Judge rules that Google is a monopolist in US antitrust case The Verge

Judge rules that Google ‘is a monopolist’ in US antitrust case

Judge Amit Mehta ruled in favor of the Department of Justice, writing that Google has maintained a monopoly in the search and advertising markets.

He is a senior policy reporter of The Verge, in charge of the intersection between Silicon Valley and the Diet. He has been in charge of hig h-tech policies at CNBC for five years and wrote about antitrust law, privacy, and content modeling reform.

August 5, 2024, 7:02 PM UTC

Share this story

Image Laura Normand / The Verge

Judge has ruled that Google violates the US Ant i-Trust Law by maintaining monopoly in the search and advertising markets.

"As a result of careful examination of witnesses and evidence, the court reached the following conclusions: Google is an monopoly company and has acted as a monopoly company to maintain monopoly. It violates the Article.

Judge Amit Meter's ruling is a great victory for the Ministry of Justice, who complained that Google illegally monopolized the online search market. Nevertheless, the judge of the meter did not agree to all the government's claims. For example, he rejected the claim that Google has an exclusive power in a specific part of an advertisement. However, he agreed with the government in that Google monopolizes "general search services" and "general search text ads".

This first certification is about Google's responsibility and is not related to relief measures, so it is still not clear what the ruling has for the future of Google's business. Google's fate will be determined in the next step procedure, and as a result, everything may be brought from a specific business habit to dismantle the Google search project.

Google plans to appeal for the ruling, President Kent Walker Global Affaire stated in a statement. "This ruling acknowledged that Google provides the best search engine, but concluded that it should not be allowed to be used easily." In this process, "continuing this process. We continue to concentrate on making products that people find convenient and easy to use.

"This groundbreaking decision is to fulfill Google's accountability. He was in charge of the Silicon Valley and the Content Modular Reform for the Silicon Valley and the Content Modelance Reform for five years in the Silicon Valley.

August 5, 2024, 7:02 PM UTC

Image Laura Normand / The Verge

Judge has ruled that Google violates the US Ant i-Trust Law by maintaining monopoly in the search and advertising markets.

"As a result of careful examinations and evidence of witnesses, the court reached the following conclusions: Google was an monopoly company and acted as a monopoly company to maintain the monopoly. It violates the Article.

"This groundbreaking decision is to fulfill Google's accountability. He was in charge of the Silicon Valley and the Content Modular Reform for Silicon Valley and the Content Modular Reform for five years.

August 5, 2024, 7:02 PM UTC

Image Laura Normand / The Verge

Judge has ruled that Google violates the US Ant i-Trust Law by maintaining monopoly in the search and advertising markets.

"As a result of careful examination of witnesses and evidence, the court reached the following conclusions: Google is an monopoly company and has acted as a monopoly company to maintain monopoly. It violates the Article.

"This groundbreaking decision is to fulfill Google's accountability. It is a thing.

Duckduckgo, who has a CEO with a disadvantageous testimony to Google in the trial, recognizes that the battle has not ended, applause to the ruling. Camill Bazbaz's spokeswoman SVP said in a statement, "The future road is long. As you can see in the EU and other areas, Google will do anything if you do not change your actions. We know that the demand for alternatives in search is accumulated, and this ruling supports access to more options. "

The meter rejected Google's claim that the contract with a mobile phone or browser manufacturer like Apple is not exclusive, and therefore not to be responsible for the Sharman Law. "The expectation of losing hundreds of billions of revenue guaranteed by Google is hardly burdensome for Apple.

Federal District Court Finds Corporate Transparency Act Unconstitutional

"The prospect of losing tens of billions with the guaranteed income inhibits Apple's its own search engine."

He stated that the framework of the previous epoc h-making technology exclusive lawsuit, Microsoft, is actually associated with Google's lawsuit. Unlike Microsoft, Google argued that it maintained a lot of consistent behavior before and after it became dominant in the market, but Mita eliminates if the same act is performed by dominant players. He said that it was not relevant because it could be a target and it was not excluded if it was performed by a small player.

Procedural History of the Case

He stated that "Google's monopoly in general search" was "surprisingly permanent" and increased from about 80 % in 2009 to 90 % by 2020. In comparison, Mita added that Bing's market share is less than 6 %. "If there is a true competition in the general search market, it has not appeared in a familiar form of fluid market share, business loss, and new entry.

Substantive Aspects of the Case

"The reality of the market is that Google is the only option for the default GSE. He quoted the words of Apple's SVP EDDY CUE. During the trial, Microsoft preleds Bing. He stated that there was no price to offer (Apple) to do so. < SPAN> Duckduckgo, who has a CEO that gave a disadvantageous testimony to Google in the trial, recognized that the battle was not over, applauding the ruling. Camill Bazbaz's spokeswoman SVP said in a statement, "The future road is long. As you can see in the EU and other areas, Google will do anything if you do not change your actions. We know that the demand for alternatives in search is accumulated, and this ruling supports access to more options. "

"The prospect of losing tens of billions with the guaranteed income inhibits Apple's its own search engine."

"The reality of the market is that Google is the only option for the default GSE. He quoted the words of Apple's SVP EDDY CUE. During the trial, Microsoft preleds Bing. He stated that there was no price to offer (Apple) to do so. Duckduckgo, who has a CEO with a disadvantageous testimony to Google in the trial, recognizes that the battle has not ended, applause to the ruling. Camill Bazbaz's spokeswoman SVP said in a statement, "The future road is long. As you can see in the EU and other areas, Google will do anything if you do not change your actions. We know that the demand for alternatives in search is accumulated, and this ruling supports access to more options. "

"The prospect of losing tens of billions with the guaranteed income inhibits Apple's its own search engine."

FinCEN Release

"The reality of the market is that Google is the only option for the default GSE. He quoted the words of Apple's SVP, Eddy Cue. During the trial, Microsoft preleds Bing. He stated that there was no price to offer (Apple) to do so.

Holland & Knight Takeaways

Meter emphasized that even large US companies have no substitute for Google. "Google's partner has concluded that it is financially impossible to change the default GSE or increase the flexibility of search services over and over again." They are Fortune 500. It is a company that is named, and there is no place to rely on anything other than Google.
According to Motor, Google's exclusive contract has made it possible to raise the price of the product "without meaningful competitive restrictions." Google claimed that the price of search text advertisements was reduced by quality, but the meter wrote that the evidence was "weak." This is because Google recognizes how difficult it is to determine the value of advertising for the buyer. "This evidence does not reflect the principle of pricing pricing pricing, but rather created a highe r-priced auction with the first purpose of Google to make a lon g-term revenue. It indicates that there is. "
Not only the monopoly problem, but also the sanctions of Google, which had neglected chat messages related to the case that the Ministry of Justice regarded evidence, was rejected. The demanded sanctions say, "It does not move the court's evaluation on Google's responsibility." However, Mr. Meter said that this decision should not be understood that Google did not preserve the evidence of the chat. Google escaped sanctions in this case. In the next case, it may not be so lucky. "
This decision is the first of the Technical exclusive lawsuits that have been filed by the US government one after another. Twenty years have passed since the Ministry of Justice sued Microsoft for ant i-trading laws and filed a lawsuit against Google in 2020, but in such a trial has soon occurred.
Amazon, Apple, and Meta are currently filed by the US government violating the antitrust law, and Google will make a second trial with the Judicice over another objection to the company's advertising technology business. I plan. Therefore, the judgment of this meter is even more important in how other judges consider how to apply ant i-trade methods to the modern digital market 100 years ago. It will be.

U. S. vs. Google: Search ant i-Trust Method All News

The meter supervised the trial of the Google Search Incident last fall for 10 weeks, and reached a climax in the last tw o-day final argument in early May. The trial, which was held in the DC District Court, was attracted to many big Silicon Valley, including Google CEO's Sundal Pichai, Microsoft CEO Satia Nadela, and Apple executive.

The Justice Ministry of Justice argued that Google effectively blocked the major distribution route of rivals under exclusive contracts and illegally monopolizes the general search advertising market. For example, Google has a browser manufacturer like a mosilla, a mobile phone manufacturer such as Apple and Samsung, and a contract to default Google search engines. Google has access to the Play Store to default some apps for mobile phone manufacturers using Android OS.

