Brent Kendall

The Federal Trade Commission will lead any antitrust investigation into Facebook under an arrangement that gives the Justice Department chief oversight of Alphabet's Google, as the US government gears up for scrutiny of the country’s major tech companies over competition concerns. The Justice Department and FTC now have established that each is responsible for antitrust issues for two of the Big Four tech companies: the Justice Department has authority over Google and Apple, while the FTC has oversight of Facebook and Amazon.

Qualcomm unlawfully suppressed competition in the market for cellphone chips and used its dominant position to exact excessive licensing fees, a federal judge ruled in a decision that could challenge the company’s business model and shake up the smartphone industry. US District Judge Lucy Koh sided sided with the Federal Trade Commission, which brought an antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm in January 2017. Judge Koh found that Qualcomm violated antitrust law, charging unreasonably high royalties for its patents and eliminating rivals.

The Federal Trade Commission’s coming resolution of its yearlong investigation of alleged privacy lapses at Facebook looms as a defining moment for US policy on consumer data, one with lasting ramifications for companies that collect it. A large penalty could serve as an important warning shot, particularly for tech firms that are already operating under FTC consent decrees from past missteps.

Apparently, the Justice Department antitrust enforcement staff have told T-Mobile and Sprint that their planned merger is unlikely to be approved as currently structured, casting doubt on the fate of the $26 billion deal. In a meeting earlier in April, DOJ staff members laid out their concerns with the all-stock deal and questioned the companies’ arguments that the combination would produce important efficiencies for the merged firm.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the Justice Department’s bid to roll back AT&T’s 2018 acquisition of entertainment company Time Warner, a second defeat for government antitrust enforcers who sought to sink the $80 billion-plus deal. A three-judge panel of the appeals court affirmed a trial judge’s ruling in June that found the deal was unlikely to harm competition. Justice Department lawyers have argued that the combination of the two companies would reduce competition and hurt consumers.

Apple's exclusive market for selling iPhone apps came under fire at the Supreme Court, as justices considered whether consumers should be allowed to proceed with a lawsuit alleging the company has an illegal monopoly that produces higher prices. The plaintiffs are a group of consumers pursuing a class-action lawsuit seeking damages on behalf of people who have purchased iPhone apps. They argue that prices are higher than they would be in a competitive market because Apple requires that all software for its phones be sold and purchased through its App Store.

The Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that protesters attacked at a 2016 Trump campaign rally in Louisville (KY) can’t proceed with a lawsuit alleging Donald Trump incited the violence with inflammatory remarks. “Get ’em out. Get ’em out of here,” Trump said of protesters at the event. “Get ’em the hell out,” he said several minutes later, then added, “Don’t hurt ’em. See, if I say, ’Go get ’em,’ I get in trouble with the press.” Video clips from the rally show protesters being pushed and shoved by audience members.

The Justice Department argued that US District Judge Richard Leon ignored “fundamental principles of economics and common sense” when he allowed AT&T to acquire Time Warner. The department’s appellate brief, filed with the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argued Judge Leon’s ruling was “clearly erroneous in light of the evidence presented at trial.” The government brief argued Judge Leon’s contrary conclusion came about because he “discarded the economics of bargaining” and failed to apply “the foundational principle” that corporations will aim to maximize their

Internet retailers can be required to collect sales taxes in states where they have no physical presence, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision. Brick-and-mortar businesses have long complained that they are disadvantaged by having to charge sales taxes while many of their online competitors do not. States have said that they are missing out on tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that helped spur the rise of internet shopping. On June 21, the court overruled that ruling, Quill Corporation v.

The face-off, between the Justice Department and AT&T over the company’s $85 billion agreement to buy media giant Time Warner, has broad ramifications for media, technology and other industries as well as for the government’s powers to deter large-scale corporate consolidation.