USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Peter Mucchetti, Sharis Pozen, Brian Concklin and Michael Van Arsdall, Clifford Chance US
Leading Technology Cases Lawsuits against Meta, Google, Apple and other tech - nology companies show that the Federal Trade Com - mission (FTC), the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Antitrust Division, and state attorneys general are con - tinuing their scrutiny of the technology sector. FTC v Meta In December 2020, the FTC and 46 state attorneys general filed parallel suits against Meta (then Face - book) in the US District Court for the District of Colum - bia. The complaints accused Meta of monopolising the “personal social media networking services” market through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. Chief Judge James Boasberg dismissed the states’ claims under the doctrine of laches after finding that the states unreasonably delayed bringing their case. The FTC’s case, however, survived after the agency amended its complaint in August 2021. The case proceeded to discovery, past summary judgment motions, and ultimately to a six-week bench trial that began in April 2025. The matter is the FTC’s first monopolisation case to proceed to trial since 2020. The FTC argued that the personal social media networking market should be limited to platforms used primarily for sharing con - tent with friends and family. Meta sought to expand the market by arguing that it faces robust competi - tion for users’ attention from TikTok, YouTube and oth - ers. Meta also argued that WhatsApp and Instagram succeeded because of Meta’s support. Chief Judge Boasberg is expected to rule on the merits in Septem - ber 2025 or later. If he rules in the FTC’s favour, the case will proceed to a remedies phase. United States v Google (ad tech and search cases) In 2020, the DOJ filed a complaint against Google, alleging that it abused its market power in search engines to suppress competition from rivals, thus hampering innovation. In August 2024, US District Judge Amit Mehta in the District of Columbia found that “Google is a monopolist” and “has acted as one to maintain its monopoly”. Specifically, the court held that Google has monopoly power in product markets for search services and search text ads. The court further held that Google’s exclusive distribution agree - ments have anti-competitive effects and that Google
failed to proffer pro-competitive justifications for these agreements. The court found that Google had used its position as a monopolist to charge supra-competitive prices and earn anti-competitive profits. The DOJ submitted its proposed remedies in April and May 2025, requesting behavioural and structural rem - edies including: • requiring Google to divest the Chrome web brows - er and potentially the Android mobile operating system; and • requiring Google to share users’ search data with competitors. During the remedies hearing, the DOJ argued that significant action, including the data sharing and divestitures that it proposed, is necessary to upend Google’s monopoly power. The DOJ warned that failing to take “forward-looking” action could result in Google dominating another technology industry – artificial intelligence. In response, Google argued that sharing its data would violate its users’ privacy and compromise the Google products that consumers have come to rely on. As an alternative to the DOJ’s proposed remedies, Google suggested that it could reform its contracts with smartphone companies to allow for greater competition among search engines. A decision by Judge Mehta is expected later in 2025. In April 2025, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia entered a second land - mark decision against Google. Judge Brinkema held that Google wilfully violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The court reasoned that Google acquired and maintained monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad server market and the open-web display ad exchange market through anti-competitive prac - tices by unlawfully tying its publisher ad server (DFP) with its ad exchange (AdX). The DOJ and eight states filed a notice of proposed remedies in May 2025, seeking sweeping remedies. The DOJ has called for Google to divest AdX and for a phased divestiture of DFP. In response, Google argued that the proposed behavioural remedies are ill-defined and stifle legiti - mate competition. In addition, Google stated that the proposed divestitures are not a legally available reme - dy because the divestiture is not tied to the violations.
285 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook