USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: William Lavery, Joseph Ostoyich, Dodi Allocca and Timothy Lyons, Clifford Chance LLP
DIRECTV and Plaintiff States v Nexstar Media Group (ED Cal) In March 2026, DirecTV and a coalition of state attor - neys general filed suit in the Eastern District of Cali - fornia to challenge Nexstar Media Group’s acquisition of TEGNA, alleging that the merger would create a “broadcast behemoth” by combining the largest and third-largest owners of local television stations in the USA. The plaintiffs contend that the merger would reduce competition among affiliates of “Big Four” net - works (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) in numerous discrete local markets, allowing defendants to negotiate higher retransmission consent fees that cable companies and other video distributors would then pass on in the form of higher pay-TV bills. The plaintiffs also con - tend that the merger would diminish competition in local news. Crediting these claims, Judge Troy Nunley entered a preliminary injunction in April that required Nexstar and TEGNA to remain separate pending adju - dication of the merits. The defendants have appealed the preliminary injunction decision, while a trial on the plaintiffs’ motion to permanently enjoin the merger is scheduled for 2027. Federal and Private Technology Cases The government’s ongoing monopolisation cases against “Big Tech” continue, while developments in AI have led to new claims by private plaintiffs. United States v Google (DDC and DC Cir) The Department of Justice’s monopolisation case against Google’s search business is now before the DC Circuit following a series of landmark district court rulings. After finding in 2024 that Google had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully maintaining monopolies in multiple search-related markets, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a remedies deci - sion in September 2025 and entered final judgment in December 2025. The order prohibits certain exclu - sive distribution agreements and tying arrangements involving Google Search and other Google products and services, and requires Google to share certain search index and user interaction data and make its search product available on a syndicated basis to qualified competitors. The court declined the plaintiffs’ request to order Google to divest Chrome or Android, concluding that the record did not establish that those
assets were instrumental to the unlawful conduct. The court also declined to prohibit Google from making search-related payments to browsers, device manu - facturers and wireless carriers, expressing concern for potential downstream harm. Both parties have appealed. Google has appealed both the liability and remedies decisions, arguing that its market position reflects the quality of its prod - uct rather than unlawful exclusionary conduct, and that the data-sharing and syndication remedies risk compelling the transfer of valuable intellectual prop - erty and competitively sensitive information to rivals. Plaintiffs have appealed the district court’s decision not to order a payment ban, arguing that the district court wrongly failed to consider whether a ban was necessary for effective relief and improperly elevated other considerations above effective relief. United States v Google (ED Va) The DOJ and a coalition of state attorneys general obtained a second monopolisation verdict against Google in April 2025 in the Eastern District of Virgin - ia, when Judge Leonie Brinkema found that Google unlawfully maintained monopoly power in multiple open-web display advertising markets. The court also found that Google unlawfully tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange products. Google has stated that it intends to appeal the liability ruling. The remedies proceedings, held in late 2025, focused on the necessity and practicability of structural relief; plaintiffs sought divestiture of Google’s ad exchange business and other structural relief, along with meas - ures designed to increase interoperability and trans - parency in the digital advertising ecosystem, while Google argued that any remedies should be limited to targeted behavioural measures, such as changes to auction practices and increased flexibility for cus - tomers. In September 2026, the court issued a ruling rejecting the plaintiffs’ proposals for structural rem - edies and accepting most of the parties’ proposed behavioural remedies. FTC v Meta Platforms (DDC) After years of pretrial proceedings and a six-week bench trial, Judge Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its monopolisation case
259 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook