GENIUS OR CHAOS: THE "BIG TECH" ANTITRUST CASES AS A WINDOW INTO THE COMPLEX PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF U.S. ANTITRUST LAW
[...]in Part VI, we discuss the utility of having two federal agencies oversee antitrust enforcement. "17 In September 2022, a federal district court mied on Google's motion to dismiss the states' federal claims.18 The court allowed all of the states' claims under Section 2 of th...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Antitrust law journal 2023-12, Vol.85 (2), p.375-407 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 407 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 375 |
| container_title | Antitrust law journal |
| container_volume | 85 |
| creator | Hay, George Turgeon, Thomas |
| description | [...]in Part VI, we discuss the utility of having two federal agencies oversee antitrust enforcement. "17 In September 2022, a federal district court mied on Google's motion to dismiss the states' federal claims.18 The court allowed all of the states' claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act to proceed, concluding that the states plausibly alleged that Google has monopoly power and willfully engaged in anticompetitive conduct.19 The court dismissed the states' claim that Google had unfairly colluded with Facebook in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.20 More recently, in January 2023, the DOJ and another group of states filed a second lawsuit against Google relating to Google's practices in ad tech markets.21 The lawsuit-filed more than two years after the Texas-led ad tech lawsuit-closely mirrors the allegations in the Texas-led ad tech lawsuit and also asserts claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.22 In addition to the federal- and state-led cases, Google also faces lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs. "26 Sweepstakes requests actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, and other relief, such as declaratory and injunctive relief.27 Other private litigants have also filed complaints making similar allegations against Google, including a December 2020 class-action complaint filed by Genius Media Group, The Nation, and The Progressive.28 B. The Lawsuits Against Facebook The Federal Trade Commission and 48 attorneys general conducted independent but overlapping investigations into Facebook. "38 The states allege that in 2016, Facebook backtracked on its pre-acquisition promises by changing WhatsApp's terms of service and privacy policy, which harmed user privacy.39 In June 2021, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg issued separate rulings dismissing both complaints against Facebook, holding that neither complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.40 However, only the states' case was dismissed with prejudice.41 First, Judge Boasberg cited the doctrine of laches in dismissing the states' Section 2 and Section 7 claims pertaining to Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.42 Judge Boasberg's ruling characterized the delay between Facebook's acquisitions and the commencement |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2904990583</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A778830483</galeid><sourcerecordid>A778830483</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g1703-93d9bf29c16621585d83e8260550e133fde3e50c4eed6ee8886841e9f50202f73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptj91Og0AQhYnRxFp9h029lWbZ5WfXO0RaSBAaWFLvCIUBaVqqbHl_N9XEmjQzmUkm3zkzc6VNCCW2zh3HvNYmGGOq29iyb7U7KbcYG9ggxkQbl34c5hlKUuQFbpI9IxH4aPYSLpHwvWCG3FiEIs0zgTw38zPkqkTrMH5N1iiMRXLiveRtFfnvaJUmnv-ap26kuJXvCWW8QPk8m5_5RO76Xrtpyp2Eh98-1fKFL7xAj5Jl6LmR3hqOupfTmm8awivDtolhMatmFBhRb1gYDEqbGihYuDIBahuAMWYz0wDeWJhg0jh0qj3--H4Oh68R5LHYHsahVysLwrHJObYY_aPacgdF1zeH41BW-05Whes4jFFsnij9AtVCD0O5O_TQdGr8j59f4FXUsO-qi4KnM8FmlF0PUhXZtR9H2ZajlOf4N-Mxhq8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2904990583</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>GENIUS OR CHAOS: THE "BIG TECH" ANTITRUST CASES AS A WINDOW INTO THE COMPLEX PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF U.S. ANTITRUST LAW</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Hay, George ; Turgeon, Thomas</creator><creatorcontrib>Hay, George ; Turgeon, Thomas</creatorcontrib><description>[...]in Part VI, we discuss the utility of having two federal agencies oversee antitrust enforcement. "17 In September 2022, a federal district court mied on Google's motion to dismiss the states' federal claims.18 The court allowed all of the states' claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act to proceed, concluding that the states plausibly alleged that Google has monopoly power and willfully engaged in anticompetitive conduct.19 The court dismissed the states' claim that Google had unfairly colluded with Facebook in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.20 More recently, in January 2023, the DOJ and another group of states filed a second lawsuit against Google relating to Google's practices in ad tech markets.21 The lawsuit-filed more than two years after the Texas-led ad tech lawsuit-closely mirrors the allegations in the Texas-led ad tech lawsuit and also asserts claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.22 In addition to the federal- and state-led cases, Google also faces lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs. "26 Sweepstakes requests actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, and other relief, such as declaratory and injunctive relief.27 Other private litigants have also filed complaints making similar allegations against Google, including a December 2020 class-action complaint filed by Genius Media Group, The Nation, and The Progressive.28 B. The Lawsuits Against Facebook The Federal Trade Commission and 48 attorneys general conducted independent but overlapping investigations into Facebook. "38 The states allege that in 2016, Facebook backtracked on its pre-acquisition promises by changing WhatsApp's terms of service and privacy policy, which harmed user privacy.39 In June 2021, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg