D.C. Circuit Decision Called ‘Pertinent Supplemental Authority’ in Defense of T-Mobile/Sprint
The April 27 decision at the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit that attorneys general in New York and more than 45 states waited too long to bring an antitrust lawsuit against Meta for alleged anticompetitive conduct in its…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Instagram and WhatsApp buys (see 2304270038) is “pertinent supplemental authority on a crucial issue” to the defense in which seven consumer plaintiffs seek to vacate T-Mobile’s 2020 Sprint buy on antitrust grounds (see 2212060052). So said Tuesday’s response (docket 1:22-cv-03189) from defendants T-Mobile and SoftBank in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The D.C. Circuit decision confirms that laches bars the plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief, they said. On Meta’s successful undue delay claim, the D.C. Circuit didn’t view the four-year antitrust statute of limitations as “controlling,” as the plaintiffs against T-Mobile and SoftBank assert, said the response. As for Meta’s prejudice defense, the D.C. Circuit likewise agreed with T-Mobile and SoftBank that the severe consequences attending divestiture after a completed merger result in prejudice to the defendant, it said. The D.C. Circuit pointed specifically to the harm arising from breaking up a combined entity, it said. The plaintiffs’ contention that T-Mobile and SoftBank wouldn’t be similarly harmed if T-Mobile’s Sprint buy is vacated “is belied by their own allegations that Sprint’s operations have been integrated with T-Mobile’s since day one,” it said.