USA – GEORGIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Lohr Beck and Kasey Clark, King & Spalding LLP
John had similar pricing authority as the general man - ager of Elite Concrete LLC, a smaller South Georgia concrete company that was one of Argos’ direct com - petitors in the region. The two remaining individual defendants held similar managerial roles at other con - crete competitors in the area, one of which was the defendant company, Evans Concrete, LLC. Beginning in 2010, the government alleged that the Melton brothers and the remaining defendants began co-ordinating their bids on prospective projects, co- ordinating year-over-year price increases and price- increase letters to their customers, and allocating projects between themselves. (See generally Appel - lee’s Brief, USA v Melton, No. 24-13674 (11th Circuit, May 23, 2025) .) For example, after the group decided that Greg Melton and Argos would win a bid for a large dining facility project at a nearby university, oth - er defendants co-ordinated placing higher bids with the understanding that “we get some work, [you] get some work.” (Id. at 35.) Between 2010 and 2016, the price per cubic yard of concrete in the South Georgia region rose from approximately 70 US dollars to the high 90s or low 100s of US dollars. (Id. at 39.) While the other defendants pleaded guilty, the Melton brothers took their cases to trial in July 2024, and after a four-day trial, the jury found each brother guilty of violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In October 2024, the court sentenced John Melton to 26 months imprisonment and Greg Melton to 41 months impris - onment, with each to serve three years of supervised release thereafter. John Melton has appealed his conviction to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending. (See USA v Melton, No. 24-13674 .) On appeal, Melton argues that most of the identified antitrust violations were unilateral conduct – which he performed out of a sense of fraternal duty – and did not constitute Sherman Act violations. ( Brief of Appellant at 51–55, USA v Melton, No. 24-13674 (11th Circuit, 21 February 2025) .) Melton also argues that the defendants’ co-ordination of their price-increase letters did not constitute a price-fixing agreement because each defendant actually had different prices, and the defendants’ concrete prices ultimately did not match what they had announced in their letters. (Id.
at 55–58.) With appellate briefing now complete, the 11th Circuit could issue an opinion at any time. Multi-district litigation (MDL) connectors While many recognise Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport as a major hub for layovers and connecting flights because of its location in the heart of the Southeastern United States, Georgia’s federal courts have recently played a similar role as an initial landing point for antitrust cases before they are trans - ferred to MDL proceedings elsewhere in the country – including some significant MDLs. Inform Inc. v Google LLC et al. One such case is Inform Inc. v Google LLC et al., No. 1:19-cv-05362-JPB , originally filed in the North - ern District of Georgia in November 2019. Inform – a Georgia-based digital media advertising company that competes directly with Google in the online advertis - ing and online video advertising markets – alleged that Google, YouTube, and their parent company, Alpha - bet, violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act by, among other things, acquiring advertising companies and online video platforms to grow their market share, bun - dling their products like Chrome, Google Search, and Android to maintain their market share, downgrading their competitors’ products on Google smartphones, and collecting and leveraging users’ data to expand their power. (See generally First Amended Com- plaint, Inform Inc. v Google LLC et al., No. 1:19-cv- 05362-JPB (N.D. Ga. 9 October 2020) .) Inform alleged that Google exercised monopolistic control of the online advertising market by owning 92% of the inter - net search market, 75% of the ad server market, and 49% of the total online advertising market. (Id. at 4–5.) Inform’s complaint was the first complaint filed against Google alleging that the company maintained a digital advertisement monopoly. Google moved to dismiss Inform’s original complaint, which the court granted after finding the complaint was an impermissible “shotgun pleading.” With its original complaint dismissed without prejudice, Inform filed an amended complaint, which Google again moved to dismiss. This time, the court granted the motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, again as a shotgun pleading. On appeal,
310 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook