Google identified no procedural basis for its “extreme and prejudicial step,” requesting that the court dismiss Daily Mail and Gannett’s state law claims in In re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, and the court should reject its April 26 pre-motion letter to dismiss, said the plaintiffs’ letter Tuesday (docket 1:21-md-03010) to U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel for Southern New York in Manhattan. The court should also reject Google’s “meritless request” in the alternative to deny leave to amend, plaintiffs said. As stated in their pre-motion letter, the plaintiffs offered amendments to obviate or narrow the areas of dispute and to “'add factual details in support of their state law claims’ based on documents in discovery’”; the court granted leave to do so, said the letter. Google now objects to the proposed amendments, calling amended allegations “futile” and requesting dismissal of state law claims without the benefit of briefing, the letter said. The court already stated it didn’t intend to rule on any objection to an amendment “on the grounds of futility,” said the letter. Also, Google claims that the proposed amendments “somehow ‘muddy[]’ the bounds of discovery,” said the plaintiffs, but the proposed amendments “just add additional factual allegations in support,” the letter said. Google doesn’t content that plaintiffs' amendments require extension of fact discovery, set to close on June 28, it said. The company instead offers only “its own, belated desire to 'focus its efforts,'" which is no reason to reject an amendment that doesn’t expand the scope of discovery, it said. The lawsuit alleges Google's digital advertising practices violate U.S. antitrust and consumer protection laws.
DirecTV is appealing to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court the March 20 order granting the motion of Nexstar Media Group and two sidecar companies, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcasting, to dismiss DirecTV’s antitrust complaint for lack of antitrust standing (see 2403210027), said DirecTV’s notice of appeal Friday (docket 1:23-cv-02221). U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel for Southern New York in Manhattan also denied DirecTV’s motion for oral argument on the motion to dismiss. The year-old complaint alleged that Nexstar, Mission and White Knight colluded to set retransmission consent agreement fee prices. The judge concluded that the complaint adequately alleged DirecTV’s Article III standing but didn't “plausibly allege standing under the antitrust laws” because DirecTV didn’t enter into a retransmission consent agreement with Mission or White Knight, which would have required it to pay allegedly supracompetitive fees.
By requesting a “blanket stay of discovery,” HP seeks to bring an antitrust class action involving its ink cartridges “to a standstill,” said the plaintiffs’ memorandum Tuesday (docket 1:24-cv-00164) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago in support of their opposition to HP's motion for a discovery stay. The plaintiffs contend that HP shows no good cause under Rule 26(c)(1). They cite Dickson v. Chicago Allied Warehouses in which the court found that such motions won't be granted "unless the party seeking the stay makes a strong showing why discovery should be denied.” HP challenges the adequacy of all claims in the complaint, but concerns about potential costs associated with antitrust discovery “is not tantamount to an automatic prohibition on discovery in every antitrust case where defendants challenge the sufficiency of a complaint,” said the memorandum, citing New England Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund v. Abbott Labs. Plaintiffs’ claims involve “complex antitrust law that will require detailed and thoughtful analysis,” said the filing, but the case doesn’t “'present an unusually thorny or difficult set of factual issues to be explored’ so as to make discovery abnormally burdensome or expensive,” it said. HP complains about the burdensome nature of the plaintiffs’ anticipated discovery “even though ‘the parties have not even discussed the discovery’” they intend to request, it said. “Simply put, HP has not carried its burden to overcome the general rule that discovery stays are ‘heavily disfavored.’”
The resignations of Warner Bros. Discovery board members Steven Miron and Steven Newhouse (see 2404010068) follow the DOJ's Antitrust Division's concern that the two also serving on the Charter Communications board violated Section 8 of the Clayton Act, Justice said Monday. DOJ said Charter's Spectrum cable service and WBD's Max's streaming service are both video distributors. The Clayton Act's Section 8 bars people from serving simultaneously on the boards of competitors. Miron and Newhouse were Advance Publications designees on both boards, it said. Justice "will continue to vigorously enforce the antitrust laws when necessary to address overreach by corporations and their designated agents," Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Kades said.
T-Mobile and the seven AT&T and Verizon customer plaintiffs who seek to vacate T-Mobile’s 2020 Sprint buy on antitrust grounds “continue to meet and confer productively on discovery,” and see no need for “court intervention on any issue at the present time,” said their joint status report Friday (docket 1:22-cv-03189) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. T-Mobile has produced a number of documents responsive to the plaintiffs’ first set of requests, “and will continue to make productions on a rolling basis,” said the report. The plaintiffs have also begun to meet and confer with AT&T, Verizon and Dish Network about their requests for production of documents to those nonparties, it said. The plaintiffs allege that the anticompetitive nature of T-Mobile/Sprint caused their own wireless rates to soar after the acquisition (see 2210110003). The parties agreed Thursday to dismiss all claims against Deutsche Telekom for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue (see 2403290002). U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin last week granted T-Mobile’s motion to certify for interlocutory appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court his Nov. 2 denial of T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit (see 2403280027). Durkin has scheduled a telephone status hearing for Friday.
