Texas et al. v. Google (In re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation), No. 1:21-cv-06841 (S.D.N.Y.)

The plaintiff states originally filed their case in the Eastern District of Texas (No. 4:20-cv-00957 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2020) alleging that Google monopolized or attempted to monopolize products and services used by advertisers and publishers in online-display advertising on third-party sites. The complaint also alleged that Google engaged in false, misleading and deceptive acts…

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 →

United States and Plaintiff States v. Google, No. 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 2020)

Eleven states and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to prevent Google from unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets. According to the complaint, Google accounted for almost 90 percent of all search queries in the United States. Google has entered into a series of…

Read More →

Illinois v. Elite Staffing, No. 2020CH05156 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Ill. July 29, 2020)

Plaintiff state sued staffing agencies Elite Staffing, Inc. (Elite), Metro Staff, Inc. (Metro) and Midway Staffing, Inc. (Midway), as well as their client Colony, Inc. (Colony). The complaint alleged that the three staffing agencies formed an unlawful agreement to refuse to solicit or hire the other’s employees and to fix the wages paid to their…

Read More →

Washington v. Starkist Company, No. 20-2-09491-9 (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cty. June 2, 2020)

Plaintiff state filed a civil lawsuit against Starkist, one of the world’s largest canned tuna manufacturers and the former CEO of Bumble Bee Foods, another large tuna manufacturer, over a price-fixing conspiracy that drove up the cost of packaged tuna for more than a decade. The suit alleged that StarKist Co., its parent company Dongwon,…

Read More →

California ex rel. Becerra v. Sutter Health, No. 18-565398

State sued Sutter Health, the largest hospital system in northern California, alleging that Sutter engaged in anticompetitive behavior in violation of the Cartwright Act by 1) establishing, increasing and maintaining Sutter’s power to control prices and exclude competition; 2) foreclosing price competition by Sutter’s competitors; and 3) enabling Sutter to impose prices for hospital healthcare services and ancillary products that far exceed the prices it would have been able to charge in an unconstrained, competitive market. The complaint alleges that Sutter did this by: Preventing insurance companies from negotiating with it on anything other than “all or nothing†system-wide basis, requiring health insurers under the terms of contract with Sutter Health to negotiate with all the Sutter Health system or face termination of their contract; Preventing insurance companies from giving consumers more low-cost health plan options, for example, charging a $200 out-of-pocket cost for an outpatient surgery performed by a facility outside of the preferred group and $100 for outpatient surgery performed by a facility inside the preferred group; Setting excessively high out-of-network rates for patients who must seek care outside of their provider network; Restricting publication of provider cost information and rates. The complaint alleged three causes of action under the Cartwright Act: price tampering and fixing; unreasonable restraint of trade; and combination to monopolize. The state sought injunctive relief, disgorgement and attroneys fees.

Read More →

Oregon ex rel. Rosenbloom v. LG Electronics, No. 120810246, (Ore. Cir. Ct., Multnomah Cty)

Oregon filed suit against cathode ray tube (CRT) manufacturers, alleging that they illegally agreed upon the pricing of CRTs. The Attorney General filed this action on behalf of the State of Oregon and Oregon natural persons, and sought restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement and injunctive relief.

Read More →

Florida v. General Chemical Corp. No. 2:17-00384 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2017)

Plaintiff state filed action in federal court alleging market allocation and price-fixing among manufacturers of the chemical liquid aluminum sulfate, which is a coagulant used to remove impurities and other substances from water. It is used primarily by municipalities in wastewater treatment. There are high barriers to entry and substitution is difficult. There have been several USDOJ indictments in the industry. The complaint alleged that the defendants conspired to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing and to raise liquid aluminum sulfate prices by submitting artificially inflated bids in Florida from 1997 through at least February 2012. The state alleged that fraudulent concealment of the conspiracy tolled the statute of limitations.

Read More →

State of Wisconsin et al. v. Indivior, No. 16-5073 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22,2016)

Plaintiff states alleged that the makers of Suboxone, a drug used to treat opioid addiction, engaged in a scheme to block generic competitors and raise prices. Specifically, they are conspiring to wtich Suboxone from a tablet version to a flim in order to prevent or delay generic entry. The states allege that the manufacturers engaged in “product hopping” in which a company makes slight changes to its product to extend patent protections and prvent generic alternatives. The complaint was filed under seal.

Read More →