United States and Plaintiff States v. American Airlines et al. (D. Mass. 1:21-cv-11558)

Seven states and the U.S. Department of Justice brought a lawsuit alleging that a joint venture between American Airlines and JetBlue, the Northeast Alliance, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The plaintiff states and DOJ alleged that the defendants combined their operations at four airports, eliminating competition between them on routes involving those airports…

Read More →

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…

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 in 2023, 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…

Read More →

U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Nexstar Media Group et al., No. 19-02295 (D.D.C. 08/01/19)

Nexstar agreed to acquire Tribune Media Company for approximately $6.4 billion. USDOJ and plaintiff states sued, alleging that the merger would likely substantially lessen competition in thirteen Designated Market Areas (DMAs).  MVPDs, such as Comcast, DirecTV, and Charter, typically pay the owner of local broadcast stations in a given DMA a per-subscriber fee for the…

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 →

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 →

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…

Read More →

New York et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG et al., No. 1:19-cv-5434 (S.D.N.Y.)

States challenged merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, the third and fourth-largest mobile telecommunications providers in the U.S., alleging that shrinking the national wireless carrier pool down from four to three providers would decrease competition and create higher prices for consumers. The US Department of Justice and seven states entered into a settlement with the parties…

Read More →

California et al. v. Teikoku Seikayu Co.(Lidoderm), No. 3:18-cv-00675 (N.D. Cal. 01/31/18)

Plaintiff states alleged that defendant, the producer of Lidoderm (pain medication), paid or incentivized generic drug makers to delay entry into market to protect its monopoly on Lidoderm. (“pay for delay”) The settlement agreement, which expires in twenty years, prohibits Teikoku from entering into agreements that restrict generic drug manufacturers from researching, manufacturing, marketing, or selling products for a period of time and requires Teikoku to cooperate in an ongoing investigation into similarly anticompetitive conduct by other drug manufacturers, among other things.

Read More →