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,…
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. …
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…
Alabama et al. v. Endo International, No. 3:19-cv-04157 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2019)
Eighteen states reached a settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. under which Endo paid $2.3 million to settle allegations it entered into a reverse-payment agreement to obstruct generic competition to Lidoderm, a pain relief patch frequently used to treat shingles. According to the complaint, Endo had an agreement with Watson Laboratories Inc. ensuring Endo would not face…
Maryland v. Cerquetti, C.I. 291344016 (Cir. Ct. for Baltimore City 1992)
Bid-rigging on state construction contracts
Maryland v. Hayes, C.I. 19012019 (Cir. Ct. for Baltimore City 1990).
During pre-bid walk-through of asbestos removal jobs, defendant agreed with others to rig competitive sealed bids and file complementary bids on some jobs.
Maryland v. Thrappas, C.I. 290232012 (Cir. Ct. for Baltimore City 1990).
Defendant agreed with others to submit rigged bids on asbestos abatement jobs.
Maryland v. C & C Development, Inc., C.I. No. 291344017 (Cir. Ct. for Baltimore City, 1991).
Bid-rigging conspiracy with state employee.
Maryland v. Myers, C.I. 292037009 (Cir. Ct. for Baltimore City 1991).
Project manager for state conspired to rig bids on construction contracts.
