October 2025

Antitrust Litigation- Microsoft/OpenAI - restrictive agreements- Generative AI

A new U.S. antitrust class action accuses Microsoft of striking a secretive, anti-competitive agreement with OpenAI to restrict access to computing resources, inflate prices, and harm ChatGPT subscribers and other consumers of generative AI services.


Microsoft contractually forced OpenAI to use only Microsoft’s Azure cloud services and prevented OpenAI from accessing rival infrastructure providers. As proof of the anti-competitive effects, the complaint asserts that since OpenAI began purchasing compute from Google, OpenAI’s prices dropped by 80 percent.


The complaint is based on Microsoft’s nearly $14 billion minority investment in OpenAI since 2019, which the complaint alleges gave Microsoft undue control over OpenAI’s operations and technology. Microsoft's initial investment did not go through an antitrust review in the US and in other international jurisdictions because it did not meet the control criteria under merger control laws.


Antitrust Litigation-  Disney/InterDigital -  Monopolization, Patents, Licensing and SEP - Online Streaming

Disney sued InterDigital and affiliates in August 2025 in Delaware, alleging abusive SEP licensing and monopolization in markets for video compression/streaming tied to H.264/H.265 standards. On February 2, 2025, InterDigital filed a patent infringement complaint against Disney and related streaming entities in California, asserting five video‑codec patents tied to AVC/H.264 and HEVC/H.265 technologies.


On October 6, 2025, the DOJ filed a 24‑page statement of interest in the Delaware case, explaining how antitrust law applies to standards development.The DoJ reaffirmed that no presumption of market or monopoly power comes from SEP designation alone. High prices, supra‑RAND asks, or refusal to license on an implementer’s preferred terms generally do not suffice for antitrust liability absent exclusionary conduct harming the competitive process.


Disney claimed InterDigital leveraged “litigation fees and costs,” threats of injunctions in key foreign markets, and other litigation tactics to pressure Disney into paying supra‑RAND royalties, framing this as anticompetitive exclusion and harm to Disney’s streaming business. In relation to this point, the DoJ explained that because the challenged conduct centers on InterDigital’s petitioning activity to enforce SEPs (seeking judicial redress), Noerr‑Pennington generally forecloses Disney’s antitrust claims unless Disney can plausibly plead and prove a recognized exception.


Privacy Litigation - Google - California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)

This is a critical new phase in the privacy lawsuit against Google that could expose the company to billions more in penalties. A potential ruling on both damages and injunctive relief may arrive by early 2026.


The case centers on Google’s “Web & App Activity” (WAA) and “supplemental Web & App Activity” (sWAA) settings, which purport to let users prevent data tracking. The jury determined that even when those controls were off, Google continued collecting app activity, violating California privacy laws for “intrusion upon seclusion.” However, it cleared Google of violating the state’s computer fraud statute.


Plaintiffs argue that Google’s actions generated billions in revenue from improperly collected user data.

The tech privacy suit is an indicator for future litigation against major digital platforms.

September 2025

Antitrust Litigation-  Google -  Monopolization, Exclusive Deals and Remedies - Online Search

U.S. Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling in the U.S. Department of Justice’s monopolization case against Google preserves the tech giant’s control over its Chrome browser and search ecosystem.


Mehta refused to require Google to divest Chrome or Android, rejecting calls for structural remedies. He found that although Google violated the Sherman Act through exclusive search-distribution agreements, these products were not directly used to impose illegal restraints.

The court instead imposed behavioral remedies, including prohibiting Google from exclusive deals for Google Search, Chrome, Assistant, or Gemini app distribution. However, Google may still pay distributors for default placement, a core part of its competitive practice, as long as those payments are not conditioned on exclusivity and the agreements have a term of one year or less.


Mehta’s decision leans heavily on the potential of an “AI arms race” to disrupt the search ecosystem.


Antitrust Litigation- Amazon - Monopolization and restrictive agreements - Privilege

US District Judge John Chun for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that Amazon improperly designated operational, business, and strategic documents as attorney-client communications or attorney-work product, and ordered the company to give the materials to the private consumer plaintiffs.


Amazon is facing private plaintiffs in De Coster et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Brown et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc. Hogan v. Amazon.com, Inc., and

Frame-Wilson et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc.


Private plaintiff cases are parallel/related to the government’s case (FTC + states) in FTC et al. v. Amazon. The government case focuses on monopolization and anticompetitive practices, while private cases seek damages (or injunctive relief) on behalf of consumers who claim harm from Amazon’s policies.


Privacy Litigation - Google/meta - California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)

US juries found that Google and Meta failed to obtain valid legal consent from users to collect personal data for their adtech businesses. The lengthy privacy policies and user clicks on “I agree” did not constitute informed consent, as neither Google nor Meta provided clear or sufficient information to meet legal standards.


Meta was found liable under California’s wiretapping law for unlawfully obtaining health data from the Flo period-tracking app, exposing it to potentially billions in damages.


Google was ordered to pay $425.6 million for collecting data after users disabled key privacy settings, with the jury focusing on the lack of transparency and clear consent rather than data usage specifics.


These are the first privacy lawsuits against major tech companies to reach a full jury trial in the US, setting a precedent for how user consent is legally interpreted.  The central issue remains: user agreement to privacy terms does not grant companies unrestricted legal authority to collect and use personal data without clear, explicit, and comprehensible consent.

August 2025

Antitrust/REGULATORY - META/Scale AI - Merger Control

A coalition of 12 advocacy groups, led by NextGen Competition and Public Citizen, called on the FTC to investigate Meta’s $14.3 billion purchase of a 49% stake in Scale AI.


The group claims that Meta’s stake is deliberately just below the threshold for mandatory federal reporting, raising suspicions about its structure and is part of a wider pattern of minority stake "acqui-hires" to secure control over AI infrastructure and talent.


The group urges the FTC to investigate the deal, considered a de facto vertical merger meant to entrench further Meta’s dominance in generative AI, social media, and digital advertising while circumventing mandatory antitrust review.

FTC merger guidelines warn that minority investments can raise competitive concerns if they allow the investor to influence strategy or gain sensitive information.


Antitrust/REGULATORY - Onex Corp/Delta - Merger Control

Onex Corp. sold minority stakes in WestJet to Delta Air Lines (15% for $330 million) and Korean Air (10% for $220 million) in a US$550 million deal aimed at bolstering WestJet’s international growth.


Delta and Korean Air will gain seats on WestJet’s board. The deal, pending US regulatory approval, complies with Canadian foreign ownership laws requiring majority Canadian control.  From an antitrust standpoint, minority stakes can still trigger scrutiny if paired with board seats, veto rights, or influence over strategy, as these could facilitate anti-competitive joint action or "tacit collusion" between Delta, Korean Air, and WestJet.


Antitrust/REGULATORY - UnitedHealth/Amedysis - Merger Control

The US Department of Justice Antitrust Division, joined by state co-plaintiffs, filed a proposed settlement to resolve its challenge to UnitedHealth Group’s $3.3 billion acquisition of Amedisys Inc.Amedisys is a leading home health and hospice provider.


UnitedHealth and Amedisys must divest 164 home health and hospice facilities (plus one palliative care site) across 19 states, representing about $528 million in annual revenue. This marks the largest outpatient healthcare divestiture ever required in a merger case. A monitor will oversee compliance and divestiture execution. Buyers must receive sufficient assets, staff, and relationships to compete effectively. Strong safeguards are included to prevent interference with competitors.

Antitrust/REGULATORY - META/Scale AI - Merger Control

A coalition of 12 advocacy groups, led by NextGen Competition and Public Citizen, called on the FTC to investigate Meta’s $14.3 billion purchase of a 49% stake in Scale AI.


The group claims that Meta’s stake is deliberately just below the threshold for mandatory federal reporting, raising suspicions about its structure and is part of a wider pattern of minority stake "acqui-hires" to secure control over AI infrastructure and talent.


The group urges the FTC to investigate the deal, considered a de facto vertical merger meant to entrench further Meta’s dominance in generative AI, social media, and digital advertising while circumventing mandatory antitrust review.

FTC merger guidelines warn that minority investments can raise competitive concerns if they allow the investor to influence strategy or gain sensitive information.


Antitrust/REGULATORY - Onex Corp/Delta - Merger Control

Onex Corp. sold minority stakes in WestJet to Delta Air Lines (15% for $330 million) and Korean Air (10% for $220 million) in a US$550 million deal aimed at bolstering WestJet’s international growth.


Delta and Korean Air will gain seats on WestJet’s board. The deal, pending US regulatory approval, complies with Canadian foreign ownership laws requiring majority Canadian control.  From an antitrust standpoint, minority stakes can still trigger scrutiny if paired with board seats, veto rights, or influence over strategy, as these could facilitate anti-competitive joint action or "tacit collusion" between Delta, Korean Air, and WestJet.


Antitrust/REGULATORY - UnitedHealth/Amedysis - Merger Control

The US Department of Justice Antitrust Division, joined by state co-plaintiffs, filed a proposed settlement to resolve its challenge to UnitedHealth Group’s $3.3 billion acquisition of Amedisys Inc.Amedisys is a leading home health and hospice provider.


UnitedHealth and Amedisys must divest 164 home health and hospice facilities (plus one palliative care site) across 19 states, representing about $528 million in annual revenue. This marks the largest outpatient healthcare divestiture ever required in a merger case. A monitor will oversee compliance and divestiture execution. Buyers must receive sufficient assets, staff, and relationships to compete effectively. Strong safeguards are included to prevent interference with competitors.

July 2025

ANTITRUST LITIGATION - MINORITY INVESTORS - CARTEL

A federal judge in Texas allowed a landmark antitrust lawsuit led by Texas and other mostly Republican states against BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard to proceed, rejecting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The first-of-its-kind antitrust challenge regarding investment strategies among major asset managers.