Google argued through trials that he had not performed ant i-competitive acts, and that the large market share was a result of producing excellent products that consumers can enjoy. Google's search projects should be compared with the other companies that are much wider than those of the government presented by the government in market definitions, and they compete directly with other platforms (such as Amazon), which account for the major part of the business. I claimed.

One of the most important things revealed in this trial is the size of Google paid to Apple to secure the iPhone browser default search engine. Google's expert has leaked that the company share 36 % of search advertising revenues from Safari with Apple. In 2022, Google paid $ 200 billion to Apple to get the default position.

The next ant i-trade law between the Ministry of Justice and Google is scheduled to start on September 9 in Virginia. In this trial, the focus is on whether Google illegally monopolizes digital advertising technology. < SPAN> Meter supervised the trial of the Google search case held last fall for 10 weeks, and reached a climax in the tw o-day final argument in early May. The trial, which was held in the DC District Court, was attracted to many big Silicon Valley, including Google CEO's Sundal Pichai, Microsoft CEO Satia Nadela, and Apple executive.

What to know about the Supreme Court immunity ruling in Trump’s 2020 election interference case

One of the most important things revealed in this trial is the size of Google paid to Apple to secure the iPhone browser default search engine. Google's expert has leaked that the company shares 36 % of the search advertising revenue from Safari with Apple. In 2022, Google paid $ 200 billion to Apple to get the default position.

In the final argument, Meter focused on these payments and wondered how other players in the market could pursue Google from its status. "If someone needs Google to drove down the default search engine, will the people who enacted the Sharman law be concerned about it? On November 15, 2022, the National Small Business Association (NSBA) and Small Business Owners (also members of NSBA) filed a lawsuit in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama challenging the constitutionality of the Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting (BOIR) rule of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA or the Act). 1 In National Small Business United, d/b/a the National Small Business Association, et al. v. Yellen, et al., the plaintiffs argued that while well-intentioned to combat money laundering and other illegal activities, the BOIR final rule requires law-abiding Americans to provide highly personal information to government agencies that will be stored in databases for crime enforcement purposes, thereby violating privacy protections, unduly burdening small businesses, and infringing on states’ business governance rights. 2 The plaintiffs sought an immediate injunction against the implementation of the CTA and the U. S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) reporting rule.

On March 1, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding that "the CTA exceeds the Constitution's limitations on the Legislature and lacks a sufficient nexus with the enumerated powers to be a necessary or appropriate means of achieving Congress' policy goals...." 3 The parties agreed that the case could be resolved without discovery and moved for summary judgment in early 2023. The Government simultaneously moved to dismiss. The Court determined that because there were no genuine issues of material fact and the only issues before the Court were pure questions of law, summary judgment was the most appropriate means to resolve the case. Ultimately, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the Government's motion to dismiss and cross-motion. The Court explained the substantive aspects of the case as follows:

Congress's foreign affairs power Because such information is "essential" to the national security interests of the United States, assists national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies in combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illegal activities, and brings the United States into compliance with international anti-money laundering/counter-financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) standards. The Court was not convinced, noting that what Congress was doing here was not conducting foreign policy or regulating foreign affairs, but intervening in domestic (or "internal") policy, where Congress has limited power. Noting that the CTA requires companies "incorporated" under state law to disclose BOI, the Court held that Congress exceeded its powers, i. e., its enumerated powers. 5 The Court set the question as to whether, in the United States' dual form of government, "Congress's foreign affairs power justifies the CTA's restrictions on 'creatures of state law' that are ordinarily within the sovereign authority of the states." In this case, the Court found that the answer was no. 6 The Court found that the CTA "transforms a surprising number of traditionally local... actions into matters of federal enforcement, and involves a substantial expansion of federal law."

Finally, the court rejected the claim that CTA regulates activities that have a substantial impact on business and foreign commercial transactions. The CTA regulates the reporting activities of businesses who chose to register in the state or the Indian tribe, not traditional economic and commercial activities. 12 < SPAN> The Trade Law Court follows the government's claims based on the Commercial Transactions Law. The government regulates activities that have a substantial impact on the state and foreign trade, the means of 1) CTAs 1), 2), 2) means of identification and foreign trade and people, 3). He claimed that CTA was an effective exercise of parliament under the Trade Law. 9 The court did not agree with this.

