a claim that its iOS is an essential facility. While Epic’s claim iOS is an essential facility is only one of ten counts alleged against Apple, a win for Apple on this issue could be impactful.
A proposed state law would require app store operators such as Apple and Google to allow app developers to use their own payment processing systems, thus avoiding fees for the use of systems provided by app stores.
On Friday, December 11, 2020, the State of California filed a motion for joinder in United States of America et al v. Google, LLC, the antitrust lawsuit filed by the United States Department of Justice in October against Google. Eleven states are already named parties in the complaint; California is the first Democratic state to join the lawsuit.
Tech giant Google faces scrutiny from state attorneys general and the federal Justice Department for potential violations related to online searches, advertising, and Android products.
Led by New York State Attorney General Letitia James, the attorneys general of eight states and the District of Columbia will investigate Facebook for possible violations of antitrust laws. The investigation arises from concerns over the dominance of Facebook in its industry, and it will examine whether Facebook may be restricting the choices available to consumers.
On Monday, May 13, 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. __ (2019). Four iPhone users sued Apple, Inc., alleging that the company monopolized the app market, which resulted in higher-than-competitive prices for apps. Apple argued that the consumer-plaintiffs were barred from suing Apple since the consumer-plaintiffs were not "direct purchasers" from Apple, as defined in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 745-746 (1977). The District Court agreed with Apple, while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and concluded that the consumer-plaintiffs were direct purchasers because they purchased the apps directly from Apple.