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…

Read More →

Ohio et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), No. 1:23-cv-00100 (N.D. W.V. Dec. 7, 2023)

Seven plaintiff states filed suit against the NCAA, alleging that the NCAA’s transfer eligibility rule is an illegal restraint on college athletes’ ability to market their labor and control their education.  The rule requires college athletes who transfer among Division 1 schools to wait one year before competing in games, unless they obtain a waiver…

Read More →

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…

Read More →

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…

Read More →

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…

Read More →

Colorado et al. v. Google, No. 1:30-cv-03715 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 2020)

Thirty-eight states sued Google, alleging that Google illegally maintains its monopoly power over general search engines and related general search advertising markets through a series of anticompetitive contracts and conduct, hurting both consumers and advertisers. Consumers are denied the benefits of competition, including the possibility of higher quality services and better privacy protections. Advertisers are…

Read More →

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…

Read More →

State of Tennessee v. Jack Pittman & Associates

The Defendant and others discussed, exchanged information, or agreed with each other before bids were opened as to which person or entity would be the successful bidder. The Defendant and others agreed between or among themselves to allocate certain territories, governmental entities, private businesses, or other areas.

Read More →

State of Tennessee v. James Beatty

The Defendant and others discussed, exchanged information, or agreed with each other before bids were opened as to which person or entity would be the successful bidder. The Defendant and others agreed between or among themselves to allocate certain territories, governmental entities, private businesses, or other areas.

Read More →

State of Tennessee v. Linda Beatty A/K/A Maryville Waste Oil

The Defendant and others discussed, exchanged information, or agreed with each other before bids were opened as to which person or entity would be the successful bidder. The Defendant and others agreed between or among themselves to allocate certain territories, governmental entities, private businesses, or other areas.

Read More →