In the final argument, Meter focused on these payments and wondered how other players in the market could pursue Google from its status. "If someone needs Google to drove down the default search engine, will the people who enacted the Sharman law be concerned about it? Finally, the court rejected the claim that CTA regulates activities that have a substantial impact on business and foreign commercial transactions. The CTA regulates the reporting activities of businesses who chose to register in the state or the Indian tribe, not traditional economic and commercial activities. 12. The Trade Law Court later discussed the government's claims based on the Commercial Transactions Law. The government regulates activities that have a substantial impact on the state and foreign trade, the means of 1) CTAs 1), 2), 2) means of identification and foreign trade and people, 3). He claimed that CTA was an effective exercise of parliament under the Trade Law. 9 The court did not agree with this. In the final argument, Meter focused on these payments and wondered how other players in the market could pursue Google from its status. "If someone needs Google to drove down the default search engine, will the people who enacted the Sharman law be concerned about it? Finally, the court rejected the claim that CTA regulates activities that have a substantial impact on business and foreign commercial transactions. The CTA regulates the reporting activities of businesses who chose to register in the state or the Indian tribe, not traditional economic and commercial activities. 12

One of the most important things revealed in this trial is the size of Google paid to Apple to secure the iPhone browser default search engine. Google's expert has leaked that the company shares 36 % of the search advertising revenue from Safari with Apple. In 2022, Google paid $ 200 billion to Apple to get the default position.

