Google has never had, and is unlikely to obtain, “monopoly power in any properly defined relevant market for advertising services,” said its answer Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-05177) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan to Gannett’s May 15 amended complaint. The complaint alleges that Google and Alphabet unlawfully have acquired and maintain monopolies for the advertising technology tools that publishers and advertisers use to buy and sell online ad space. Google’s conduct as alleged in Gannett’s complaint “was lawful, justified, procompetitive, and carried out in Google’s legitimate business interests,” said its answer. Its conduct “constitutes bona fide competitive activity, the benefits of which significantly outweigh any alleged anticompetitive effects,” it said. The plaintiff's deceptive trade practices and common-law fraud claims against Google are barred, in whole or in part, “for failure to allege with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake,” and because Gannett hasn’t and can’t establish a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice, it said. To the extent that Gannett seeks recovery of civil penalties, those penalties are limited by the applicable state statutes, the due process clause of the U.S. and applicable state constitutions, and they also “must have a reasonable relation to the actual harm established,” it said.

Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington joined DOJ’s lawsuit against Apple (see 2406050050), the department announced Tuesday. DOJ Antitrust Division Chief Jonathan Kanter said in a statement: “We look forward to litigating this important case alongside our state partners to deliver the benefits of competition to consumers, app developers, accessory makers and the American public.” Attorneys general in 19 states and Washington, D.C., have signed onto the lawsuit.

Attorneys for the AT&T and Verizon customers who seek to vacate T-Mobile’s 2020 Sprint buy on grounds that the transaction caused their own wireless rates to soar had initial meet and confers with AT&T, Verizon and Dish Network regarding the plaintiffs’ discovery requests for production of documents to those nonparties, said a joint status report Friday (docket 1:22-cv-03189) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. But after U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin certified for interlocutory appeal his denial of T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss (see 2403280027), AT&T, Verizon and Dish “refused to meet and confer” while the 7th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court considered T-Mobile’s petition for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, said the report. After the 7th Circuit denied T-Mobile’s petition (see 2405170008), the plaintiffs reengaged with the third parties, it said. If any of these third parties doesn't begin “meaningfully to cooperate in responding to these subpoenas,” the plaintiffs anticipate moving to compel, it said. The plaintiffs also are in the process of serving a subpoena on SoftBank with requests for production of documents, it said.

T-Mobile and the AT&T and Verizon customer plaintiffs who seek to vacate T-Mobile’s 2020 Sprint buy on antitrust grounds are to submit a joint written status report by Friday, said U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin for Northern Illinois in Chicago in a docket entry notification (docket 1:22-cv-03189). The report should summarize the case's current status and propose a discovery schedule, said the notification, which also vacated the June 3 report deadline. The order for a new, hastily scheduled joint status report came after the 7th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court rejected T-Mobile’s petition for leave to file an interlocutory appeal challenging Durkin’s denial of T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss the complaint (see 2405170008). A 7th Circuit decision on the interlocutory appeal in T-Mobile's favor likely would have ended the case. The plaintiffs allege that the anticompetitive nature of the 2020 transaction caused their own wireless rates to soar. The case will proceed with three AT&T and three Verizon plaintiffs after the parties stipulated to the voluntary dismissal without prejudice and without costs of plaintiff Brett Jackson, an AT&T customer. The case turns 2 years old June 17.

In a surprise setback for T-Mobile, a panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court on Thursday denied T-Mobile’s petition for leave to file an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court’s denial of T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss the complaint of six AT&T and Verizon customers. The customers seek to vacate T-Mobile’s 2020 Sprint buy on antitrust grounds, claiming that the anticompetitive nature of the merger caused their own wireless rates to soar (docket 24-8013). In recent weeks, T-Mobile and its supporters, including CTIA, said a favorable decision in the 7th Circuit appeal would likely end the case (see 2404160038). U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin for Northern Illinois in Chicago, in a March 27 memorandum opinion and order, granted T-Mobile’s motion to certify for interlocutory appeal to the 7th Circuit his Nov. 2 denial of T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss (see 2403280027). Durkin’s order said he believes his interpretation of the relevant standards was "the most reasonable” in denying the motion to dismiss, but acknowledged that there was plenty of room for debate. “We appreciate our district court colleague’s perspective on a legal issue that is subject to substantial disagreement, as reflected in the certification of the issue for interlocutory appeal,” said the 7th Circuit panel of Judges David Hamilton, Amy St. Eve and Candace Jackson-Akiwumi in their Thursday order. “We believe, however, that further debate of the legal issue is likely to contribute more to the development of the applicable law if both the district court and (perhaps eventually) we have actual evidence before us, rather than continuing to debate at this stage of the case the abstract sufficiency of pleadings,” said the order.

Amazon was “surprised and disappointed” by Arizona's consumer fraud and antitrust lawsuits against the company, said Amazon spokesperson Tim Doyle in an emailed statement. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) filed the suits Wednesday in Maricopa County Superior Court (see 2405150044). Mayes initiated the cases “without reviewing a single document from Amazon, resulting in a fundamental misunderstanding and mischaracterization of how Amazon’s businesses work,” Doyle said. The antitrust lawsuit asserts that Amazon’s “unlawful practices -- its deceptive favoring of higher-priced first-party and [Fulfilled by Amazon] offers -- were carried out with the intent that consumers would rely upon its Buy Box recommendation in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise.” The consumer fraud case seeks orders enjoining Amazon’s “unlawful practices -- including its efforts to frustrate Prime subscribers’ efforts to cancel their subscriptions” – and disgorgement of its “excess profits that it received from obstructing its Prime subscribers’ efforts to cancel their subscriptions.” The Amazon Prime sign-up and cancellation processes “are clear and simple by design, meeting a high bar for customer satisfaction well above legal requirements,” Doyle said. Customers “cancel their Prime membership with a few clicks from the home page.” The Arizona lawsuits “would force Amazon to engage in practices that actually harm consumers and the many businesses that sell in our store -- such as having to feature higher prices,” he said.

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.