USA – WASHINGTON, DC Trends and Developments Contributed by: Ashley Eickhof, Mark Weiss, Timothy Finley and Andrew Black, Baker McKenzie
reshaped the competitive landscape and, in some cases, changed the course of history. This began in 1974, when the DOJ filed suit against AT&T in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“DC District Court”), seeking to end the company’s monopoly over telephone service. ( United States v American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (D.D.C. 1978) .) Years later, the district court in 1982 ruled in favour of the government, resulting in the largest corporate breakup in history. The decision increased competition in the telecommunications market and paved the way for smaller companies that would ulti - mately become the first internet providers. In 1998, the DOJ, joined by the attorneys general from 20 states and DC, brought the first antitrust case against a technology giant. In United States v Microsoft Corp. (D.D.C. 2000) , the DOJ alleged that Microsoft used its dominant position in the market for computer operating systems to block competition in the web browser market, specifically by tying its web browser, Internet Explorer, to its Windows operating system. The district court agreed and ordered that Microsoft be split in two, but its order was reversed in 2001 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“DC Circuit”), which remanded the case for further proceedings. The case ultimately settled without breaking Microsoft up, as initially ordered. Yet the Microsoft decision continues to provide the framework for applying federal anti - trust law to big tech companies. This case became the model for the DOJ’s subsequent complaints against Google, one of which was also brought in the DC Dis - trict Court. DC remains at the centre of the government’s ongoing wave of blockbuster cases against big tech compa - nies. These cases could alter the course of innovation and competition in the tech industry, and their out - comes could affect hundreds of millions of consumers and businesses. Investigated and litigated over the course of three presidential administrations, the cases have bipartisan support driven by concerns over the companies’ market power in the technology space. The government filed two of its five cases against these big tech companies in the DC District Court, as discussed below.
United States v Google LLC (D.D.C. 2024) The DOJ, along with the DC Attorney General and 38 states, sued Google for allegedly monopolising the search engine and search advertising markets. The complaint alleges that Google used exclusivity pro - visions in contracts to control the domestic search engine market. The court ruled in the DOJ’s favour in August 2024. The remedies trial concluded in May 2025, and the parties are awaiting a decision. FTC v Meta (D.D.C. 2020) The FTC, joined by the attorneys general of 46 states and DC, sued Meta for maintaining a monopoly in the social media market through the acquisitions of Ins - tagram and WhatsApp. The FTC sought divestiture of these companies. The trial concluded in late May 2025, and the parties are awaiting a ruling. A focus on labour and healthcare enforcement Beyond big tech, the DOJ and FTC have signalled enforcement priorities in other key sectors. Two are - as of focus include labour markets and healthcare. The DOJ and FTC have brought a number of nota - ble enforcement actions in both areas in jurisdictions across the country. In DC, on the labour market side, the DOJ recently brought an enforcement action against Activision Blizzard concerning salary caps on e-sports players and teams. ( United States v Activision Blizzard, Inc. (D.D.C. 2023) .) Ultimately the case settled, and under the terms of the settlement Activision agreed not to implement any upper-limit on compensation for play - ers in professional e-sports leagues. On the healthcare side, in September 2024, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against the nation’s three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and their affiliated group purchasing organisations alleg - ing that they engaged in anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices that artificially raised the price of insulin, restricted access to lower list price products, and shifted the cost of high insulin prices to vulner - able patients. ( In the Matter of Insulin (F.T.C. 2024) .) According to the FTC, the three PBMs administer 80% of all prescriptions in the United States. The case is ongoing (although temporarily stayed).
333 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook