HB Litigation News

Tag: Antitrust

  • Cannabis Industry Competition Law with Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver

    Cannabis Industry Competition Law with Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver

    Ausra O. Deluard

    Ausra O. DeluardCounsel | Dentons LLP

    Jennifer M. Oliver

    Jennifer M. OliverPartner | MoginRubin LLP

    Attorneys Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver on Cannabis Industry Competition Law

    What can legitimate cannabis companies do to level the playing field, not only against others who walk the straight and narrow, but dealers still thriving on the black market?

    It was my pleasure to interview Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver for what was an informative and even surprising podcast. It’s based on their article — Clearing the Haze: State Laws and Private Plaintiffs Critical to Preserve Competition in Cannabis — which will be featured in the inaugural issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, which will release in January 2021.

    Ausra, who is an attorney with the global law firm Dentons LLP, has spent more than a decade advising clients in a range of antitrust matters including merger investigations, competitor collaborations, and pricing and distribution policies. She works closely with cannabis clients to help them navigate the rapidly evolving cannabis laws and regulations throughout the U.S.

    Jennifer is a partner at national antitrust boutique MoginRubin LLP, where she litigates and advises clients on competition issues.  Her work includes representing classes of plaintiffs in class actions, risk mitigation and regulatory advice in mergers and acquisitions, and other complex business litigation. Check out the MoginRubin Blog.

    The Journal is a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how awesome Ausra and Jennifer are, drop me a note at Question@LitigationConferences.com.

    We hope you enjoy the interview.

    Tom Hagy
    Founder & Managing Director
    HB Litigation Conferences

  • Will We See More Antitrust Litigation During Biden Administration?

    Will We See More Antitrust Litigation During Biden Administration?

    HB NEWS

    MoginRubin LLP

    One Current and One Former FTC Official Weigh in on Outlook for Antitrust Litigation (Excerpt from MoginRubin Blog)

    FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips and George Washington Law School Competition Law Director William E. Kovacic, who once chaired the agency, appeared on a webinar today (March 16, 2021) hosted by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). Aurelien Portuese, ITIF’s Director of Antitrust and Innovation Policy, asked the speakers what we might expect from the Biden administration in terms of antitrust law, reform, and enforcement.

    “I think that the aggressiveness that’s going on in court right now will increase,” Phillips said. “I think you’ll see more litigation. What effects that will have I’m not sure. That can result in more antitrust, if you will, but it can also result in losses and legal rulings that don’t favor the agencies. But I do think you’ll see more litigation.” He went on to predict “an increasing attempt to slow M&A generally.”

    “On litigation,” former FTC Chair Kovacic said, “the new leadership in many ways is committed to doing much more and, in an exaggerated way, they have denigrated the significance of what’s already on the way. They’re going to discover in a hurry how hard it is to bring the matters that are in flight already to a successful landing.”

    Read more at the MoginRubin Blog.

    Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation

    An on-demand CLE-eligible webinar Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation   America’s senior population is growing. Nearly one in five U.S. residents will be 65 or older in 2030. Which means the average age of U.S. investors is climbing too. With that comes the risk that they will be exploited by people with access – or gain access through nefarious methods – to their investment portfolio. Seniors and vulnerable persons lose billions of dollars each year. Remarkably, 90% of the people to take advantage of senior investors are members of their own family. Attorneys who represent senior clients need to know the signs of vulnerability, red flags that their clients are being exploited, what laws apply, and rules lawyers must follow in these matters.   Questions our speakers answer: What is senior / vulnerable investor exploitation?   Who is protected by state and federal laws?   How prevalent is senior financial exploitation? What do the numbers tell us?  What is the pace of financial abuse SAR filings by securities firms?  What are the most popular scams?   What is diminished capacity?  What are the red flags indicating possible exploitation?  What are the laws, rules, and regulations governing law firms?  What are some best practices for law firms?  How can firms best protect their senior clients?   On Demand CLE Webinar What You Get PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers. 1.5 CLE credits (for licensed attorneys). CLE assistance.* *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys.  Register Meet the Speakers Joseph Calabrese Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. A 1991 Graduate of St. John’s University Law School, Mr. Calabrese brings 30 years of practice and 18 years of Securities Litigation/Regulatory experience to his role as principal in the New York office of  Bressler, Amery & Ross’s Financial Institutions Group. He began his career as a Wall Street litigator as an associate general counsel for Citigroup’s Smith Barney and […]

    Lien Resolution: Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys)

