U.S. Says Google Breakup May be Needed to End Violations of Antitrust Law

“The U.S. sued Google on Tuesday, accusing the $1 trillion company of illegally using its market muscle to hobble rivals in the biggest challenge to the power and influence of Big Tech in decades,” reports Diane Bartz and David Shepardson in Reuters U.S. Legal News.

“The Justice Department lawsuit could lead to the break-up of an iconic company that has become all but synonymous with the internet and assumed a central role in the day-to-day lives of billions of people around the globe.”

“The lawsuit marks the first time the U.S. has cracked down on a major tech company since it sued Microsoft Corp for anti-competitive practices in 1998. A settlement left the company intact, though the government’s prior foray into Big Tech anti-trust – the 1974 case against AT&T – led to the breakup of the Bell System.”

Read the article.




HP Wins $439 Million As Judge Triples Jury Price-Fix Award

HP Inc. was awarded $439 million in damages against Quanta Storage Inc. and its U.S. subsidiary after a federal judge tripled a jury’s 2019 award for damages caused by a widespread scheme to inflate the price of optical disk drives, Bloomberg reports.

Sony, Panasonic and some other disk-drive makers settled with HP over the past decade. Only Taiwan-based Quanta chose to go to trial.

Quanta lost that trial in October when a Houston jury ordered Quanta to pay HP $176 million in damages. Now the federal judge in the case has tripled the damages award, as authorized under antitrust law, to $528 million before deducting $89 million in settlements paid by the other companies.

Read the Bloomberg article.

 

 




Antitrust Litigation: How an Amicus Brief Can Win an Appeal

The Antitrust Update of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler discusses a Federal Trade Commission case in which it appears an amicus brief may have been dispositive to the outcome of an appeal.

In Federal Trade Commission v. Penn State Hershey Medical Center, a group of 36 economists affiliated with top universities across the country filed an amicus brief explaining that the lower court used a faulty economic theory when it ruled against the FTC. The appellate court cited the brief when it reversed the district court.

Authors Jake Walter-Warner and Jonathan H. Hatch examine the brief’s influence on the appellate court and show how the court laid out the issues with the district court’s analysis just as the amicus brief did.

Read the article.

 

 

 




When Customer Supply Contracts Lead to Trouble

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continues to aggressively enforce the antitrust laws, reports of McDermott Will & Emery.

“On April 27, 2016, the FTC took action against Victrex, plc and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Invibio, Inc. and Invibio Limited (collectively, Invibio) because of exclusivity terms in its supply contracts. The consent order requires Invibio to cease and desist from enforcing most of the exclusivity terms in its current supply contracts and generally prohibits Invibio from requiring exclusivity in future contracts. Invibio is also prohibited from using other pricing strategies, such as market-share discounts, that would effectively result in exclusivity,” she writes.

In her post, she explains that exclusivity terms that arguably have the effect of harming competition may raise antitrust concerns.

Read the article.

 

 




Quarles and Brady Partner Andre Fiebig Publishes Two Books

Andre Fiebig, a partner in Quarles & Brady LLP’s Business Law practice group, has recently published two books. He co-authored the fourth edition (2016) of one of the leading works on international antitrust: “Antitrust and American Business Abroad,” published by Thomson Reuters, and is the author of “EU Business Law,” published by the Business Law Section of the American Bar Association.

“Antitrust and American Business Abroad: (4th ed. 2016) builds upon the work of previous editions and discusses recent developments in the ever-changing world of international antitrust law. Divided in six parts, the result is a comprehensive look at the contemporary landscape of international antitrust that is grounded in historical context.

“EU Business Law” is an analysis and explanation of European Union business legal issues ranging from competition and antitrust law to electronic commerce and consumer protection.

Fiebig’s practice focuses on corporate and antitrust law with an emphasis on mergers and acquisitions, international joint ventures, and commercial law.

He is currently an adjunct professor at Northwestern University School of Law where he teaches Mergers & Acquisitions. Andre also teaches regularly at Bucerius Law School in Hamburg, Germany and Hong Kong University.

“I am happy to be able to provide American-based corporations with an understanding of international business issues, and share practical information on issues affecting companies that do business abroad,” said Fiebig.