Latest news with #ShermanAntitrustAct
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The FTC Risks Chilling Speech With Its Advertising Boycott Investigation
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opened an investigation into Media Matters for America, a progressive nonprofit dedicated to "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," for its role in an advertising boycott of X in May. On Monday, the FTC expanded the investigation to major advertisers, including Omnicron Group and the Interpublic Group, both of which are founding members of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA). The FTC's investigation follows not only Elon Musk's intimate involvement with the Trump administration but also lawsuits filed by X Corp. against Media Matters and the WFA. In November 2023, X Corp. filed a lawsuit against Media Matters in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas accusing the nonprofit of making false and malicious statements disparaging the quality of X, which led to the subsequent loss of advertising contracts. In its complaint, X Corp. accuses Media Matters of publicly smearing the company by "knowingly and maliciously manufactur[ing] side-by-side images [of] advertisers' posts…beside Neo-Nazi and white-nationalist fringe content." X Corp. cites "99% of [its] measured ad placement in 2023 [appearing] adjacent to content scoring above the Global Alliance for Responsible Media's [GARM] brand safety floor" as contradicting Media Matter's portrayal of the platform. X Corp. filed an antitrust lawsuit against GARM's parent organization, the WFA, in August 2024. After Musk acquired Twitter (now X) in November 2022, members contacted GARM for advice on whether to continue advertising on the platform. At this time, the suit alleges, GARM "conveyed to its members its concerns about Twitter's compliance with GARM's standards"—concerns exacerbated by critical coverage from progressive nonprofits like Media Matters—prompting a boycott that caused revenues to dip 80 percent below forecasts. X Corp. alleges that WFA members violated the Sherman Antitrust Act's prohibition of conspiracies in restraint of trade by "withholding purchases of digital advertising from Twitter." Supreme Court precedent strongly suggests this allegation is meritless. Vikram David Amar and Ashutosh Bhagwat, both professors at the University of California, Davis School of Law, cite NAACP v. Claiborne (1982) as evidence that the First Amendment applies to politically motivated boycotts. Amar and Bhagwat explain that, in Claiborne, "the Court insulated the boycotters from liability under state laws seeking to protect fair economic competition and held that 'the nonviolent elements of [the boycotters'] activities [were] entitled to the protection of the First Amendment.'" Amar and Bhagwat also invoke 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), where the Court ruled that "a seller of inherently expressive services…can't be compelled [by a consumer] to provide speech." It stands to reason that consumers (like advertisers) may not be forced to buy expressive services they disagree with. Forcing companies to pay for speech with which they disagree is unconstitutional. The FTC's advertising boycott investigation is a waste of the commission's time and taxpayers' money because, even if advocacy groups and advertisers colluded to boycott X, the First Amendment forecloses antitrust prosecution given the expressive nature of the X platform and its advertising service. The post The FTC Risks Chilling Speech With Its Advertising Boycott Investigation appeared first on
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
A Judge Blocked Apple From Collecting These Commissions
Apple recently lost a major antitrust case to Epic Games that has forced the tech giant to substantially change its iOS, Apple's operating system used by millions of Americans. In April, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California ruled that Apple may not charge developers any commission for sales made outside of the App Store. While this move will make developers more profitable and save consumers money in the short term, it could have lasting and devastating effects on Apple users; forcing Apple to give developers free access to its network discourages the company from investing in its App Store. Epic Games, the producer of the popular Fortnite video game, first sued Apple in August 2020, alleging that Apple had violated the federal Sherman Antitrust Act as well as California's Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law by monopolizing the iOS app distribution and in-app payment processing markets via anticompetitive conduct. This conduct includes, namely, Apple's exclusion of third-party app stores and apps from its iOS devices and requiring developers to distribute apps exclusively via the App Store and use Apple's in-app payment processing (from which Apple collects a 30 percent commission on every sale). Epic's suit was prompted when Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store after discovering that Epic added an external payment service. In September 2021, the court dismissed the nine counts Epic made under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Cartwright Act but held that Apple's antisteering provisions—contractual stipulations designed to prevent developers from directing iOS users to external payment options—violated the Unfair Competition Law. Brian Albrecht, chief economist at the International Center for Law and Economics, tells Reason that Apple's in-app fees can be justified by platform investment incentives and security concerns, which shield Apple from liability under federal antitrust laws. Judge Rogers said herself in 2021 that exclusive distribution via the App Store and commissions on in-app purchases "have procompetitive effects that offset their anticompetitive effects" and, for this reason, dismissed