    Includes Nearly 75 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. What can you do to settle personal injury suits cleanly and avoid costly litigation and penalties? What recent cases can inform you about protecting your settlements and, as attorneys, yourselves, from post-settlement federal lawsuits? How can your firm set itself up to meet government expectations? What role might experts play in navigating these pitfalls? Medicare Advantage (42 USC § 1395w-22) Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (FMCRA) (42 USC § 2651) Armed Forces Act (10 USC §1095) Veterans’ Benefits (38 USC §1729) Third-Party Collection Rules (32 CFR 537.24; 38 CFR 17.101, etc.) Set-Asides under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (42 USC § 1395y(b)(2)] On Demand Registration Lien Resolution Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys!) On Demand | Recorded September 2020 It is increasingly common these days. Personal injury attorneys settle a case, only to find themselves sued by a U.S. Attorney for failing to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments as required by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. In some cases the attorney may be required to pay fines in addition to the reimbursements and interest, a costly proposition. Are you up to speed on issues surrounding Medicare Advantage, TRICARE, veterans’ claims, and Medicare set-asides? Join nationally recognized healthcare lien and resolution expert Franklin P. Solomon and go-to lien resolution provider Brett Newman as they offer a practical, in-depth CLE presentation. Franklin P. Solomon, Esq. Attorney & Founder, Solomon Law Firm  A graduate of Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, Franklin Solomon is based in Cherry Hill, NJ, with a practice focused on evaluation, litigation and resolution of healthcare “liens” and reimbursement claims. Mr. Solomon represents personal injury victims and their attorneys […]

    Telepsychiatry: Mitigating the Risks

    REGISTER Registration Includes Nearly 90 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. Understand the risks associated with telepsychiatry and how to manage them.  Telemedicine has emerged as an important solution for healthcare in general and psychiatric medicine specifically during the current global pandemic. Remote access for sub-practices including addiction counseling have been commonly used. Our panel of psychiatric professionals who have served as expert witnesses and attorneys who counsel and represent physicians have prepared a 90-minute session to share insights with attorneys, physicians, healthcare providers, risk professionals, and more. Agenda Examining procedures and best practices that exist for ensuring confidentiality in a telemedicine practice How do you draft a telepsychiatric consent form? What is the emerging standard of care for telemedicine? Will the standard of care for telemedicine become a national standard? (Should it?) Review the case law addressing telemedicine or telepsychiatry How do the HIPAA regulations and HITECH privacy laws impact telemedicine? How have the HIPAA regulations and HITECH privacy laws been relaxed during the pandemic? Will the relaxed HIPAA and HITECH regulations impacting telemedicine continue past the pandemic? Which technical platforms are preferred? Which ones to avoid? Panelists Mark Levy, M.D., Medical Director at fpamed David Kan, M.D., UCSF Psychiatry Department and the California Society for Substance Abuse Medicine Ayesha Ashai, M.D., associated with fpamed Stephen M. Fatum, J.D., Partner, Barnes & Thornburg LLP Angela W. Russell, J.D., Partner, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP Meet our physician and attorney panelists. Mark Levy MD Medical Director fpamed Dr. Levy is a graduate of Columbia College (A.B. 1967) and the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons (M.D. 1971) in New York. He is a Physician […]

    The Commercial Drone Industry: Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk

    HB presents a CLE-eligible webinar Now on-demand at the West LegalEdcenter THE COMMERCIAL DRONE INDUSTRY Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk Drones have become an increasingly valuable tool for businesses of all types and sizes. Drones are already being used in many applications, but more will certainly arise as the technology advances. This means that certain risks, like cyber threats, will also continue to present themselves. Protecting the transmission and storage of data collected through drones is critical. Unfortunately, security usually comes as an afterthought. The drone industry is part of the aviation industry, which, based on its knowledge, keeps safety as a number one concern. Part of that safety is having proper protection for your systems, including security as a fundamental design principle. Take this webinar to gain insights on the topics listed below, and shared by an attorney who practices on the cutting-edge of this evolving technology. Topics: Defining drones. Current and future applications. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. FAA Part 107 Regulations and waivers. Resources, e.g. the FAA Drone Zone and LAANC Portal. Penalties for violations. Privacy implications. Drones as weapons. Vulnerability to cyber attacks. Take it now! What you get: 1+ CLE credits (subject to bar rules). Insights from an experienced professional who specializes in this area of the law. The complete PowerPoint presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions. Fee: No additional charge to subscribers to the West LegalEdcenter. Non-subscribers may take the course for $170. Meet the Speaker Kathryn Rattigan Robinson & Cole LLP Kathryn Rattigan is a member of the firm’s Business Litigation Group and Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team. She advises clients on data privacy and security, cybersecurity, and compliance with related state and federal laws. She assists clients in assessing risks related to technology and software contracts, as well as with compliance-related issues with outsourcing and […]

