Texas’ motion to extend the timeline for responding to a lawsuit over the state’s social media law (see 2109220064) is a “delay tactic” meant to block the court’s ability to rule on constitutionality before its effective date, said the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice in a filing (also see here) Wednesday in docket 1:21-cv-00840. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) filed a motion for a 60-day extension, two weeks after the new law’s Dec. 2 effective date. The associations said granting the motion would lead to “unnecessary and overly burdensome ‘expedited’ discovery” that would intrude into “constitutionally protected editorial practices.” Paxton’s office didn’t comment.

MoviePass is barred from misrepresenting its business and data security practices, the FTC said Tuesday in a settlement over allegations the company blocked subscribers from using the service as advertised. Commissioners approved the nonmonetary settlement 4-1, with Commissioner Noah Phillips dissenting without statement. The company faces penalties up to $43,792 per violation per day. Per June's proposed settlement, MoviePass “deceptively marketed its ‘one movie per day’ service, then deployed deceptive tactics aimed at preventing subscribers from using the service as advertised.” The company didn’t comment Tuesday.

The FTC’s amended complaint against Facebook “fails to fix the deficiencies of its first attempt” and should be dismissed, the company said in a filing (Pacer) Monday in docket 1:20-cv-03590 (see 2108240059). The FTC created a “fictional market,” ignoring that Facebook “competes vigorously with TikTok, iMessage, Twitter, Snapchat, LinkedIn, YouTube, and countless others,” the company said. “The FTC cannot credibly claim Facebook has monopoly power because no such power exists.” The agency didn’t comment.

Qualcomm scored a victory Wednesday against allegations it has a modem chip monopoly (see 2104020058 and docket 19-15159 in Pacer).The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit vacated a district court’s order “certifying a nationwide indirect purchaser class in an antitrust multidistrict litigation seeking injunctive and monetary relief under” the Sherman Act and California law. The three-judge panel cited “differences in relevant state laws,” which “swamped predominance.” Judges Eugene Siler, Jay Bybee and Ryan Nelson also cited the result in FTC v. Qualcomm , in which the 9th Circuit said the company’s modem chip licensing practices didn’t violate the Sherman Act, and “there was nothing to be enjoined because its exclusive dealing agreements with Apple did not substantially foreclose competition and were terminated years ago.” California’s “choice of law rules precluded the district court’s certification of the nationwide Rule 23(b)(3) class because other states’ laws, beyond California’s Cartwright Act, should apply,” the court said in Stromberg v. Qualcomm. The company and an attorney for Stromberg didn’t comment.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit granted Google’s petition to transfer Sonos’ patent infringement case against the company to the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California from the Waco, Texas, federal court where the case originated. The Waco district court erred when it denied Google’s motion for the transfer on grounds that Google “had failed to make a showing sufficient to justify transferring the case,” ruled the Federal Circuit Monday. “The district court’s refusal to transfer the case” amounted to “a clear abuse of discretion” because it improperly weighed the factors favoring the transfer to California, the ruling said. The Sonos suit, filed a year ago, alleges Google devices infringe five inventions on technology for streaming music from the cloud to wireless playback devices. Sonos won an initial determination at the International Trade Commission that Google infringes a separate set of five Sonos multiroom wireless audio patents. The ITC is scheduled to release a final determination in mid-December. Google declined comment on the Federal Circuit's order. A Sonos spokesperson emailed: “While we respectfully disagree with today’s decision, we have a very strong case and look forward to moving forward expeditiously in California.”

U.S. District Court in Waco, Texas, rightly denied Intel and Samsung motions to transfer the patent infringement cases in which they are defendants to the Northern District of California, ruled the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit Monday. R&D company Demaray sued Intel and Samsung in Waco for infringing two patents on use of semiconductor fab reactors. In denying the transfer motions July 1, the Waco court ruled that neither company “had established that the Northern District of California was a clearly more convenient forum than the Western District of Texas, the plaintiff’s chosen forum,” said the appeals court. “Intel and Samsung have not shown a clear and indisputable right to transfer,” it said. “Mindful of the standard of review, we are not prepared to second-guess the district court’s findings.” Neither manufacturer commented now.

It's “premature” to set a date for a trial to determine damages in the Locast case, said an attorney for the streaming service’s operator, the Sports Fan Coalition, in a letter (docket 19-cv-07136, in Pacer) Friday. Both sides previously agreed to negotiate statutory damages before such a trial, and defendants have 30 days to decide on appealing the court’s decision against Locast (see 2109160047), the lawyer wrote Judge Louis Stanton of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. “Defendants are currently analyzing their legal options and intend to engage with Plaintiffs in that negotiation, and regarding a potential overall resolution.” Don’t begin planning a damages trial unless no agreement or appeal is decided on by Oct.15, Locast asked.

Apple markets its M1 MacBooks with defective displays despite introducing the flagship laptops last November with great fanfare about their technical superiority, alleged a complaint (in Pacer) in U.S. District Court in San Francisco that seeks class-action status. The screens are “extraordinarily fragile, cracking, blacking out, or showing magenta, purple and blue lines and squares, or otherwise ceasing to function altogether,” said the complaint. Thousands of users globally “have reported this issue directly to Apple and on Apple sponsored forums,” yet Apple “did not publicly recognize the issue” until Aug. 27, when it blamed the damaged screens on consumers who close their laptops with their keyboard covers still on. “The issues develop on their own without user interference,” countered the complaint. The suit alleges fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranty and other infractions. It was filed Tuesday, but reassigned Thursday to U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria after the first judge, Susan van Keulen, recused herself Wednesday. Apple didn’t comment.

Maryland's attorney general said the Tax Injunction Act bars federal challenge of the state's digital ad tax. In a Monday filing (in Pacer) at U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland, AG Brian Frosh (D) urged dismissing the case and industry’s motion for summary judgment. The 1948 tax law says federal district courts “shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” At issue here is a tax and “federal courts have permitted a suit challenging a tax passthrough prohibition only where plaintiffs did not challenge the tax itself,” wrote the AG. The exception for lacking an efficient remedy doesn’t apply, it said.

Amazon pacts with wholesalers harm consumers by increasing prices and hurting competition on online marketplaces, said District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine (D), adding that charge about first-party sellers to his May antitrust lawsuit at D.C. Superior Court (case 2021 CA 001775 B). The original complaint alleged Amazon practiced “anticompetitive restraint” at least until two years ago by barring its third-party sellers through a “price parity provision” in its contracts from offering their products at lower prices on a competing online retail sales platform (see 2105250050). Monday’s amended complaint alleges it's anti-competitive to require first-party sellers to guarantee Amazon a certain minimum profit. That minimum margin agreement means if Amazon lowers its price to match or beat another online marketplace a wholesaler must compensate Amazon for the difference between the minimum and actual profit, said the AG's office: To avoid those payments, wholesalers increase prices on other online marketplaces. “Amazon has continued to use its dominant position as an online marketplace to rig the system,” said Racine. An Amazon spokesperson emailed that what the AG seeks “would result in higher prices to customers, whether offered directly by Amazon or by third parties in our store, oddly going against core objectives of antitrust law." The court plans an initial scheduling conference Oct. 28 at 10:30 a.m.