Epic's Sherman and Cartwright claims. Rogers also found that "Apple does not have substantial market power equating to monopoly power." However, California's Unfair Competition Law "condemns any business practice that is 'unfair' to consumers or competitors, even if it doesn't rise to the level of monopolistic conduct," explains Albrecht. Rogers ruled that Apple's antisteering provisions were unfair on the basis that they produced "anticompetitive effects and excessive operating margins under any normative measure." Rogers reiterated in her recent ruling that the September 2021 injunction "permanently restrained and enjoined [Apple] from prohibiting developers" to include "their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms" in their apps. The injunction also barred the tech giant from prohibiting developers from "communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app." The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling in April 2023, finding that Apple was not in violation of federal antitrust laws but that its antisteering provisions were illegal under the Unfair Competition Law. Apple appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit's nationwide injunction in September 2023. Epic also appealed to the Supreme Court to end the 90-day pause the 9th Circuit granted Apple to appeal its injunction. The Supreme Court declined to review the case in January 2024. Apple filed its notice of compliance with the 9th Circuit's injunction following the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case. The company stated it would allow developers to communicate out-of-app purchases to users and collect a 27 percent commission on these purchases instead of the 30 percent on in-app purchases. Rogers said Apple imposed "various restrictions on the manner and mode of communicating with customers which were distinctly less user-friendly than those otherwise allowed." Epic alleged that Apple was "in blatant violation" of the injunction by charging developers only three percentage points less of a commission on sales made outside the App Store. Accordingly, Epic filed a motion to the district court in March 2024 to hold Apple in civil contempt and enforce the injunction. In April 2025, Rogers ruled in Epic's favor, saying that Apple "chose to defy this Court's order and manufacture post hoc justifications for maintaining an anticompetitive revenue stream" despite being "afforded ample opportunity to respond to the Injunction." Rogers reaffirmed the original injunction, permanently enjoining Apple from restricting the language of links for purchases outside an app, requiring "a neutral message apprising users that they are going to a third-party site," and prohibiting the company from "imposing any commission or any fee on purchases that consumers make outside an app." Joseph Coniglio, director of antitrust and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, tells Reason that preventing Apple from charging a commission on linked transactions not only chills Apple's ability to innovate by preventing it from monetizing its iOS investments but also puts users' privacy and security at risk by allowing developers to steer them to out-of-app payments. Albrecht explains that the ruling will increase competition payments, which will help consumers, but reduce Apple's investments in the App Store, which will harm them. "It's hard to see how completely ripping [the system] apart will be helpful to consumers," says Albrecht. The post A Judge Blocked Apple From Collecting These Commissions appeared first on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Man suing NFL over Shedeur Sanders draft drop says $100-million lawsuit is no joke
Eric Jackson realizes a lot of people aren't taking him seriously at the moment. But he's very serious about his $100-million lawsuit against the NFL over the 'severe emotional distress and trauma' he says he suffered when former Colorado quarterback Shedeur Sanders unexpectedly dropped to the fifth round of last month's draft. Advertisement "I was a consumer of the NFL product," Jackson said Friday in a phone interview. "And I am protected under U.S. law as a consumer.' Jackson, a 55-year-old resident of Lawrenceville, Ga., who runs his own logistics company, is a big NFL fan who attends games and has purchased NFL Sunday Ticket to watch games on TV. He also is a huge fan of the Buffaloes and of Sanders, who was considered by some to be a potential first round pick but was bypassed until the Cleveland Browns claimed him at No. 144 overall. Read more: Shedeur Sanders fan sues NFL for $100 million over draft drop: 'severe emotional distress' Jackson said Sanders' drop in the draft "personally affected" him. Advertisement 'I was triggered," he said. "I have some previous conditions that were triggered. Anger. I was frustrated. I was emotionally disturbed given the fact that you had a guy that was projected to go first round and it was someone that you kind of associate yourself with — like I said [in the lawsuit], I attended some of the games of Colorado, I watched every game on television and I consume their media daily. And that would establish my personal connection to the team and to the players on the team. "And to see how they were personally [treated during] the draft process ... it was just debilitating to the point to where I had to address it in one of my therapy sessions following the draft.' Jackson said the experience gave him a "feeling of helplessness," until he realized he might actually be able to do something about it. In a civil lawsuit filed May 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Jackson alleged the NFL had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act for collusion and possibly violated the Civil Rights Act for race discrimination, as well as consumer protection laws for 'misrepresenting the nature of the drafting process and the qualifications of players.' Advertisement Jackson filed as a John Doe but revealed his identity in court documents by indicating he represents himself. While he has no formal legal background, Jackson said he is familiar with the law through "self-study" and represented himself previously. Last week, USC professor of law Clare Pastore told The Times that the lawsuit is "ridiculous" and characterized the $100 million in damages it's seeking as "absurd." 