    The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter

    Available as part of your subscription to The Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter®. Don’t subscribe to the West LegalEdcenter? This webinar is still available directly from HB. Take it now! Questions for speakers Questions@LitigationConferences.com CLE questions CLE@LitigationConferences.com Check out the MoginRubin blog for more insights on antitrust and privacy law. What attorneys and companies need to know about the increasing interplay between these critical areas of the law.  Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data. Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over? Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions. Moderator Daniel J.  Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Contributor Dina Srinivasan | Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions.  Agenda Who should regulate privacy violations in the U.S.? Which antitrust issues implicate privacy concerns? What role does machine learning play on the competitive landscape? What is big data really? How is it different from “data”? What are the elements of effective merger reviews? What are the appropriate remedies? What are “notice-and-choice” versus “harms-based” approaches? Plus answers to your questions. Send them to Questions@LitigationConferences.com.

  • FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law

    FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law

    By Jonathan Rubin and Jennifer Oliver

    MoginRubin LLP
    Washington, DC | San Diego

    Explore more from MoginRubin LLP!

    Blog: Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back at Chinese Investment. By Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, and Timothy LaComb. List

    OnDemand CLE Webinar: The Antitrust Case Against Google. Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, Timothy LaComb, John Newman, Dr. Alan Grant

    Blog: FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law.Authors: Jonathan Rubin and Jennifer Oliver, MoginRubin LLP

    Blog: Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification. Jonathan Rubin, Dan Mogin.

    Journal: Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin

    Webinar: Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee with Jonathan Rubin, James Bogan lll, Jonathan Cohn, Bradley Hamburger.

    Journal: FTC v. Amazon: Market Definitions and Section 5 of the FTC Act

    Podcast: Algorithmic Software Facilitated Price Fixing with Jonathan Rubin

    Plus, additional insights from the MoginRubin Blog.

    FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Challenge the Adaptability of U.S. Antitrust Law

    Society leads, and the law follows.

    This is especially true in antitrust, where industries and markets undergo constant change brought about by innovation and changing consumer behavior. Confronted with ever evolving commercial circumstances, the courts face a constant struggle to keep up. With the filing of the antitrust cases against the Facebook “monopoly” by the Federal Trade Commission and 47 state attorneys general, U.S. antitrust faces one of its most significant tests since the case of U.S. v. Microsoft, now 20 years old.

    In the intervening decades, the Internet has spawned a new category of industry, “demand aggregators.” These businesses seek to grow market share not just by capturing supply, but also demand. The power of the dominant digital platforms—Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Uber—arises as much or more from their position as the source of customers than as a supply of goods or services. Of course, the platform must be able to deliver, but when customers view your website as the place to go—Amazon for goods, Uber for rides, Facebook for friends—the supply will follow.

    Demand-side dominance is only one of the thorny issues the court will have to resolve in the antitrust authorities’ cases against Facebook …

    Read the complete post by antitrust and competition law experts Jonathan Rubin and Jennifer M. Oliver as well as other posts on competition law in the tech space, including commentary on Google, Uber, Amazon, Apple, and more at the MoginRubin Blog.

    ***

    Responses to posts appearing on the HB site, or fresh news and articles, are welcome. Write to Editor@LitigationConferences.com. 

    Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation

    An on-demand CLE-eligible webinar Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation   America’s senior population is growing. Nearly one in five U.S. residents will be 65 or older in 2030. Which means the average age of U.S. investors is climbing too. With that comes the risk that they will be exploited by people with access – or gain access through nefarious methods – to their investment portfolio. Seniors and vulnerable persons lose billions of dollars each year. Remarkably, 90% of the people to take advantage of senior investors are members of their own family. Attorneys who represent senior clients need to know the signs of vulnerability, red flags that their clients are being exploited, what laws apply, and rules lawyers must follow in these matters.   Questions our speakers answer: What is senior / vulnerable investor exploitation?   Who is protected by state and federal laws?   How prevalent is senior financial exploitation? What do the numbers tell us?  What is the pace of financial abuse SAR filings by securities firms?  What are the most popular scams?   What is diminished capacity?  What are the red flags indicating possible exploitation?  What are the laws, rules, and regulations governing law firms?  What are some best practices for law firms?  How can firms best protect their senior clients?   On Demand CLE Webinar What You Get PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers. 1.5 CLE credits (for licensed attorneys). CLE assistance.* *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys.  Register Meet the Speakers Joseph Calabrese Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. A 1991 Graduate of St. John’s University Law School, Mr. Calabrese brings 30 years of practice and 18 years of Securities Litigation/Regulatory experience to his role as principal in the New York office of  Bressler, Amery & Ross’s Financial Institutions Group. He began his career as a Wall Street litigator as an associate general counsel for Citigroup’s Smith Barney and […]

