Fierce Competition Podcast | Antitrust Collusion in Labor Markets: Enforcement Trends on Both Sides of the Atlantic
Daily Compliance News: July 29, 2025 the Is CEO Conduct Ever Personal Edition
The LathamTECH Podcast — Getting Deals Done: Tackling Antitrust Challenges in Tech M&A
10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending April 26, 2025
Daily Compliance News: April 24, 2025, The Made in Malaysia Edition
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 7: National MultiPlan Litigation: A Guide for Healthcare Providers
12 Days of Regulatory Insights: Day 11 – State AGs on the Antitrust Frontline — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Daily Compliance News: November 15, 2024 - The Meta Fined (again) Edition
Antitrust Considerations in Long-Term Care — Assisted Living and the Law Podcast
Episode 323 - Carlos Villagran Discusses Rebuilding a Corporate Culture After a Crisis
The Changing Landscape of State AG Antitrust Enforcement — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
AGG Talks: Antitrust and White-Collar Crime Roundup - Analyzing the Latest Updates in the Litigation Against Trump
Fierce Competition Podcast | Letter From London: The Rise of UK Class Actions and the Competition Appeal Tribunal
JONES DAY TALKS® - Charting the Course: Antitrust's Past, Present, and Future in Labor Markets
State AG Pulse | America’s Pastime Unites AGs
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 18 - A Deep Dive Into Antitrust Violations and the Procurement Collusion Strike Force
Class Action | Eleventh Circuit Reinstates No Hire Antitrust Claims Against Burger King
Antitrust Conversations: Fundamentals of Antitrust Law
How Antitrust Regulators and the SEC Are Advancing the Wider Biden Agenda
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Podcast | Episode 100: Marguerite Willis, Nexsen Pruet Attorney
X Corp. and X.AI LLC sued Apple Inc. and OpenAI today (8/25/2025) alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, including Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Texas Free Enterprise & Antitrust Act....more
A recent decision from Judge Edward M. Chen in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California focuses on the sufficiency of allegations of market definition to state a claim for federal antitrust...more
A bipartisan group of 37 AGs, led by Utah AG Sean Reyes, New York AG Letitia James, North Carolina AG Josh Stein, and Tennessee AG Herbert Slatery, sued Google, LLC and related entities (collectively, “Google”) over...more
The United States Supreme Court infrequently hears antitrust cases but when it decides to hear a case, the Court has the power to shape the framework of American antitrust laws. In this episode, we’re examining the...more
On Tuesday I wrote about how Epic Games’ CEO Tim Sweeney was engaging Apple on at least three battlefronts. I missed a battlefront and I’m here today to rectify that mistake. I mentioned Epic’s groundbreaking and lucrative...more
Tim Sweeney, the Colossus of Cary, is fighting even bigger foes – Apple and Google. The multibillionaire chief executive of Epic Games has opened a multi-front war on the tribute that app developers are forced to pay to reach...more
In May, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), holding that consumers of Apple’s App Store could bring suit against the tech giant for antitrust claims. ...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision holding that iPhone owners who purchased applications through Apple’s App Store were “direct purchasers” who could sue Apple for monopolization....more
In May 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Apple v. Pepper, one of the Court's most significant antitrust rulings of the last several years. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court...more
In a 5–4 decision, in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) followed the its 1977 precedent in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, which limits the assertion of antitrust damage claims to the first purchaser...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its most recent decision relating to antitrust class action litigation. The case, Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, could represent a significant shift in antitrust class action...more
In a 5-4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have reworked a longstanding precedent that has been a foundation of antitrust litigation for more than 40 years—the “direct purchaser” rule of Illinois Brick, which...more
In a recent decision decided on May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court allowed an antitrust suit to move forward against Apple. Consumers brought suit based on Apple’s operation of its App Store – which serves as the exclusive...more
In a 5-4 ruling issued on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Apple Inc. v. Pepper determined that iPhone users may proceed with their claims against Apple over its alleged anticompetitive app store practices. The decision...more
• The U.S. Supreme Court split 5-4 on how to apply Illinois Brick’s prohibition on federal indirect purchaser lawsuits to a case where plaintiff app purchasers bought apps from the Apple App Store, paying a price set by the...more
The United States Supreme Court decided this week that purchasers of apps through the Apple App Store have standing under federal antitrust law to bring a class-action lawsuit against the tech giant....more
Wondering if you’re a direct purchaser from a monopoly? There’s a Supreme Court ruling for that. Our Antitrust Team downloads the Court’s Apple v. Pepper decision and considers its conclusions and implications....more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of iPhone owners who are suing Apple. The iPhone owners claim that Apple, through its App Store, has established a monopoly and uses that power to charge consumers more for...more
In APPLE INC. v. PEPPER ET AL., case number 17-204, the United States Supreme Court considered a case alleging Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to...more
On May 13, 2019, in a 5-4 decision in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court held that consumers of iPhone apps are direct purchasers of Apple and therefore have standing to sue the company for alleged monopolization of...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, holding that iPhone owners who purchase apps from Apple’s App Store are “direct purchasers” from Apple and may sue Apple for alleged monopolization...more