'A supposed harm someone suffers in combination with some vast number of other people is not something that, that one person has standing to contest," she said. Jackson said Pastore and others who have reacted similarly are missing the point. Advertisement "A person sees that headline, 'A Shedeur Sanders fan is filing a lawsuit,' and it automatically goes to a frivolous category because you cannot sue on behalf of someone else," Jackson said. "But my cause of action is not as a fan. My cause of action is against the NFL as a consumer of their product, and they colluded to prevent an individual from being drafted. I mean, it's a novel interpretation of the law, but it would apply.' Read more: Shedeur Sanders receives a first-round cold shoulder from 32 teams in Green Bay He added in a text message: "Regarding the potential for a race discrimination claim, while I acknowledge the complexities involved, I believe that the principle of disparate impact can provide a viable legal theory. The systemic issues within the NFL regarding race and opportunity cannot be overlooked, and I am confident that we can present evidence to support our claims. The historical context and ongoing disparities in the league are critical to understanding the broader implications of this case." Jackson chose the amount of $100 million "because that's what the law allows," he said, but if a judge or jury determines "that the request for reward is too high, then they will adjust it to, I guess, compensate the amount of harm that was done.' Advertisement That sum might seem laughable to some, but Jackson insists he's not kidding around. 'This is not an intentional joke," Jackson said. "This is not a way of getting attention [for myself]. ... It's to get the NFL's attention and let them know that they've been operating in this manner for years. Shedeur is not the first person this has happened to. They have a history of doing this to players.' Get the best, most interesting and strangest stories of the day from the L.A. sports scene and beyond from our newsletter The Sports Report. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Man suing NFL over Shedeur Sanders draft drop says $100-million lawsuit is no joke
Eric Jackson realizes a lot of people aren't taking him seriously at the moment. But he's very serious about his $100-million lawsuit against the NFL over the 'severe emotional distress and trauma' he says he suffered when former Colorado quarterback Shedeur Sanders unexpectedly dropped to the fifth round of last month's draft. Advertisement "I was a consumer of the NFL product," Jackson said Friday in a phone interview. "And I am protected under U.S. law as a consumer.' Jackson, a 55-year-old resident of Lawrenceville, Ga., who runs his own logistics company, is a big NFL fan who attends games and has purchased NFL Sunday Ticket to watch games on TV. He also is a huge fan of the Buffaloes and of Sanders, who was considered by some to be a potential first round pick but was bypassed until the Cleveland Browns claimed him at No. 144 overall. Read more: Shedeur Sanders fan sues NFL for $100 million over draft drop: 'severe emotional distress' Jackson said Sanders' drop in the draft "personally affected" him. Advertisement 'I was triggered," he said. "I have some previous conditions that were triggered. Anger. I was frustrated. I was emotionally disturbed given the fact that you had a guy that was projected to go first round and it was someone that you kind of associate yourself with — like I said [in the lawsuit], I attended some of the games of Colorado, I watched every game on television and I consume their media daily. And that would establish my personal connection to the team and to the players on the team. "And to see how they were personally [treated during] the draft process ... it was just debilitating to the point to where I had to address it in one of my therapy sessions following the draft.' Jackson said the experience gave him a "feeling of helplessness," until he realized he might actually be able to do something about it. In a civil lawsuit filed May 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Jackson alleged the NFL had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act for collusion and possibly violated the Civil Rights Act for race discrimination, as well as consumer protection laws for 'misrepresenting the nature of the drafting process and the qualifications of players.' Advertisement Jackson filed as a John Doe but revealed his identity in court documents by indicating he represents himself. While he has no formal legal background, Jackson said he is familiar with the law through "self-study" and represented himself previously. Last week, USC professor of law Clare Pastore told The Times that the lawsuit is "ridiculous" and characterized the $100 million in damages it's seeking as "absurd." 