    Lien Resolution: Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys)

    Includes Nearly 75 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. What can you do to settle personal injury suits cleanly and avoid costly litigation and penalties? What recent cases can inform you about protecting your settlements and, as attorneys, yourselves, from post-settlement federal lawsuits? How can your firm set itself up to meet government expectations? What role might experts play in navigating these pitfalls? Medicare Advantage (42 USC § 1395w-22) Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (FMCRA) (42 USC § 2651) Armed Forces Act (10 USC §1095) Veterans’ Benefits (38 USC §1729) Third-Party Collection Rules (32 CFR 537.24; 38 CFR 17.101, etc.) Set-Asides under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (42 USC § 1395y(b)(2)] On Demand Registration Lien Resolution Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys!) On Demand | Recorded September 2020 It is increasingly common these days. Personal injury attorneys settle a case, only to find themselves sued by a U.S. Attorney for failing to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments as required by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. In some cases the attorney may be required to pay fines in addition to the reimbursements and interest, a costly proposition. Are you up to speed on issues surrounding Medicare Advantage, TRICARE, veterans’ claims, and Medicare set-asides? Join nationally recognized healthcare lien and resolution expert Franklin P. Solomon and go-to lien resolution provider Brett Newman as they offer a practical, in-depth CLE presentation. Franklin P. Solomon, Esq. Attorney & Founder, Solomon Law Firm  A graduate of Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, Franklin Solomon is based in Cherry Hill, NJ, with a practice focused on evaluation, litigation and resolution of healthcare “liens” and reimbursement claims. Mr. Solomon represents personal injury victims and their attorneys […]

    Telepsychiatry: Mitigating the Risks

    REGISTER Registration Includes Nearly 90 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. Understand the risks associated with telepsychiatry and how to manage them.  Telemedicine has emerged as an important solution for healthcare in general and psychiatric medicine specifically during the current global pandemic. Remote access for sub-practices including addiction counseling have been commonly used. Our panel of psychiatric professionals who have served as expert witnesses and attorneys who counsel and represent physicians have prepared a 90-minute session to share insights with attorneys, physicians, healthcare providers, risk professionals, and more. Agenda Examining procedures and best practices that exist for ensuring confidentiality in a telemedicine practice How do you draft a telepsychiatric consent form? What is the emerging standard of care for telemedicine? Will the standard of care for telemedicine become a national standard? (Should it?) Review the case law addressing telemedicine or telepsychiatry How do the HIPAA regulations and HITECH privacy laws impact telemedicine? How have the HIPAA regulations and HITECH privacy laws been relaxed during the pandemic? Will the relaxed HIPAA and HITECH regulations impacting telemedicine continue past the pandemic? Which technical platforms are preferred? Which ones to avoid? Panelists Mark Levy, M.D., Medical Director at fpamed David Kan, M.D., UCSF Psychiatry Department and the California Society for Substance Abuse Medicine Ayesha Ashai, M.D., associated with fpamed Stephen M. Fatum, J.D., Partner, Barnes & Thornburg LLP Angela W. Russell, J.D., Partner, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP Meet our physician and attorney panelists. Mark Levy MD Medical Director fpamed Dr. Levy is a graduate of Columbia College (A.B. 1967) and the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons (M.D. 1971) in New York. He is a Physician […]

    The Commercial Drone Industry: Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk

    HB presents a CLE-eligible webinar Now on-demand at the West LegalEdcenter THE COMMERCIAL DRONE INDUSTRY Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk Drones have become an increasingly valuable tool for businesses of all types and sizes. Drones are already being used in many applications, but more will certainly arise as the technology advances. This means that certain risks, like cyber threats, will also continue to present themselves. Protecting the transmission and storage of data collected through drones is critical. Unfortunately, security usually comes as an afterthought. The drone industry is part of the aviation industry, which, based on its knowledge, keeps safety as a number one concern. Part of that safety is having proper protection for your systems, including security as a fundamental design principle. Take this webinar to gain insights on the topics listed below, and shared by an attorney who practices on the cutting-edge of this evolving technology. Topics: Defining drones. Current and future applications. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. FAA Part 107 Regulations and waivers. Resources, e.g. the FAA Drone Zone and LAANC Portal. Penalties for violations. Privacy implications. Drones as weapons. Vulnerability to cyber attacks. Take it now! What you get: 1+ CLE credits (subject to bar rules). Insights from an experienced professional who specializes in this area of the law. The complete PowerPoint presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions. Fee: No additional charge to subscribers to the West LegalEdcenter. Non-subscribers may take the course for $170. Meet the Speaker Kathryn Rattigan Robinson & Cole LLP Kathryn Rattigan is a member of the firm’s Business Litigation Group and Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team. She advises clients on data privacy and security, cybersecurity, and compliance with related state and federal laws. She assists clients in assessing risks related to technology and software contracts, as well as with compliance-related issues with outsourcing and […]