Court’s Conclusion Having concluded that Congress exceeded its enumerated powers in enacting the CTA, the Court ultimately did not address the Act’s constitutionality under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. In light of this ruling, the court permanently enjoined the government from enforcing the CTA "against the plaintiffs." 17 On March 4, 2024, FinCEN referred to the court's ruling in a press release and noted that it would comply with the court's order and, as a result, "is not currently enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act against the plaintiffs in this action": Isaac Winkles, the reporting companies of which Isaac Winkles is a beneficial owner or applicant, the National Federation of Small Business Associations, and the members of the National Federation of Small Business Associations (as of March 1, 2024). These individuals and entities are not currently required to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. 18 (Omitted) In the release, FinCEN stipulates that the government will assert its continuing authority to enforce the law against non-parties, albeit indirectly, and clarifies the uncertainty regarding the current scope of enforcement of the law. Non-parties are therefore encouraged to continue to report required information in a timely, accurate, and complete manner. The Department of Justice will no doubt appeal this decision to the Federal Court of Appeals and may request that the Court's decision be stayed until the appeal is over. Taxing Power and Necessary and Proper Clause Finally, the Court rejected the Government's argument that the CTA was justified by Congress's taxing power and the necessary and proper clause. The Government's basic argument was that collecting BOI from reporting companies was "necessary and proper to ensure that taxable income is properly reported."13 To support this argument, the Government pointed out that Congress recognized the relationship between the BOI and tax administration and "drafted the CTA to allow Treasury officials and employees access to the BOI for tax administration purposes."14 The Court rejected this argument as "inadequate."15 In short, allowing Congress to exercise its taxing power simply by collecting "useful" data and allowing tax enforcement officials to access that data was a "substantial expansion of Federal power." 16 Court’s Conclusion Having concluded that Congress exceeded its enumerated powers in enacting the CTA, the Court ultimately did not address the Act’s constitutionality under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. In light of this ruling, the court permanently enjoined the government from enforcing the CTA "against the plaintiffs." 17 On March 4, 2024, FinCEN referred to the court's ruling in a press release and noted that it would comply with the court's order and, as a result, "is not currently enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act against the plaintiffs in this action": Isaac Winkles, the reporting companies of which Isaac Winkles is a beneficial owner or applicant, the National Federation of Small Business Associations, and the members of the National Federation of Small Business Associations (as of March 1, 2024). These individuals and entities are not currently required to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. 18 (Omitted) In the release, FinCEN stipulates that the government will assert its continuing authority to enforce the law against non-parties, albeit indirectly, and clarifies the uncertainty regarding the current scope of enforcement of the law. Non-parties are therefore encouraged to continue to report required information in a timely, accurate, and complete manner. The Department of Justice will no doubt appeal this decision to the Federal Court of Appeals and may request that the Court's decision be stayed until the appeal is over. Taxing Power and Necessary and Proper Clause Finally, the Court rejected the Government's argument that the CTA was justified by Congress's taxing power and the necessary and proper clause. The Government's basic argument was that collecting BOI from reporting companies was "necessary and proper to ensure that taxable income is properly reported."13 To support this argument, the Government pointed out that Congress recognized the relationship between the BOI and tax administration and "drafted the CTA to allow Treasury officials and employees access to the BOI for tax administration purposes."14 The Court rejected this argument as "inadequate."15 In short, allowing Congress to exercise its taxing power simply by collecting "useful" data and allowing tax enforcement officials to access that data was a "substantial expansion of Federal power." 16 On March 4, 2024, FinCEN referred to the Court's decision in a press release and noted that it would comply with the Court's order and, as a result, "is not currently enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act against the Plaintiffs in this action": Isaac Winkles, the reporting companies in which Isaac Winkles is a beneficial owner or applicant, the National Federation of Small Business Associations, and members of the National Federation of Small Business Associations (as of March 1, 2024). These individuals and entities are not currently required to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. 18 (Omitted) In the release, FinCEN stipulates that the government will assert continuing authority to enforce the law against non-parties, albeit indirectly, and clarifies the uncertainty regarding the current scope of enforcement of the law. Non-parties are therefore advised to continue to report required information in a timely, accurate, and complete manner. In the final argument, Meter focused on these payments and wondered how other players in the market could pursue Google from its status. "If someone needs Google to drove down the default search engine, will the people who enacted the Sharman law be concerned about it? Share share Court’s Conclusion Having concluded that Congress exceeded its enumerated powers in enacting the CTA, the Court ultimately did not address the Act’s constitutionality under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. In light of this ruling, the court permanently enjoined the government from enforcing the CTA "against the plaintiffs." 17 On March 4, 2024, FinCEN referred to the court's ruling in a press release and noted that it would comply with the court's order and, as a result, "is not currently enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act against the plaintiffs in this action": Isaac Winkles, the reporting companies of which Isaac Winkles is a beneficial owner or applicant, the National Federation of Small Business Associations, and the members of the National Federation of Small Business Associations (as of March 1, 2024). These individuals and entities are not currently required to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. 18 (Omitted) In the release, FinCEN stipulates that the government will assert its continuing authority to enforce the law against non-parties, albeit indirectly, and clarifies the uncertainty regarding the current scope of enforcement of the law. Non-parties are therefore encouraged to continue to report required information in a timely, accurate, and complete manner. The Department of Justice will no doubt appeal this decision to the Federal Court of Appeals and may request that the Court's decision be stayed until the appeal is over. Taxing Power and Necessary and Proper Clause Finally, the Court rejected the Government's argument that the CTA was justified by Congress's taxing power and the necessary and proper clause. The Government's basic argument was that collecting BOI from reporting companies was "necessary and proper to ensure that taxable income is properly reported."13 To support this argument, the Government pointed out that Congress recognized the relationship between the BOI and tax administration and "drafted the CTA to allow Treasury officials and employees access to the BOI for tax administration purposes."14 The Court rejected this argument as "inadequate."15 In short, allowing Congress to exercise its taxing power simply by collecting "useful" data and allowing tax enforcement officials to access that data was a "substantial expansion of Federal power." 16 Court’s Conclusion Having concluded that Congress exceeded its enumerated powers in enacting the CTA, the Court ultimately did not address the Act’s constitutionality under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. In light of this ruling, the court permanently enjoined the government from enforcing the CTA "against the plaintiffs." 17 On March 4, 2024, FinCEN referred to the court's ruling in a press release and noted that it would comply with the court's order and, as a result, "is not currently enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act against the plaintiffs in this action": Isaac Winkles, the reporting companies of which Isaac Winkles is a beneficial owner or applicant, the National Federation of Small Business Associations, and the members of the National Federation of Small Business Associations (as of March 1, 2024). These individuals and entities are not currently required to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. 18 (Omitted) In the release, FinCEN stipulates that the government will assert its continuing authority to enforce the law against non-parties, albeit indirectly, and clarifies the uncertainty regarding the current scope of enforcement of the law. Non-parties are therefore encouraged to continue to report required information in a timely, accurate, and complete manner. The Department of Justice will no doubt appeal this decision to the Federal Court of Appeals and may request that the Court's decision be stayed until the appeal is over. Taxing Power and Necessary and Proper Clause Finally, the Court rejected the Government's argument that the CTA was justified by Congress's taxing power and the necessary and proper clause. The Government's basic argument was that collecting BOI from reporting companies was "necessary and proper to ensure that taxable income is properly reported."13 To support this argument, the Government pointed out that Congress recognized the relationship between the BOI and tax administration and "drafted the CTA to allow Treasury officials and employees access to the BOI for tax administration purposes."14 The Court rejected this argument as "inadequate."15 In short, allowing Congress to exercise its taxing power simply by collecting "useful" data and allowing tax enforcement officials to access that data was a "substantial expansion of Federal power." 16 On March 4, 2024, FinCEN referred to the Court's decision in a press release and noted that it would comply with the Court's order and, as a result, "is not currently enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act against the Plaintiffs in this action": Isaac Winkles, the reporting companies in which Isaac Winkles is a beneficial owner or applicant, the National Federation of Small Business Associations, and members of the National Federation of Small Business Associations (as of March 1, 2024). These individuals and entities are not currently required to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. 18 (Omitted) In the release, FinCEN stipulates that the government will assert continuing authority to enforce the law against non-parties, albeit indirectly, and clarifies the uncertainty regarding the current scope of enforcement of the law. Non-parties are therefore advised to continue to report required information in a timely, accurate, and complete manner.

