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.”

DirecTV seeks oral argument on the pending June 26 motion of Nexstar Media Group and sidecar companies Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcasting to dismiss DirecTV’s antitrust complaint for lack of standing (see 2306270051), said DirecTV’s letter motion Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-02221) to U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel for Southern New York in Manhattan. The motion was fully briefed as of July 24, and discovery has remained stayed pending the motion’s resolution under a June 6 order from U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty, who presided over the case until it was transferred to Castel Feb. 28, said the letter motion. DirecTV’s March 15 complaint alleges Nexstar, Mission and White Knight colluded to set retransmission consent fee prices (see 2303150041).

Apple opposes SaurikIT’s Jan. 18 petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc of the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court’s rejection of its appeal to reverse the district court’s dismissal of its App Store antitrust challenge (see 2401190065), said Apple’s opposition response Tuesday (docket 22-16527). The 9th Circuit, like the district court before it, correctly held that SaurikIT's antitrust claims “are barred by the applicable statute of limitations,” said Apple. SaurikIT alleges 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. SaurikIT contends those practices excluded its “unauthorized” app store, called Cydia, from the market. Even though SaurikIT concedes it was aware of these policies back in 2008 and 2009, “it inexplicably waited” 11 years to bring its antitrust action against Apple, said the opposition. The claims were, as the 9th Circuit found, untimely on the face of the complaint, it said. SaurikIT seeks rehearing by arguing that the 9th Circuit erred in rejecting its attempt “to get out from under the time-bar by invoking the continuing violation doctrine through conclusory allegations,” it said. According to SaurikIT, such conclusory allegations are a “get-out-of-jail-free card” that allows even the most obviously untimely claims to proceed into discovery, “imposing massive burdens on courts and litigants alike,” said Apple’s opposition. “That is not the law,” it said. The 9th Circuit “has repeatedly rejected attempts to circumvent the statute of limitations where, as here, the relevant allegations are conclusory,” it said. Because the panel didn’t “overlook or misapprehend” any material point of law or fact, the petition for rehearing should be denied, it said.

Defendants Apple, Visa and Mastercard seek to stay all proceedings in the antitrust class action brought Dec. 14 by Mirage Wine & Spirits, a liquor store in O’Fallon, Illinois, said their memorandum Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-03942) in U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois in East St. Louis on support of their joint motion to stay. Mirage alleges that Apple had the 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). The defendants are awaiting a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on whether the Mirage case should be transferred as a tag-along action to the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Brooklyn to be coordinated with In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation (MDL docket 1720), said their memorandum. The panel recently issued an order conditionally transferring the Mirage action to MDL 1720, based on the “overlap” between Mirage’s allegations and the claims and issues already consolidated in MDL 1720. Apple, Visa and Mastercard seek a short stay of all deadlines pending the panel’s final resolution of where the Mirage action will be litigated, it said. Such a “discrete stay” won’t prejudice Mirage, but allowing this action to proceed, only to see it transferred to MDL 1720, will result in a “significant waste” of the court’s and parties’ resources, it said.

Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery have engaged in a “years-long campaign” to block FuboTV’s “sports-first” streaming business, resulting in “significant harm” to Fubo and consumers, said Fubo Tuesday of the antitrust complaint it filed in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. The complaint (docket 1:24-mc-00070), which remained under seal Wednesday, alleges that the forthcoming launch of the companies’ sports-streaming joint venture “steals Fubo’s playbook and is the latest example of this campaign,” it said. “Each of these companies has consistently engaged in anticompetitive practices that aim to monopolize the market, stifle any form of competition, create higher pricing for subscribers and cheat consumers from deserved choice,” said Fubo CEO David Gandler in a statement. “By joining together to exclusively reserve the rights to distribute a specialized live sports package, we believe these corporations are erecting insurmountable barriers that will effectively block any new competitors from entering the market.” The strategy ensures that consumers desiring a dedicated sports channel lineup “are left with no alternative but to subscribe” to the joint venture, it said. Disney, Fox and WBD didn’t comment.