Insights
Search Results
Alerts
11.24.25
Federal Court Doesn’t “Like” FTC Claim That Meta Is a Monopolist
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has lost its long-running suit contending that Meta Platforms monopolized a “personal social networking” (PSN) market by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp, two acquisitions that the FTC had previously reviewed and declined to challenge. Judge James Boasberg of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia held first, as a matter of law, that the relevant question was whether Meta has market power now, rather than when the suit was filed five years ago. Second, the court found that the FTC had failed to prove its relevant market (which the FTC alleged was essentially limited to Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat) and that, when competitors such as TikTok and YouTube were included, Meta lacked monopoly power.
Alerts
9.03.24
Spoiled Goods: FTC Denied Adverse Inference Request for Missing Texts in Kroger-Albertsons Merger Trial
On August 16, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a motion in limine in its challenge to Kroger’s $24.6 billion acquisition of Albertsons alleging that Albertsons executives intentionally deleted text communications about the merger.1 The FTC’s motion asked the court to infer that the executives’ allegedly deleted communications would have been harmful to the companies’ defense of the merger. In addition to seeking an adverse inference about the content of the responsive text messages, the FTC requested that the court “treat with skepticism” any trial testimony from certain Albertsons executives, including CEO Vivek Sankaran, about the effects of the proposed merger or the parties’ planned divestitures.2
Alerts
8.26.24
Man vs. Machine: DOJ Files Complaint Alleging Algorithmic Collusion
On August 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and eight states filed a complaint in federal court in North Carolina alleging that RealPage, a software analytics company, coordinated rental prices in the real estate market. According to the DOJ, RealPage did this by collecting nonpublic competitively sensitive pricing and other data from owners, using that data to determine a “recommended” market price through various algorithms, and then sending that “recommended” price back to owners that subscribed to certain software. The DOJ claims RealPage’s service harms the competitive process and ultimately renters in violation of the Sherman Act.
Alerts
8.19.24
Improper Venu Sports: Southern District of New York Blocks Launch of Sports-Streaming Joint Venture Between Disney, Fox, and Warner Brothers Discovery
The Southern District of New York took the extraordinary step of granting competitor Fubo’s effort to preliminarily enjoin the launch of “Venu Sports,” a sports-streaming joint venture between Disney, Fox, and Warner Brothers Discovery.1 The defendants would license their collective sports content unbundled from non-sports programming exclusively to the joint venture while continuing to require competing distribution platforms like Fubo to purchase sports programming as part of a bundle with non-sports programming. Indeed, the court explained that “shortly before the JV was announced, the JV Defendants explicitly agreed to ‘stay clear’ of supporting another platform like the JV for at least the next three years.” In determining that the joint venture would likely substantially lessen competition, the court stated that the defendants’ history of bundling provided “crucial context” for its determination that the joint venture’s market power and structure created incentives for the defendants to monopolize a segment of the live pay TV market. The defendants plan to appeal the ruling.
Alerts
5.29.24
The Next Chapter in the Serial: U.S. Antitrust Agencies Heighten Focus on Roll-Up Strategies
Serial acquisitions and roll-up strategies are facing intense scrutiny as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division request public comment on how these types of transactions impact competition in “any sector or industry” of the U.S. economy, including “housing, agriculture, defense, cybersecurity, distribution, construction, aftermarket/repair, and professional services markets.”1 In their press release announcing the public inquiry, the FTC and the DOJ emphasized their concern that serial acquisitions, even those below HSR thresholds, allow companies “to amass significant control over key products, services, or labor markets without government scrutiny,” which “can harm competition to the detriment of consumers, workers, and innovation across an entire industry or business sector.” FTC Chair Lina Khan described these acquisitions as “stealth consolidation schemes” and asked that the public weigh in to inform future enforcement efforts.
Alerts
4.08.24
California Considers Expanding State Antitrust Prohibitions
Big changes to California’s state antitrust law, called the Cartwright Act, may be in the works. These changes, if enacted, would represent a significant departure from current antitrust law, prohibiting otherwise lawful conduct and expanding the regulatory costs and potential legal liability for all companies that do business or have customers in California. The latest proposal is part of a broader effort to increase antitrust enforcement in California, including the March 2024 announcement that the California Attorney General’s Office intends to begin charging criminal violations of the Cartwright Act.
News Articles
10.05.22
Wilson Sonsini Attorneys Named to Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America
On October 3, 2022, Lawdragon released its inaugural guide Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America dedicated to attorneys who excel at representing corporations and other organizations in litigating claims involving antitrust, securities, financial, M&A, intellectual property and patents, product liability, mass tort, white collar, government investigations, and energy disputes. Attorneys were selected based on a number of submissions and independent research focused on recent cases and defense verdicts or settlements, as well as attorneys who have sustained excellence in trials.
News Articles
4.06.22
Wilson Sonsini and Jonathan Jacobson Honored at 12th Annual GCR Awards
On April 5, 2022, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Senior Of Counsel Jonathan Jacobson were honored at Global Competition Review’s 12th Annual GCR Awards, which recognized the world’s leading antitrust lawyers, economists, and enforcers, as well as the biggest cases of 2021.
Wilson Sonsini—alongside Freshfields, Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider, Ropes & Gray, and Williams & Connolly—won the award for “Behavioural Matter of the Year for the Americas” for its work defending Google against investigations from the Department of Justice and state enforcers. The team representing Google in the matter includes antitrust partners Susan Creighton, Wendy Waszmer, Franklin Rubinstein, Brad Tennis, and Tina Sessions.
In addition, Jonathan was recognized as “Litigator of the Year” for his work on several outstanding matters, including his defense of Google in the Google Digital Advertising antitrust litigation and his successful representation of two Chinese vitamin exporters before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Wilson Sonsini—alongside Freshfields, Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider, Ropes & Gray, and Williams & Connolly—won the award for “Behavioural Matter of the Year for the Americas” for its work defending Google against investigations from the Department of Justice and state enforcers. The team representing Google in the matter includes antitrust partners Susan Creighton, Wendy Waszmer, Franklin Rubinstein, Brad Tennis, and Tina Sessions.
In addition, Jonathan was recognized as “Litigator of the Year” for his work on several outstanding matters, including his defense of Google in the Google Digital Advertising antitrust litigation and his successful representation of two Chinese vitamin exporters before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Alerts
6.25.18
U.S. Supreme Court Tackles Two-Sided Markets: Ohio v. American Express
In one of the year's most anticipated antitrust decisions, Ohio et al. v American Express Co., the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that courts considering allegations of anticompetitive behavior by companies that operate "two-sided transaction platforms" must consider the economic interaction of the various sides of the platform in defining the relevant market. The decision also clarifies the obstacles for plaintiffs seeking to challenge vertical agreements and behavior; the Court confirmed that plaintiffs must bear the burden of proving a relevant market, and that the defendant has market power in such a market, even when relying on direct evidence of competitive harm such as increases in price.
News Articles
6.18.18
Antitrust Attorneys Recognized in Who's Who Legal: Competition Lists
Several of the Wilson Sonsini's antitrust attorneys have been recognized in the 2018 edition of Who's Who Legal: Competition lists, which are produced in conjunction with its sister publication, Global Competition Review. Specifically, Susan Creighton and Jonathan Jacobson were recognized in the publication's "Competition" section, while partners Wendy Waszmer, Jeff VanHooreweghe, and Franklin Rubinstein were recognized in the "Competition—Future Leaders" category.