Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Google LLC is an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on October 20, 2020. The suit alleges that Google has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by illegally monopolizing the search engine and search advertising markets, most notably on Android devices, as well as with Apple and mobile carriers.
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of class arbitration proceedings. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision and held that arbitration on a classwide basis could not be compelled based on the provision’s ambiguous language. [1]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A U.S. judge ruled on Monday that Google violated antitrust law, spending billions of dollars to create an illegal monopoly and become the world's default search engine, the ...
United States v. Google LLC is an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on January 24, 2023. [1] The suit accuses Google of illegally monopolizing the advertising technology (adtech) market in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
An attorney for the parents of a Texas student accused of killing 10 people in a 2018 school shooting told jurors Friday in a trial seeking to hold them accountable that they didn't know their son ...
The cases are Calchi v GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 22-01341; and Papalia v GlaxoSmithKline Consumer ...
The case is Balmuccino LLC v. Starbucks Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 24-06214. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Sandra Maler)
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Amgen's two patent applications on cholesterol-lowering drugs failed to satisfy the enablement clause of §112 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).