    The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter

    Available as part of your subscription to The Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter®. Don’t subscribe to the West LegalEdcenter? This webinar is still available directly from HB. Take it now! Questions for speakers Questions@LitigationConferences.com CLE questions CLE@LitigationConferences.com Check out the MoginRubin blog for more insights on antitrust and privacy law. What attorneys and companies need to know about the increasing interplay between these critical areas of the law.  Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data. Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over? Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions. Moderator Daniel J.  Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Contributor Dina Srinivasan | Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions.  Agenda Who should regulate privacy violations in the U.S.? Which antitrust issues implicate privacy concerns? What role does machine learning play on the competitive landscape? What is big data really? How is it different from “data”? What are the elements of effective merger reviews? What are the appropriate remedies? What are “notice-and-choice” versus “harms-based” approaches? Plus answers to your questions. Send them to Questions@LitigationConferences.com.

  • The Antitrust Case Against Google

    The Antitrust Case Against Google

    The Antitrust Case Against Google

    Perspectives from highly regarded competition law attorneys, litigators, and economists.

    This overview and Q&A has been developed for advertisers, mobile device makers, app developers,
    corporate counsel, business writers, and search market participants.

    The U.S. Department of Justice and 11 states have filed a sweeping antitrust suit against Google alleging the tech giant  abuses its position as “monopoly gatekeeper for the internet” to block competitors. The complaint says Google has used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising.

    The federal and state governments charge Google uses “exclusionary agreements, including tying arrangements” to “lock up distribution channels and block rivals.” Google’s considerable wealth helps make this happen. Google pays billions of dollars a year to distributors to secure their position as the default search engine, and prohibits these companies from dealing with Google competitors. Google’s exclusionary strategy is being applied more harshly in newer technologies, such as voice assistants, and in its goal of dominating other platforms in the IoT category, such as smart speakers, home appliances, and autonomous cars.

    Without a court order, the government plaintiffs say, “Google will continue executing its anticompetitive strategy, crippling the competitive process, reducing consumer choice, and stifling competition.”

    What does all of this mean to actual or potential rivals, ad buyers, consumer, developers, and device makers in three markets Search Service, Search Advertising, and Search Text Advertising? What type of defense might Google mount? What might the ultimate resolution look like?

    Join our panel, led by competition law thought leaders, as they address the potential impact of the litigation and answer your questions via live chat.

    • Setting the stage: What constitutes an illegal monopoly?
    • Lessons from United States v. Microsoft?
    • How does the government define the three markets?
    • What is in the alleged exclusionary agreements and tying arrangements?
    • What does the government allege is improper about Google default settings?
    • Why is requiring app bundles on devices considered improper in this case?
    • Which companies is Google allegedly harming and how?
    • What does Google’s immediate response tell us?
    • Will private antitrust actions follow the government’s suit?

    Interested in this topic? Contact Tom Hagy for more information.

    Meet the Speakers

    Dan Mogin
    Managing Partner
    MoginRubin LLP

    Read more about Dan Mogin or email him at DMogin@MoginRubin.com.

    Jonathan Rubin
    Partner
    MoginRubin LLP

    Read more about Jonathan Rubin or email him at JRubin@MoginRubin.com.

    Jennifer M. Oliver
    Partner
    MoginRubin LLP

    Read more about Jennifer Oliver or email her at JOliver@MoginRubin.com.

    Timothy Z. LaComb
    Associate
    MoginRubin LLP

    Read more about Tim LaComb or email him at TLaComb@MoginRubin.com.

    John M. Newman
    Associate Professor
    Miami Univ. School of Law

    Read more about Professor Newman.

    Dr. Alan Grant
    Associate Director
    NERA Economic Consulting

    Read more about Dr. Grant or email him at Alan.Grant@NERA.com.
    Interested in this program? Click here to send us a note.
    Interested in More CLE OnDemand? Click Here. 

    Explore more from MoginRubin LLP!

    Plus, additional insights from the MoginRubin Blog.

