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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
In the Matter of Investigation of Emergent BioSolutions, Inc.. Assurance No. 19-156 Dec. 31, 2019)
New York reached an agreement with Emergent BioSolutions, manufacturers of the opioid overdose reversal nasal spray NARCAN, to allow additional companies to gain access to the nasal spray delivery devices developed by Emergent. In February 2016, Adapt Pharma, Inc. launched a naloxone nasal spray, branded as NARCAN, in the United States. Naloxone has been used…
FTC et al. v. Vyera Pharmaceuticals, No. 1:20-cv-00706 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2020)
The FTC, New York and six other states filed suit against Vyera Pharmaceuticals, its parent company, Phoenixus and its former officers, Kevin Mulleady and Martin Shkreli, alleging anticompetivie conduct in connection with Daraprim, the only FDA approved drug for the treatment of the life-threatening parasitic disease toxoplasmosis. The suit alleges that Vyera purchases the unpatented…
Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Beshear v. Marathon Petroleum Co. LP, No. 3:15-cv-00354 (May 12, 2015)
State filed suit against Marathon, alleging Marathon engaged in anti-competitive practices that lead to higher gas prices for Kentucky consumers in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. State alleged that Marathon abused its monopoly position after its merger with Ashland Oil in 1998. The state alleged, among other actions, that Marathon requires some retailers, thought its supply agreements, to purchase 100 percent of their RFG from Marathon, with penalties if the retailers fail to do so. The agreements also prohibit unbranded retailers from challenging Marathon’s pricing. According to the complaint, Marathon further reduces competition by adding deed restrictions to some of the property parcels it sells that prohibit the purchaser of the property from selling gas or operating a convenience store. Some of the restrictions have an exception that will allow for development of a gas station if the station sells only Marathon gas. State sought injunctive relief, civil penalties of $2000 per violation, restitution to citizens and to the state and attorneys’ fees. Defendants moved to disqualify the outside counsel retained by the state on the grounds that the contingent fee arrangement was improper. The court denied Marathon’s motion to dismiss as to the federal antitrust, state antitrust and deceptive practices claims, but denied the state’s unjust enrichment claim because consumers only conferred an indirect benefit on Marathon by buying gasoline at allegedly inflated prices, not a direct benefit.
Florida v. Service Corp. International, In re Service Corp. International, FTC File No. 981-353 (1/15/99)
As part of a negotiated consent decree, the State of Florida and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sought to enjoin the proposed merger between Services Corp. International (SCI) and Equity Corp. International (ECI), alleging that the merger would substantially impair competition among funeral home or cemetery establishments in 14 local markets.