The suit alleges that these major asset managers conspired to reduce coal production by leveraging their shareholder power to pressure U.S. coal companies into lowering output for environmental reasons.


Key points: 

- asset managers’ influence could lessen competition without needing every coal company’s direct agreement;

- the antitrust exemptions for passive investment don’t fully shield investors if their actions contribute to anticompetitive effects;

- exercise of voting/proxy power against coal output expansion plausibly demonstrates an effort to reduce output and harm competition;

- companies partly owned by these managers lagged in output compared to privately owned peers as coal prices rose;

- claims under both the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act were found plausible at this stage, with noted “plus factors” such as shared climate motives and coordinated pressure to disclose competitive information.

ANTITRUST LITIGATION - MINORITY INVESTORS - CARTEL

A federal judge in Texas allowed a landmark antitrust lawsuit led by Texas and other mostly Republican states against BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard to proceed, rejecting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The first-of-its-kind antitrust challenge regarding investment strategies among major asset managers.


The suit alleges that these major asset managers conspired to reduce coal production by leveraging their shareholder power to pressure U.S. coal companies into lowering output for environmental reasons.


Key points: 

- asset managers’ influence could lessen competition without needing every coal company’s direct agreement;

- the antitrust exemptions for passive investment don’t fully shield investors if their actions contribute to anticompetitive effects;

- exercise of voting/proxy power against coal output expansion plausibly demonstrates an effort to reduce output and harm competition;

- companies partly owned by these managers lagged in output compared to privately owned peers as coal prices rose;

- claims under both the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act were found plausible at this stage, with noted “plus factors” such as shared climate motives and coordinated pressure to disclose competitive information.

June 2025

Antitrust Litigation - Google - Remedies

The European Commission unexpectedly allowed documents related to Google’s antitrust submissions in the EU case to be shared with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for use in the ongoing US antitrust trial against Google’s adtech business. The Commission’s action is framed as an effort to align with US regulators, as both jurisdictions are considering structural remedies, such as the forced sale of Google’s adtech assets (like AdX and DFP). The Commission’s approach is described as case-by-case, but this instance is seen as a break from past practice.


Antitrust/ReGULATORY - SES/INTELSAT - Merger Control

Willemstad Holdings said the merger would result in the combined company owning approximately 90 percent of the C-band market. Willemstad has approached the FCC, expressing interest in purchasing satellite capacity or spectrum that SES–Intelsat might be required to divest to address antitrust concerns. The FCC is still reviewing responses.

The EU and UK have already approved the transaction unconditionally.

May 2025

Copyright Litigation - Artificial Intelligence - Enforcement

Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. is the first significant U.S. ruling to address whether using copyrighted works to train an AI system is protected by fair use. The court rejected the Fair Use Defense.
Broader Implications
• Licensing Becomes Central
• Impact Across Industries
• No Categorical Fair Use for AI
Companies must carefully assess the copyright status of training data and increasingly pursue licensing or use public domain/open data to mitigate legal risk. The legal landscape remains in flux, but this case sets a persuasive precedent for future disputes involving AI and copyrighted training da


Antitrust/REGULATORY - Alcon Inc/Lensar Inc - Merger Control

Alcon Inc., a global leader in eye care, has announced its intention to acquire Florida-based medical technology company Lensar Inc. for $430 million. Alcon aims to incorporating Lensar's advanced technologies for femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has requested additional information regarding the proposed acquisition, extending the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act.


Antitrust Criminal Investigation - U.S. Forces Korea contracts - Bid Rigging

A recent investigation by the Korea Prosecution Service (KPS) into bid rigging at U.S. military bases in South Korea marks a pivotal development in transnational cartel enforcement. 12 individuals and four companies have been indicted for manipulating bids on U.S. military contracts in Korea over five years.

April 2025

Antitrust Litigation - Google AdTech - Monopolization

Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Google has illegally monopolized key parts of the online advertising technology market. The ruling allows the Department of Justice to seek remedies, including the potential breakup of Google’s ad tech business.

The DOJ has specifically suggested that Google should be required to divest its Google Ad Manager, which includes the DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) ad server and the AdX ad exchange.


Antitrust Legislation - Illinois "Baby" HSR Law  - Merger Control

Effective January 1, 2024, Illinois amended its Antitrust Act to require healthcare facilities and provider organizations to notify the Illinois Attorney General (AG) at least 30 days before closing certain mergers, acquisitions, or contracting affiliations. Illinois is part of a broader movement among states to increase oversight of healthcare consolidation. States such as California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Washington have enacted similar laws, each with its own thresholds, timing, and penalties.


Copyright Policy - Artificial Intelligence - Enforcement

The U.S. Copyright Office published the work of an ad hoc committee of economic scholars on the intersection of artificial intelligence (generative AI) and copyright policy. The volume sheds some light on the impact of generative AI and tries to strike a balance between the relative magnitude of the value created and the value displaced by generative AI in the product market.