'A supposed harm someone suffers in combination with some vast number of other people is not something that, that one person has standing to contest," she said. Jackson said Pastore and others who have reacted similarly are missing the point. Advertisement "A person sees that headline, 'A Shedeur Sanders fan is filing a lawsuit,' and it automatically goes to a frivolous category because you cannot sue on behalf of someone else," Jackson said. "But my cause of action is not as a fan. My cause of action is against the NFL as a consumer of their product, and they colluded to prevent an individual from being drafted. I mean, it's a novel interpretation of the law, but it would apply.' Read more: Shedeur Sanders receives a first-round cold shoulder from 32 teams in Green Bay He added in a text message: "Regarding the potential for a race discrimination claim, while I acknowledge the complexities involved, I believe that the principle of disparate impact can provide a viable legal theory. The systemic issues within the NFL regarding race and opportunity cannot be overlooked, and I am confident that we can present evidence to support our claims. The historical context and ongoing disparities in the league are critical to understanding the broader implications of this case." Jackson chose the amount of $100 million "because that's what the law allows," he said, but if a judge or jury determines "that the request for reward is too high, then they will adjust it to, I guess, compensate the amount of harm that was done.' Advertisement That sum might seem laughable to some, but Jackson insists he's not kidding around. 'This is not an intentional joke," Jackson said. "This is not a way of getting attention [for myself]. ... It's to get the NFL's attention and let them know that they've been operating in this manner for years. Shedeur is not the first person this has happened to. They have a history of doing this to players.' Get the best, most interesting and strangest stories of the day from the L.A. sports scene and beyond from our newsletter The Sports Report. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
12-05-2025
- Sport
- Los Angeles Times
Man suing NFL over Shedeur Sanders draft drop says $100-million lawsuit is no joke
Eric Jackson realizes a lot of people aren't taking him seriously at the moment. But he's very serious about his $100-million lawsuit against the NFL over the 'severe emotional distress and trauma' he says he suffered when former Colorado quarterback Shedeur Sanders unexpectedly dropped to the fifth round of last month's draft. 'I was a consumer of the NFL product,' Jackson said Friday in a phone interview. 'And I am protected under U.S. law as a consumer.' Jackson, a 55-year-old resident of Lawrenceville, Ga., who runs his own logistics company, is a big NFL fan who attends games and has purchased NFL Sunday Ticket to watch games on TV. He also is a huge fan of the Buffaloes and of Sanders, who was considered by some to be a potential first round pick but was bypassed until the Cleveland Browns claimed him at No. 144 overall. Jackson said Sanders' drop in the draft 'personally affected' him. 'I was triggered,' he said. 'I have some previous conditions that were triggered. Anger. I was frustrated. I was emotionally disturbed given the fact that you had a guy that was projected to go first round and it was someone that you kind of associate yourself with — like I said [in the lawsuit], I attended some of the games of Colorado, I watched every game on television and I consume their media daily. And that would establish my personal connection to the team and to the players on the team. 'And to see how they were personally [treated during] the draft process ... it was just debilitating to the point to where I had to address it in one of my therapy sessions following the draft.' Jackson said the experience gave him a 'feeling of helplessness,' until he realized he might actually be able to do something about it. In a civil lawsuit filed May 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Jackson alleged the NFL had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act for collusion and possibly violated the Civil Rights Act for race discrimination, as well as consumer protection laws for 'misrepresenting the nature of the drafting process and the qualifications of players.' Jackson filed as a John Doe but revealed his identity in court documents by indicating he represents himself. While he has no formal legal background, Jackson said he is familiar with the law through 'self-study' and represented himself previously. Last week, USC professor of law Clare Pastore told The Times that the lawsuit is 'ridiculous' and characterized the $100 million in damages it's seeking as 'absurd.' 'A supposed harm someone suffers in combination with some vast number of other people is not something that, that one person has standing to contest,' she said. Jackson said Pastore and others who have reacted similarly are missing the point. 'A person sees that headline, 'A Shedeur Sanders fan is filing a lawsuit,' and it automatically goes to a frivolous category because you cannot sue on behalf of someone else,' Jackson said. 'But my cause of action is not as a fan. My cause of action is against the NFL as a consumer of their product, and they colluded to prevent an individual from being drafted. I mean, it's a novel interpretation of the law, but it would apply.' He added in a text message: 'Regarding the potential for a race discrimination claim, while I acknowledge the complexities involved, I believe that the principle of disparate impact can provide a viable legal theory. The systemic issues within the NFL regarding race and opportunity cannot be overlooked, and I am confident that we can present evidence to support our claims. The historical context and ongoing disparities in the league are critical to understanding the broader implications of this case.' Jackson chose the amount of $100 million 'because that's what the law allows,' he said, but if a judge or jury determines 'that the request for reward is too high, then they will adjust it to, I guess, compensate the amount of harm that was done.' That sum might seem laughable to some, but Jackson insists he's not kidding around. 'This is not an intentional joke,' Jackson said. 'This is not a way of getting attention [for myself]. ... It's to get the NFL's attention and let them know that they've been operating in this manner for years. Shedeur is not the first person this has happened to. They have a history of doing this to players.'