The parties in the suit to vacate T-Mobile’s 2020 Sprint buy on antitrust grounds agree to dismiss all claims against Deutsche Telekom for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, said a stipulated order Thursday (docket 1:22-cv-03189) signed by U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin for Northern Illinois in Chicago. Durkin previously dismissed all claims against SoftBank (see 2303130006), and his reasoning concerning the lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue “applies equally to DT as it did to SoftBank,” said the order. Should the portion of the dismissal order granting the SoftBank motion to dismiss be reversed and remanded to Durkin's court for further proceedings against SoftBank, then that reversal and remand shall apply equally to DT, it said. The dismissal with prejudice on personal jurisdiction and venue grounds shall then “be deemed vacated, and the parties restored to their respective positions immediately before this stipulation,” it said. In such event, DT shall have the right to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), it said. Seven consumers, all AT&T or Verizon customers, brought the lawsuit in June 2022 to vacate T-Mobile/Sprint, alleging the transaction stifled competition, causing their own wireless rates to skyrocket (see 2210110003).
The first reaction of many in the tech world to the government's antitrust complaint against Apple (see 2403210042) was "finally," Stratechery's Ben Thompson blogged Monday. Apple's App Store is the root of tech frustration with the company, as it's "the ultimate example of Apple leveraging consumers’ desire for their products to gain power over an ecosystem" of app developers, he said. Thompson said app developer discontent has been building against Apple policies. If Apple had removed its anti-steering provision that didn't allow apps to link to its website or tell users about subscriptions or purchasing content outside the app, the company "wouldn’t be in a position of having to defend what actually makes Apple Apple," he said: "It would, at a minimum, have a lot more people on its side."
A New York judge's ruling granting the motion of Nexstar Media Group and two sidecar companies, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcasting, to dismiss DirecTV’s collusion complaint for lack of antitrust standing (see 2403210027) “sets a dangerous precedent that a victim of price-fixing needs to pay the inflated price before it can make a claim in court,” emailed a DirecTV spokesperson Thursday. The judge found that DirecTV’s injuries were “too indirect and speculative to confer antitrust standing.” A Nexstar spokesperson emailed: “We'll let the court's decision speak for itself.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied SaurikIT’s Jan. 18 petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc of the panel’s rejection of its appeal to reverse the district court’s dismissal of its App Store antitrust challenge (see 2401190065), said the court’s order Wednesday (docket 22-16527). A 2-1 majority of the panel of Circuit Judges Lucy Koh, Holly Thomas and Roopali Desai voted to deny rehearing, with Desai dissenting, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc, said the order. SaurikIT alleged that Apple violated the antitrust laws by mandating, in 2008, that the App Store be the exclusive marketplace for iPhone and iPad apps and, in 2009, by requiring Apple's in-app purchase system, it said.
Defendants Apple, Visa and Mastercard seek to stay all proceedings in an antitrust class action brought Dec. 14 by Mirage Wine & Spirits, a liquor store in O’Fallon, Illinois, while they attempt to “drag it” into a nearly 20-year-old multidistrict litigation, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation (MDL docket 1720), in which almost all discovery is complete (see 2403060037), said Mirage’s response in opposition Monday (docket 3:23-cv-03942) in U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois in East St. Louis. Mirage alleges that Apple had enough leverage to “disrupt” Visa's and Mastercard's dominant position in the U.S. market for point-of-sale payment card network services when it was preparing to introduce its iPhone Apple Pay feature in 2014, but instead it colluded with them to maintain their market domination (see 2312150005). While the defendants “speak of efficiencies” in seeking to stay Mirage’s case, their actions “only sow delay,” it said. There’s “no need to stay this action,” it said. The case involves a new theory, a new defendant, and little “factual overlap,” and so it’s unlikely to be consolidated into a “near terminal” MDL, said Mirage’s opposition. Allowing Mirage’s action to proceed “in the normal course” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as setting a schedule, conducting initial Rule 12 motion practice, and beginning discovery, won’t “unduly burden or prejudice” the defendants, it said. Mirage has already agreed to an extension of time for the defendants to answer or respond to its complaint, which addresses the defendants’ “stated concern about multiple litigation obligations,” without jeopardizing the trial date set by this court, it said. The defendants’ proposed stay won’t simplify issues, streamline the trial or reduce burdens on the parties. It said: “It will do the opposite.”