    Blog: Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back at Chinese Investment. By Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, and Timothy LaComb. needs tags. List completed 7/17/24

    OnDemand CLE Webinar: The Antitrust Case Against Google. Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, Timothy LaComb, John Newman, Dr. Alan Grant

    Blog: FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law.Authors: Jonathan Rubin and Jennifer Oliver, MoginRubin LLP

    Blog: Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification.

    Journal: Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin

    Webinar: Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee with Jonathan Rubin, James Bogan lll, Jonathan Cohn, Bradley Hamburger.

    Journal: FTC v. Amazon: Market Definitions and Section 5 of the FTC Act

    Podcast: Algorithmic Software Facilitated Price Fixing with Jonathan Rubin

    Interested in this program? Click here to send us a note.

    A few words about antitrust law.

    Jennifer Oliver, an antitrust attorney and a certified privacy professional, kicked off the webinar with some background for those of you less familiar with antitrust. Here is a recap of what she had to say. 

    Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers whose effect may be to substantially lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly. Most Section 7 suits are filed by the government or private plaintiffs seeking to prevent damage to competition before the damage happens. While there is no allegation of violation of Section 7 in U.S. v. Google, many would argue that Google’s earlier acquisitions have harmed competition or quashed nascent competitors and should have been examined more closely.

    The Sherman Act, part of which is implicated in the Google case, is more familiar to attorneys and businesspeople.

    Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which is most relevant to U.S. v. Google, says you cannot monopolize or attempt to monopolize a line of interstate commerce through anti-competitive conduct. Contrary to a common misconception, monopolies are not per se illegal which, if you think about it, makes sense: If you invent a new product, you have 100% of the market for that product. Competitors will follow. But the fact of monopolizing a market is not in itself illegal. What is illegal is acquiring or maintaining that monopoly in a defined “relevant market” through anti-competitive conduct. Monopoly power is often measured in terms of the ability to control prices in the relevant market, or to exclude competitors in that market, which often means that smaller rivals can’t reach scale or can’t exercise any sort of price discipline over the monopolist.

    How do we define the relevant market? That is an art onto itself in antitrust law, but you must define both product and geographic markets to successfully allege a monopoly exists. The concept of “product substitutes” is very important here, e.g., Would consumers be able to switch to another product if the alleged monopolist raised its prices or otherwise harmed consumers, for example through diminished quality or privacy?

    Next we ask whether anticompetitive conduct was used to obtain a monopoly, and/or whether anticompetitive conduct is ongoing to maintain a monopoly. A monopolist may achieve its dominance illegally, while not maintaining its status through anticompetitive conduct, or vice versa. The relevant statutes are very broad and are open to judicial interpretation. Much of the conduct in modern monopolization cases occurs in new markets that didn’t exist when the laws were written. Internet search engines and digital advertising are perfect examples.

    While anticompetitive conduct is not explicitly defined by Section 2 of the Sherman Act, caselaw offers examples, including exercising the power to engage in conduct that raises a rival’s costs and pricing below cost to drive rivals out of business.

    These are key questions in U.S. v. Google. Does Google have monopoly power, has the relevant market been defined, and has it engaged in anticompetitive conduct? The panel discusses these issues and more.

  • Healthcare Industry Antitrust Measures Advance as Pandemic Pressures Persist

    Healthcare Industry Antitrust Measures Advance as Pandemic Pressures Persist

    Healthcare Industry Antitrust Measures Advance as Pandemic Pressures Persist

    Did consolidation help frustrate U.S. COVID-19 preparedness?

    Clearly antitrust enforcers must consider external circumstances like the COVID-19 crisis when making enforcement decisions, and the agencies have bene able to pivot to respond to this crisis remarkably quickly. It is important, however, to also consider whether and how these emergency COVID-19 collaborations will unwind once the crisis has subsided. Collaborating competitors will have already shared critical information and resources, and that momentum can be difficult to halt.

    Jennifer M. Oliver, Partner, MoginRubin LLP

    READ MORE

    Jennifer M. Oliver
    Partner
    MoginRubin LLP

  • Tech’s Big Four Will Testify Before Antitrust Subcommittee

    Tech’s Big Four Will Testify Before Antitrust Subcommittee

    Four Technology Giants’ CEOs Will Testify Before Congress in On-going Antitrust Investigation

    Executives from Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google will appear (either virtually, as they are permitted to, or in person) before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee on July 27, 2020. According to its press release, the Subcommittee has been scrutinizing the companies’ dominance in their respective digital spheres and the “adequacy of existing antitrust laws and enforcement,” since June 2019.