issued separate rulings dismissing both complaints against Facebook, holding that neither complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.40 However, only the states' case was dismissed with prejudice.41 First, Judge Boasberg cited the doctrine of laches in dismissing the states' Section 2 and Section 7 claims pertaining to Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.42 Judge Boasberg's ruling characterized the delay between Facebook's acquisitions and the commencement</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-6056</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2326-9774</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: American Bar Association</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Antitrust law ; Antitrust laws ; Attorneys general ; Class action lawsuits ; Clayton Antitrust Act 1914-US ; Competition ; Complaints ; Divestiture ; Enforcement ; Evaluation ; Exclusive and concurrent legislative powers ; High technology industry ; Law enforcement agencies ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Multidistrict litigation ; Online advertising ; Power ; Powers and duties ; Practice ; Privacy ; Restraint of trade ; Revenue sharing ; Search engines ; Social networks ; Tying arrangements ; Venue ; Violations</subject><ispartof>Antitrust law journal, 2023-12, Vol.85 (2), p.375-407</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 American Bar Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Bar Association 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hay, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turgeon, Thomas</creatorcontrib><title>GENIUS OR CHAOS: THE "BIG TECH" ANTITRUST CASES AS A WINDOW INTO THE COMPLEX PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF U.S. ANTITRUST LAW</title><title>Antitrust law journal</title><description>[...]in Part VI, we discuss the utility of having two federal agencies oversee antitrust enforcement. "17 In September 2022, a federal district court mied on Google's motion to dismiss the states' federal claims.18 The court allowed all of the states' claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act to proceed, concluding that the states plausibly alleged that Google has monopoly power and willfully engaged in anticompetitive conduct.19 The court dismissed the states' claim that Google had unfairly colluded with Facebook in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.20 More recently, in January 2023, the DOJ and another group of states filed a second lawsuit against Google relating to Google's practices in ad tech markets.21 The lawsuit-filed more than two years after the Texas-led ad tech lawsuit-closely mirrors the allegations in the Texas-led ad tech lawsuit and also asserts claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.22 In addition to the federal- and state-led cases, Google also faces lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs. "26 Sweepstakes requests actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, and other relief, such as declaratory and injunctive relief.27 Other private litigants have also filed complaints making similar allegations against Google, including a December 2020 class-action complaint filed by Genius Media Group, The Nation, and The Progressive.28 B. The Lawsuits Against Facebook The Federal Trade Commission and 48 attorneys general conducted independent but overlapping investigations into Facebook. "38 The states allege that in 2016, Facebook backtracked on its pre-acquisition promises by changing WhatsApp's terms of service and privacy policy, which harmed user privacy.39 In June 2021, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg issued separate rulings dismissing both complaints against Facebook, holding that neither complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.40 However, only the states' case was dismissed with prejudice.41 First, Judge Boasberg cited the doctrine of laches in dismissing the states' Section 2 and Section 7 claims pertaining to Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.42 Judge Boasberg's ruling characterized the delay between Facebook's acquisitions and the commencement</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Antitrust law</subject><subject>Antitrust laws</subject><subject>Attorneys general</subject><subject>Class action lawsuits</subject><subject>Clayton Antitrust Act 1914-US</subject><subject>Competition</subject><subject>Complaints</subject><subject>Divestiture</subject><subject>Enforcement</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Exclusive and concurrent legislative powers</subject><subject>High technology industry</subject><subject>Law enforcement agencies</subject><subject>Laws, regulations and rules</subject><subject>Multidistrict litigation</subject><subject>Online advertising</subject><subject>Power</subject><subject>Powers and duties</subject><subject>Practice</subject><subject>Privacy</subject><subject>Restraint of trade</subject><subject>Revenue sharing</subject><subject>Search engines</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Tying arrangements</subject><subject>Venue</subject><subject>Violations</subject><issn>0003-6056</issn><issn>2326-9774</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>N95</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNptj91Og0AQhYnRxFp9h029lWbZ5WfXO0RaSBAaWFLvCIUBaVqqbHl_N9XEmjQzmUkm3zkzc6VNCCW2zh3HvNYmGGOq29iyb7U7KbcYG9ggxkQbl34c5hlKUuQFbpI9IxH4aPYSLpHwvWCG3FiEIs0zgTw38zPkqkTrMH5N1iiMRXLiveRtFfnvaJUmnv-ap26kuJXvCWW8QPk8m5_5RO76Xrtpyp2Eh98-1fKFL7xAj5Jl6LmR3hqOupfTmm8awivDtolhMatmFBhRb1gYDEqbGihYuDIBahuAMWYz0wDeWJhg0jh0qj3--H4Oh68R5LHYHsahVysLwrHJObYY_aPacgdF1zeH41BW-05Whes4jFFsnij9AtVCD0O5O_TQdGr8j59f4FXUsO-qi4KnM8FmlF0PUhXZtR9H2ZajlOf4N-Mxhq8</recordid><startdate>20231222</startdate><enddate>20231222</enddate><creator>Hay, George</creator><creator>Turgeon, Thomas</creator><general>American Bar Association</general><scope>N95</scope><scope>XI7</scope><scope>ILT</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20231222</creationdate><title>GENIUS OR CHAOS: THE "BIG TECH" ANTITRUST CASES