United States and Plaintiff States v. Real Page (M.D.N.C. 1:24-CV-00710)
Nie attorneys general have joined the U.S. Department of Justice in a lawsuit against Real Page, Inc. In a January 2025 amended complaint, the plaintiff states and the DOJ added six large landlords as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that RealPage facilitates the anticompetitive information exchange of nonpublic, competitively sensitive information about rental rates and other…
United States and Plaintiff States v. Live Nation Entertainment et al (S.D.N.Y. 1:24-CV-03973-AS)
Forty attorneys general joined the U.S. Department of Justice in a lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and its subsidiary, Ticketmaster L.L.C. The lawsuit alleges that Live Nation has undertaken anticompetitive conduct in various markets across the live concert ecosystem to maintain its monopoly positions in the markets for primary ticketing services for major concert…
U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-04055 (D.N.J. Mar. 21, 2024)
Sixteen states and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Apple for monopolization or attempted monopolization of smartphone markets in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleges that Apple illegally maintains a monopoly over…
FTC and Plaintiff States v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-01495 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2023)
The FTC and plaintiff states alleged that Amazon, an online retail and technology company, is a monopolist that uses a set of interlocking anticompetitive and unfair strategies to illegally maintain its monopoly power. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon’s actions allow it to stop rivals and sellers from lowering prices, degrade quality for shoppers, overcharge sellers,…
Connecticut et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:19-cv-02407, (E.D. Pa. filed in MDL 05/30/2019)
44 plaintiff states filed suit against Teva Pharmaceuticals and 19 of the nation’s largest generic drug manufacturers alleging a broad conspiracy to artificially inflate and manipulate prices, reduce competition and unreasonably restrain trade for more than 100 different generic drugs. The lawsuit was originally Connecticut, was transferred to the MDL court in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit…
Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, et al., Case No. 20-cv-3539 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2020), MDL 2724 (E.D. Pa.)
Plaintiff states filed a third lawsuit stemming from the ongoing antitrust investigation into a widespread conspiracy by generic drug manufacturers to artificially inflate and manipulate prices, reduce competition, and unreasonably restrain trade for generic drugs sold across the United States. The complaint focuses on 80 topical generic drugs and names 26 corporate Defendants and 10…
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…
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…
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…
Connecticut v. Marsh & McLennan Companies et al., , No. X05-CV-05-4004360-S (Ct. Super. Ct. 2009)
Plaintiff state originially sued insurance carrier ACE, alleging kickbacks from ACE to Marsh. See In the Matter of ACE Ltd. and ACE Group Holdings, Inc. The state later expanded the lawsuit against Marsh, alleging that, when Marsh customers wanted to purchase insurance or renew insurance they already had, Marsh brokers frequently decided which insurer should be given the business and at what price. Marsh’s quote for insurance was typically a substantial increase — as much as 15 to 20 percent — over the previous year’s price.
