logo
#

Latest news with #antitrust

Swiss privacy tech firm Proton sues Apple in US over app store rules
Swiss privacy tech firm Proton sues Apple in US over app store rules

Reuters

time2 hours ago

  • Business
  • Reuters

Swiss privacy tech firm Proton sues Apple in US over app store rules

June 30 (Reuters) - Swiss privacy software company Proton on Monday sued Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab in U.S. federal court, accusing the technology giant of maintaining an illegal stranglehold on iPhone app distribution and charging excessive commissions to app developers. Proton, which provides the secure email service Proton Mail, filed the proposed class action, opens new tab in the federal court in Oakland, California, on behalf of app developers. The lawsuit said Apple was violating antitrust law by forcing developers to use its payment processing services and imposing a 30% commission on most transactions. A related class action was filed, opens new tab in May against Apple by the Korean Publishers Association and several other plaintiffs. Proton said it was building on that lawsuit, and was focused on winning a court order that would force Apple to allow competing app stores and payment processors on its iOS platform. In a statement, Proton said it sued Apple 'to set an important precedent that free people, not monopolies, will dictate the future of the internet.' Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Founded in 2014, Proton offers secure consumer-facing apps for email, calendars and other areas. The company now has more than 100 million user accounts, according to its lawsuit. Proton's lawsuit estimated there were millions of potential class members. Apple faces other antitrust lawsuits, including one filed by the U.S. Justice Department accusing the company of monopolizing the smartphone market. Apple has denied the claims and asked a judge to dismiss the case. The case is Proton AG v. Apple, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 4:25-cv-05450. For plaintiff: Sam Stake of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Michael Eisenkraft of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll For defendant: No appearance yet Read more: Apple must face consumer lawsuit over iCloud storage, US judge rules Apple loses bid to pause app store reform order in Epic Games case Google hit with US lawsuit by Korean publishers, app developer

Ruling keeps litigation funder Burford in control of turkey price-fixing case
Ruling keeps litigation funder Burford in control of turkey price-fixing case

Reuters

time2 hours ago

  • Business
  • Reuters

Ruling keeps litigation funder Burford in control of turkey price-fixing case

June 30 (Reuters) - Litigation financier Burford Capital (BURF.L), opens new tab on Monday persuaded a U.S. judge to allow one of its subsidiaries to press a price-fixing lawsuit accusing leading turkey producers of overcharging prices, even though the company has not purchased any food from them. Chicago-based U.S. District Judge Sunil Harjani rejected, opens new tab arguments from Tyson Foods, Perdue Farms, Hormel Foods, Butterball and other producers that allowing Burford subsidiary Carina Ventures to pursue the antitrust claims ran afoul of public policy. Litigation funders provide financial support to clients in exchange for a part of any settlement or judgment. Burford is the world's largest litigation finance provider. In his ruling, Harjani said that 'as litigation funders continue to be involved in the legal system, the bounds of their viability will be tested.' But he said it was up to lawmakers to craft policies restricting the extent of litigation funders' participation in lawsuits. Tyson, Perdue, Hormel and Butterball did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Burford declined to comment. Burford's Carina sued the turkey producers in 2023, after the funder acquired security rights to claims that were once held by Burford client Sysco Foods. Sysco was never a plaintiff in the turkey litigation, but Burford has spent $140 million since 2019 backing antitrust claims by food distributor Sysco against Tyson and other meat processors in other cases. Harjani said the turkey defendants have not provided any evidence that Burford and Carina engaged in any misconduct. The judge called Sysco a 'large and sophisticated corporation' that does not need the defendants or the court second-guessing its business or litigation decisions. Harjani said it was the job of Congress to write statutes and rules governing federal litigation. The case is In re: Turkey Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:19-cv-08318. Read more: Litigation funder fires back at Tyson Foods over settlement interference claims Sysco can't scrap its Pilgrim's Pride price-fixing settlements, US judge rules Burford litigation funder's Carina Ventures sues US turkey suppliers in antitrust case

Celebrity Broker Sues National Association of Realtors Over House Listings
Celebrity Broker Sues National Association of Realtors Over House Listings

New York Times

time2 hours ago

  • Business
  • New York Times

Celebrity Broker Sues National Association of Realtors Over House Listings

The National Association of Realtors, which came to a landmark $418 million settlement last year over claims of a conspiracy to fix commissions, is facing another antitrust lawsuit — this time over who can control access to real estate listings. Mauricio Umansky, a reality television star and a co-founder of the global brokerage The Agency, sued the trade organization in federal court on Tuesday morning. Recognizable to fans of 'Buying Beverly Hills,' 'Dancing With the Stars' and 'The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills,' Mr. Umansky has been at loggerheads with N.A.R. since 2020, when he first went to court, claiming that its policies for real estate listings were anti-competitive and had damaged a private database of off-market listings that he had created in Los Angeles. The suit was paused last year, when N.A.R. was dealing with its commission settlement. That pause on litigation expired at 12 a.m. Tuesday morning; Mr. Umansky had refiled his suit by 12:30 a.m. Representatives from N.A.R. did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the suit. The revival of Mr. Umansky's claim is the latest in a flurry of litigation in the real estate industry, as agents and brokerages tussle over how and where homes for sale can be listed in the digital marketplace. Last week, Compass, which sells more homes than any of its competitors in the United States, sued Zillow, the country's largest real estate site, which blocks any home that is not listed on its site within 24 hours from appearing there forever. Compass claims the 'Zillow ban' breaks antitrust laws. Zillow's policy echoes a long-held practice at N.A.R. that was recently relaxed. N.A.R. has guided real estate rules in the United States for over a century, and in 2018, the Justice Department opened an investigation into its policies, including those involving listings. The federal inquiry signaled that N.A.R.'s so-called 'clear cooperation' — which requires agents to enter any new home for sale into a public listing database within 24 hours of advertising it — could be considered anticompetitive. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Pricing Algorithms and Collusion  Practical Law The Journal
Pricing Algorithms and Collusion  Practical Law The Journal

Reuters

time4 hours ago

  • Business
  • Reuters

Pricing Algorithms and Collusion Practical Law The Journal

Companies are increasingly using pricing algorithms and other AI systems to develop and improve their ability to promptly respond to market conditions, innovate product offerings, and set prices. Algorithmic pricing systems differ from traditional, manual price-setting practices as they can almost immediately: Assimilate and process significant amounts of information relating to competitor prices, demand, the price and availability of substitutes, and even customer personal data. Respond to changes in the market or competitor pricing. Set prices to achieve a business objective consistently across all sales. This increased capacity to process mass amounts of information and data to execute price changes can allow companies to compete more effectively by responding to changes in the market quickly. However, the use of AI in pricing systems has raised concerns, particularly in relation to antitrust and competition laws, including because: AI systems could facilitate or discretely give effect to price-fixing arrangements. AI systems could make detection of price-fixing arrangements harder. The proliferation of AI systems could result in supracompetitive prices for products. Background on Algorithmic Pricing Systems Although there is no firm definition of an intelligent machine, the term AI is widely used to refer to software systems that can replicate some functions typically associated with human thought processes, like learning and making decisions or predictions about future behavior. AI systems are distinct from systems that only perform repetitive tasks involving data processing that are difficult or time consuming for humans to perform.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store