AS A WINDOW INTO THE COMPLEX PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF U.S. ANTITRUST LAW</title><author>Hay, George ; Turgeon, Thomas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g1703-93d9bf29c16621585d83e8260550e133fde3e50c4eed6ee8886841e9f50202f73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Antitrust law</topic><topic>Antitrust laws</topic><topic>Attorneys general</topic><topic>Class action lawsuits</topic><topic>Clayton Antitrust Act 1914-US</topic><topic>Competition</topic><topic>Complaints</topic><topic>Divestiture</topic><topic>Enforcement</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Exclusive and concurrent legislative powers</topic><topic>High technology industry</topic><topic>Law enforcement agencies</topic><topic>Laws, regulations and rules</topic><topic>Multidistrict litigation</topic><topic>Online advertising</topic><topic>Power</topic><topic>Powers and duties</topic><topic>Practice</topic><topic>Privacy</topic><topic>Restraint of trade</topic><topic>Revenue sharing</topic><topic>Search engines</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Tying arrangements</topic><topic>Venue</topic><topic>Violations</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hay, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turgeon, Thomas</creatorcontrib><collection>Gale Business: Insights</collection><collection>Business Insights: Essentials</collection><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>ProQuest_Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Antitrust law journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hay, George</au><au>Turgeon, Thomas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>GENIUS OR CHAOS: THE "BIG TECH" ANTITRUST CASES AS A WINDOW INTO THE COMPLEX PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF U.S. ANTITRUST LAW</atitle><jtitle>Antitrust law journal</jtitle><date>2023-12-22</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>375</spage><epage>407</epage><pages>375-407</pages><issn>0003-6056</issn><eissn>2326-9774</eissn><abstract>[...]in Part VI, we discuss the utility of having two federal agencies oversee antitrust enforcement. "17 In September 2022, a federal district court mied on Google's motion to dismiss the states' federal claims.18 The court allowed all of the states' claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act to proceed, concluding that the states plausibly alleged that Google has monopoly power and willfully engaged in anticompetitive conduct.19 The court dismissed the states' claim that Google had unfairly colluded with Facebook in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.20 More recently, in January 2023, the DOJ and another group of states filed a second lawsuit against Google relating to Google's practices in ad tech markets.21 The lawsuit-filed more than two years after the Texas-led ad tech lawsuit-closely mirrors the allegations in the Texas-led ad tech lawsuit and also asserts claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.22 In addition to the federal- and state-led cases, Google also faces lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs. "26 Sweepstakes requests actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, and other relief, such as declaratory and injunctive relief.27 Other private litigants have also filed complaints making similar allegations against Google, including a December 2020 class-action complaint filed by Genius Media Group, The Nation, and The Progressive.28 B. The Lawsuits Against Facebook The Federal Trade Commission and 48 attorneys general conducted independent but overlapping investigations into Facebook. "38 The states allege that in 2016, Facebook backtracked on its pre-acquisition promises by changing WhatsApp's terms of service and privacy policy, which harmed user privacy.39 In June 2021, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg issued separate rulings dismissing both complaints against Facebook, holding that neither complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.40 However, only the states' case was dismissed with prejudice.41 First, Judge Boasberg cited the doctrine of laches in dismissing the states' Section 2 and Section 7 claims pertaining to Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.42 Judge Boasberg's ruling characterized the delay between Facebook's acquisitions and the commencement</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>American Bar Association</pub><tpages>33</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0003-6056 |
| ispartof | Antitrust law journal, 2023-12, Vol.85 (2), p.375-407 |
| issn | 0003-6056 2326-9774 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2904990583 |
| source | EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; JSTOR |
| subjects | Agreements Antitrust law Antitrust laws Attorneys general Class action lawsuits Clayton Antitrust Act 1914-US Competition Complaints Divestiture Enforcement Evaluation Exclusive and concurrent legislative powers High technology industry Law enforcement agencies Laws, regulations and rules Multidistrict litigation Online advertising Power Powers and duties Practice Privacy Restraint of trade Revenue sharing Search engines Social networks Tying arrangements Venue Violations |
| title | GENIUS OR CHAOS: THE "BIG TECH" ANTITRUST CASES AS A WINDOW INTO THE COMPLEX PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF U.S. ANTITRUST LAW |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T06%3A20%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=GENIUS%20OR%20CHAOS:%20THE%20%22BIG%20TECH%22%20ANTITRUST%20CASES%20AS%20A%20WINDOW%20INTO%20THE%20COMPLEX%20PROCEDURAL%20ASPECTS%20OF%20U.S.%20ANTITRUST%20LAW&rft.jtitle=Antitrust%20law%20journal&rft.au=Hay,%20George&rft.date=2023-12-22&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=375&rft.epage=407&rft.pages=375-407&rft.issn=0003-6056&rft.eissn=2326-9774&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA778830483%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2904990583&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A778830483&rfr_iscdi=true |