3 out of 6

The Supreme Court has extended the postponement of criminal trials on charges that Donald Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election, reducing the possibility that Trump will be judged before the election in November.

copy

Link copy

4/6 | People protesting before the Supreme Court in Washington.

THE OPINION

On Monday, July 1, 2024, the people protested outside the Supreme Court after the ruling was announced in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

4 out of 6

On Monday, July 1, 2024, those who protested outside the Supreme Court after the ruling was announced in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

THE FAKE ELECTORS SCHEME

copy

Link copy

5/6 | "Earthquake and nuclear power plant" | Nihon Keizai Shimbun

Protesters protest in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, July 1, 2024. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

THE DISSENTERS

5 of 6

Protesters protest in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, July 1, 2024. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

Copy link

6/6 | Supreme Court

WHAT COMES NEXT

The Supreme Court, photographed in Washington, Monday, July 1, 2024. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

6 of 6

TRUMP’S OTHER CASES

Monday, July 1, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

Copy

Copy Link

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER , ERIC TUCKER and MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

_____

Updated [Hour]:[Minute] [AMPM] [Time Zone], [Month Full] [Day], [Year]

Elim Poon - Journalist, Creative Writer

Last modified: 27.08.2024

On August 5th, Judge Amit Mehta issued his ruling, saying that “ the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it. A federal judge ruled that Google violated US antitrust law by maintaining a monopoly in the search and advertising markets. During its antitrust trial, the Department of Justice has argued Google used anticompetitive tactics to consolidate power in online.

Play

accepted

Judge rules that Google is a monopolist in US antitrust case The Verge

Judge rules that Google ‘is a monopolist’ in US antitrust case

Judge Amit Mehta ruled in favor of the Department of Justice, writing that Google has maintained a monopoly in the search and advertising markets.

Share this story

Related

Federal District Court Finds Corporate Transparency Act Unconstitutional

Procedural History of the Case

Substantive Aspects of the Case

FinCEN Release

Holland & Knight Takeaways

What to know about the Supreme Court immunity ruling in Trump’s 2020 election interference case

What to know about the Supreme Court immunity ruling in Trump’s 2020 election interference case

THE OPINION

THE FAKE ELECTORS SCHEME

THE DISSENTERS

WHAT COMES NEXT

TRUMP’S OTHER CASES

_____