    The hearing will enable legislators to question the executives about possible antitrust abuses, which have been the focus of many federal, state, and foreign regulatory inquiries. For example, Representatives may inquire about Amazon’s treatment of third-party merchants who sell products on its e-commerce platform, Google’s highly profitable ad business, Apple’s App Store terms that infringe on the rights of third-party app developers, and Facebook’s leverage of previously acquired companies to solidify its social media dominance, according to a July 1, 2020 New York Times article by David McCabe. The hearing may serve as the crowning piece of the Subcommittee’s antitrust probe. As the Subcommittee’s press release stated, the CEOs’ “forthcoming” testimony is “essential” to completion of the investigation.

    Apple Amazon Facebook Google

  • The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter

    Available as part of your subscription to
    The Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter®.

    Don’t subscribe to the West LegalEdcenter?
    This webinar is still available directly from HB. Take it now!

    Questions for speakers
    Questions@LitigationConferences.com

    CLE questions
    CLE@LitigationConferences.com

    Check out the MoginRubin blog for more insights on antitrust and privacy law.

    What attorneys and companies need to know about the increasing interplay between these critical areas of the law. 

    Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data.

    Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over? Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions.

    Moderator
    Daniel J.  Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP

    Speakers
    Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP
    Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission
    Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
    Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges

    Contributor
    Dina Srinivasan |     Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook
    Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions. 

    Agenda

    • Who should regulate privacy violations in the U.S.?
    • Which antitrust issues implicate privacy concerns?
    • What role does machine learning play on the competitive landscape?
    • What is big data really? How is it different from “data”?
    • What are the elements of effective merger reviews?
    • What are the appropriate remedies?
    • What are “notice-and-choice” versus “harms-based” approaches?
    • Plus answers to your questions. Send them to Questions@LitigationConferences.com.

  • The Intersection of Antitrust & Privacy | A MoginRubin Webinar | 10.31.2019

    The Intersection of Antitrust & Privacy Law

    [two-fifths-first] Recorded: Oct. 31, 2019
    Duration: 100 minutes
    Presented by:  MoginRubin LLP
    Produced by: HB Litigation Conferences

    The Panel

    Moderator
    Daniel J.  Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP

    Speakers
    Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP
    Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission
    Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
    Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges

    Contributor
    Dina Srinivasan |     Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook
    Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions. 

    What you will get:

    • At least 1 hour of CLE credit.
    • Answers to your questions via email.
    • The opportunity to share with others on your team.
    • The complete Powerpoint.
    • The Antitrust Case Against Facebook
    • Dina Srinivasan’s statement to the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law
    • The Chicago Booth School Stigler Center Committee on Digital Platforms Final Report

    Write to us at CLE@LitigationConferences.com to:

    • Ask about CLE
    • Request the materials
    • Send a question for the speakers

    [/two-fifths-first][three-fifths]

    Market Behavior and Data-Driven Market Power

    Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data.

    Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over?

    Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions.

    Meanwhile, there is increasing pressure on antitrust enforcers to consider privacy issues when conducting merger reviews.

    Antitrust laws allow and require consideration of data collection, handling, and use if there is a risk to fair competition. But are the agencies equipped to analyze the effect of post-merger datasets? Should they examine the privacy ramifications of proposed deals?

    Viewpoints on the overlap between the regimes are wide-ranging and nuanced. In a June speech, DOJ Antitrust Division chief Makan Delrahim said that “by protecting competition we can have an impact on privacy and data protection.” During a 2018 interview, though, FTC commissioner Noah Phillips argued that “privacy law and antitrust law each addresses different harms and vindicates different rights.”

    What does all of this mean to the practitioner or in-house counsel?

    Take this 100-minute webinar now to gain insights from leading experts on these issues, with a balance of perspectives from both the plaintiff and defense bars, academia, and regulatory enforcement.

    Get answers to questions like these:

    • Who should regulate privacy violations in the U.S.?
    • Which antitrust issues implicate privacy concerns?
    • What role does machine learning play on the competitive landscape?
    • What is big data really? How is it different from “data”?
    • What are the elements of effective merger reviews?
    • What are the appropriate remedies?
    • What are “notice-and-choice” versus “harms-based” approaches?
    • And more!

    [/three-fifths]

    Moderator & Speaker

    Daniel J.  Mogin, Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP. Dan concentrates on antitrust, unfair competition and complex and business litigation. He has been selected as lead or liaison counsel in numerous cases and has also frequently served on Steering and Executive committees charged with overall responsibility for direction of complex Multi-District Litigation and Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings. He has participated in some of the largest antitrust class actions in the United States. Dan is frequently invited to participate in these cases by other law firms and often consults with law firms engaged in antitrust cases. He has also provided expert testimony in cases and before the California State Senate Judiciary Committee. Dan received his B.A. in Economics from Indiana University and his J.D. from the University of San Diego.

