USA – ARIZONA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dan Goldfine, John Desmond, Patrick Masterson and Alexis Taitel, Dickinson Wright PLLC
according to its legislative or qualifying administrative functions and was thus precluded from immunity. As for the state-action exemption, the Court of Appeals looked to the 9th Circuit for guidance. (Id. at ¶ 18 (cit - ing Mothershed v Justices of Sup. Ct., 410 F.3d 602, 609–10 (9th Cir. 2005) ).) It ultimately concluded that the exemption did not apply here because there was no clearly articulated state policy for municipalities to displace all competition around garbage collec - tion. (Id.) Thus, because Arizona’s statutory scheme “contemplate[s] that municipalities must encourage private garbage collection,” the City could not benefit from immunity. Affirming the district court’s decision, the Court of Appeals accepted special-action jurisdiction but denied relief to the City. The case is set to proceed to a jury trial in late 2025/early 2026 and will likely con - tinue to provide useful insights into the application of Arizona’s state antitrust laws. Arizona Attorney General’s office antitrust enforcement against tech companies Elected in 2022, Arizona’s Attorney General Kris Mayes has identified antitrust enforcement – particu - larly in the technology arena – as one of her priori - ties: “A competitive, fair marketplace promotes lower prices, higher quality goods and services and more options for consumers. My team and I at the Attor - ney General’s Office will continue to go after illegal and unfair business practices to protect Arizonans.” (Press Release, Arizona Attorney General, Attorney General Mayes Announces USD700 million Settle - ment with Google over Play Store Misconduct (19 December 2023) – last accessed 31 July 2025.) Since taking office, Mayes has joined other states and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in federal antitrust lawsuits against tech giants like Apple ( United States, et al. v Apple, Inc. (D. N.J. Case No. 2:24-cv-04055) ) and most recently against Live Nation and Ticketmas - ter ( United States, et al. v Live Nation Entm’t, Inc. and Ticketmaster, LLC (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:24-cv-03973) ). Arizona also independently brought two suits against Amazon under Arizona law. ( Arizona, ex rel. Kristin K. Mayes v Amazon.com, Inc. (Case No. CV2024-011990) and Arizona, ex rel. Kristin K. Mayes v Amazon.com, Inc. (Case No. CV2023-012081) . Additionally, Mayes’ office was involved in the USD700 million settlement
of an antitrust case against Google. ( Utah et al. v Google, LLC (N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:21-cv-05227-JD). ) The lawsuits against Amazon, Apple, Live Nation, and Ticketmaster remain in the early stages. In March 2024, Mayes joined the DOJ and 15 other state and district attorneys general (later joined by four addition - al states) in a suit against Apple under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey. Accusing Apple of monopolising the smartphone market, the complaint characterises the lawsuit as “about freeing smartphone markets from Apple’s anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct and restoring competition to lower smartphone prices for consumers, reducing fees for developers, and pre - serving innovation for the future.” ( Complaint at 4, United States, et al. v Apple, Inc. (D. N.J. Case No. 2:24-cv-04055) (filed 21 March 2024).) In June 2025, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the parties have since commenced discovery. Similarly, in May 2024, Arizona joined the DOJ and a bipartisan coalition of 29 other states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit against Live Nation – owner of Ticketmaster – under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs allege that Live Nation monopolises the live music industry, controlling which artists per - form at which venues, how and when fans can buy tickets, and what fees they must pay – all of which push potential competitors out of the music space. In March 2025, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the parties have since commenced discovery. Finally, in May 2024, Mayes’ office brought two sepa - rate state-court suits against Amazon, relying on the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and the Arizona Uniform State Antitrust Act. Both cases are pending in the Maricopa County Superior Court of the State of Ari - zona. One of the actions draws attention to Amazon Prime’s cancellation process, through which Amazon allegedly employs methods called “dark patterns” to misdirect consumers and discourage them from can - celling their Prime subscriptions. The second suit, on the other hand, is based on the company’s use of its “Buy Box algorithm,” through which Arizona alleges that Amazon tries to maximise its own profits while disfavouring other third-party sellers and forcing them
295 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook