People of California v. Vitol, Inc. et al., (Cal. Super. Ct. (San Francisco Cty.)
Plaintiff state sued two gasoline trading firms, Vitol Inc. and SK Energy Americas, alleging that they took advantage of market disruptions from a 2015 refinery explosion in Torrance to improperly drive up the gasoline prices. The state sought an injunction, damages, restitution, and civil penalties. The complaint alleged that the two companies made manipulative trades…
New York et al. v. Meta (originally Facebook Inc.), No. 20-3589 (D.D.C.)
Forty-eight plaintiff states filed a lawsuit against Facebook Inc., alleging that the company harms the public by illegally stifling competition to protect its monopoly power. The states alleged that, over the last decade, the social networking giant illegally acquired competitors in a predatory manner and cut services to smaller firms that threatened its power, depriving…
U.S. et al. v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No. 1:23-cv-10511 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2023)
The U.S. Department of Justice and seven states sued to block JetBlue’s takeover of Spirit Airlines, alleging that the deal would lessen competition and potentially increase costs and decrease reliability for passengers. According to the complaint, Spirit is a budget airline whose presence in a city pair may cause other airlines to lower their prices. …
United States et al. v. Google LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00108 (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2023)
The United States and eight plaintiff states sued Google for monopolizing multiple digital advertising technology products in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that Google monopolizes key digital advertising technologies, collectively referred to as the “ad tech stack,” that website publishers depend on to sell ads and that…
California ex rel. Bonta v. KYB Copr.
As part of a large class action, plaintiff state filed suit against manufacturers of automotive shock absorbers, alleging that the defendants, from the mid-1990s through at least 2012, conspired to rig bids for, and to fix stabilize and maintain the price of shock absorbers installed in autos purchased by the plaintiff state. Defendant pled guilty…
Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiff States and Citibank (June 2018)
Forty-two plaintiff states reached a $100 million settlement with Citibank for fraudulent conduct involving interest rate manipulation that had a significant impact on consumers and financial markets around the world. UBS’ fraudulent conduct involved the manipulation of LIBOR (the London Interbank Offered Rate). LIBOR is a benchmark interest rate that affects financial instruments worth trillions…
California v. Valero Energy Corp., No. C17-03786 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2017)
Plaintiff state sought to enjoin proposed purchase by Valero of two petroleum storage and distribution terminals owned by Plains in Martinez and Richmond, California. The complaint has been filed under seal. The court denied the state’s request for a TRO, but held that the state had a likelihood of success on the merits. The parties abandoned the transaction.
Utah et al. v. Google LLC, No. 3:21-cv-05227 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2021)
Thirty-seven states filed a lawsuit against Google for monopolizing the smartphone application market in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. According to the complaint, Google operates a web of exclusionary agreements with phone manufacturers and carriers to exert control over app distribution on Android phones through its Google Play Store. By leveraging those anticompetitive…
California v. Denso, No. 2:19-cv-13566 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 3, 2019)
As part of its ongoing participation in the ongoing Automotive Parts multidistrict litigation, California reached a settlement with Denso to resolve claims that as part of a conspiracy with dozens of auto parts manufactures, competition in the automotive parts market was suppressed and eliminated by illegal bid rigging. The state’s complaint alleged that Denso had…
People v. Donald Sherwin, C030485 (Cal. Ct. App. 3d App. Dist.)8/15/00)
State indicted defendants on conspiracy to rig bids for supplying foodstuffs to state, undermining state’s small business preferences and perjury. After defendants’ motion for suppression of evidence was granted, case was dismissed.