    Speakers

    Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US, Partner, MoginRubin LLP.  Jennifer joined MoginRubin LLP in 2017 after nearly ten years as a complex business litigator in New York City. She focuses on antitrust, as well as complex business and investment litigation.  Jennifer is a member of the California Lawyer’s Association’s Privacy subcommittee and of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), and is an IAPP Certified Information Privacy Professional. Jennifer has played active roles in high-profile jury trials, served as lead counsel in complex mediations, and argued before both trial and appellate courts. In addition to her merger and cartel work, Jennifer has also advised on antitrust issues in mergers and acquisitions and litigated cases involving trade secrets, RICO conspiracies, securities fraud, unfair trade practices, breaches of contract and privacy cases. She earned her B.S. in Business Administration, M.B.A., and J.D. from the University at Buffalo, each with honors.

    Thomas N. Dahdouh, Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission.  Prior to his current position Tom served as Assistant Regional Director for the Western Region.  He worked for 14 years as a staff attorney in the San Francisco office of the FTC, handling consumer protection and antitrust matters.  Previously, he worked at the FTC’s Washington, D.C., headquarters for two commissioners.  He has also served on the Executive Committee of the California State Bar’s Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section since 2009, most recently serving as its Chair from 2014-2015.  He received his J.D. from Harvard Law School and his B.A. from Yale University.

    Franklin M. Rubinstein, Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Franklin is an antitrust partner in the Washington, D.C., office. His practice encompasses a wide variety of antitrust matters, including mergers and acquisitions, investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, litigation, criminal investigations, and counseling on issues such as distribution, monopolization, tying, exclusive dealing, price-fixing, and antitrust compliance. Franklin has represented a diverse set of clients in the software, computer hardware, pharmaceutical, medical device, gaming, automobile, natural resource, Internet, and media industries. Education: J.D., University of Chicago Law School; B.A., Swarthmore College.

    Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT, Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Randi has earned the Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) and Certified Information Privacy Technologist (CIPT) credentials and regularly advises clients in connection with privacy, cybersecurity, and social media issues in a wide variety of matters, including hundreds of transactions ranging from high-profile deals such as Facebook’s acquisition of Whatsapp, Inc. to large public company mergers and small talent acquisitions. In 2015, The National Law Journal recognized Randi as one of its inaugural “Trailblazers” nationwide for her cutting-edge work in the cybersecurity and data privacy area. 

    Contributor

    Dina Srinivasan, Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook. Dina currently advises on the economics of digital advertising markets and continues to write about tech and antitrust. She is the author of “The Antitrust Case Against Facebook“, an academic paper published in the Berkeley Business Law Journal (February 2019)  that explains Facebook’s monopoly power under U.S. antitrust law. Her research and commentary on tech and antitrust have been covered or cited by U.S. Congress, The New York Times, Bloomberg, Business Insider, NBC News, the Today Show, and other publications and radio stations, domestically and globally. She was an executive with WPP, the world’s largest advertising holding company. She founded Effidia, an advertising technology company whose technology was acquired by a division of WPP. Dina also created one of the first applications to bridge text messaging across CDMA, TDMA, and GSM spectrum networks in the U.S.  She holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, where she studied law & economics and was an Olin Fellow with the Kauffman Program in Law, Economics and Entrepreneurship.

    Privacy Matters

    Take a look at the Apple privacy commercial. This comes up during the webinar. If it raises any questions for you, please let the speaker know. Write to us at Questions@LitigationConferences.com. What do you think?

    Check out the MoginRubin Blog for insights on anticompetition, privacy, mergers and more.

  • Dan Mogin: Antitrust, Pro-Privacy Moves Led Outside U.S.

    In a move that could redefine how 2.6 billion people use Facebook Messenger and Facebook’s acquired WhatsApp and Instagram apps, The New York Times reported on Jan. 25 that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg plans to integrate the platforms. The announcement turned up the volume on antitrust and privacy warnings directed at the social media giant.

    “Facebook can be legitimately criticized for merging these apps after contrary assurances and perhaps for trying to dominate messaging,” MoginRubin Partner Dan Mogin said, “but perhaps more importantly, this is another example of the evolving convergence between antitrust and privacy that appears to be being driven by forces outside the US enforcement agencies. It’s a challenging issue for antitrust and may eventually lead to a sea change.”

    See the complete post on the MoginRubin Blog.