Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is the case referred to:

"The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, and the States of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, and Texas, acting through their respective Attorneys General, bring this action under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, to restrain Google LLC (Google) from unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising in the United States through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices, and to remedy the effects of this conduct."

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/1/united-state...

Edit: NAL, but this seems to be at least partially about Apple bundling Google search in MacOS / iOS: (From the emergency motion) "Second, Apple will suffer clear and substantial irreparable harm if it is unable to participate in the remedies phase moving forward. Apple will be unable to participate in discovery and develop evidence in the targeted fashion it has proposed as this litigation progresses toward a final judgment. If Apple’s appeal is not resolved until during or after the remedies trial, Apple may well be forced to stand mute at trial, as a mere spectator, while the government pursues an extreme remedy that targets Apple by name and would prohibit any commercial arrangement between Apple and Google for a decade. This would leave Apple without the ability to defend its right to reach other arrangements with Google that could benefit millions of users and Apple’s entitlement to compensation for distributing Google search to its users. Further, Apple will be unable to present its own live testimony or cross-examine witnesses who opine about Apple’s interests and incentives with respect to the general search market."



Thanks for the overview!

Can't help but notice that this is all deep red states. Why might that be? From above, this seems pretty bipartisan and what Lina Khan (MVP) has been working on for the last four years.


Some issues are (largely) bipartisan.

Over time the sentiment towards concentration of power in small number of big tech firms has rubbed both the Democrats and Republicans the wrong way.

Somewhat for different reasons initially, but the end result/agreement converges.


State AGs from the same party are more likely to work together on a suit. Big tech has almost exclusively donated to and supported democrats over the years, so AGs from that party have more political capital to lose.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: