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…
California v. Valero Energy Corp., No. C17-03786 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2017)
Plaintiff state sought to enjoin proposed purchase by Valero of two petroleum storage and distribution terminals owned by Plains in Martinez and Richmond, California. The complaint has been filed under seal. The court denied the state’s request for a TRO, but held that the state had a likelihood of success on the merits. The parties abandoned the transaction.
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…
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…
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…
California v. Denso, No. 2:19-cv-13566 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 3, 2019)
As part of its ongoing participation in the ongoing Automotive Parts multidistrict litigation, California reached a settlement with Denso to resolve claims that as part of a conspiracy with dozens of auto parts manufactures, competition in the automotive parts market was suppressed and eliminated by illegal bid rigging. The state’s complaint alleged that Denso had…
In re: Franchise No Poaching Provisions, King Cty. Super Ct., Wash. 2019
The Attorney General of Washington has entered into a series of agreements with 75 national chains who included so-called “no-poach” provisions in their franchise agreements. No-poach clauses appear in franchise agreements between owners of franchises and corporate headquarters. The clauses prohibit employees from moving among stores in the same corporate chain, a practice that economists…
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…
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,…
