The antitrust landscape has evolved at lightning speed in recent years, raising new challenges as businesses contend with sweeping changes to the economy, growing international operations, and aggressive enforcement in global markets.
We bring a trial lawyer’s perspective to the defense and prosecution of high-stakes antitrust matters, with an outstanding record of success both at trial and on appeal. Our lawyers have successfully represented clients in civil antitrust cases involving monopolization, price fixing, and other claims in numerous industries, including the technology, pharmaceutical, and medical device industries. We also have a wealth of experience representing corporations and individuals in criminal investigations by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Because we represent both defendants and plaintiffs, we offer a targeted, strategic approach to clients in both areas. Our success is based on our ability to cut through the clutter, identifying and communicating the core issues that will enable our clients to prevail at trial.
Our work has been recognized by a wide range of publications and rankings organizations, including Benchmark Litigation, Law360, and The Best Lawyers in America. Chambers USA describes us as “hard-driving, insightful, and aggressive,” with “an energy that is tremendous.”
Experience
Secured in excess of $300M for Match Group in historic Google antitrust case. Match, which owns the Tinder, OkCupid, and Plenty of Fish apps, sued Google over its illegal monopolization and other anticompetitive behavior in the distribution of mobile apps and processing of in-app purchases. Hueston Hennigan scored a string of pretrial wins, including obtaining preliminary injunctive relief and defeating Google’s motion for summary judgment. We also helped prove that Google had spoliated documents and obtained an adverse inference jury instruction. On the heels of those wins and on the eve of trial, we secured a settlement exceeding $300 million for Match in its antitrust case against Google. The settlement was recognized with a U.S. Impact Case Award by Benchmark Litigation. (See “The Match-Google antitrust settlement netted the dating app maker over $300M,” TechCrunch; “Epic Games Against Google on Deck After Match Settlement,” Daily Journal).
Co-Counsel for Epic in landmark antitrust trial win against Google. Epic – the last remaining plaintiff in the antitrust case after the settlement with Match – invited Hueston Hennigan to join its trial team. Our trial exams garnered high praise from the press: “Epic has again struck gold by pointing out what wasn’t there” (The Verge); “Google tried to pay off Epic with $147 million to eliminate Epic’s influence on other developers” (Law360); “She’s in a corner, that’s for sure – the one Epic just painted her into” (The Verge); “Then he dropped the mic – pointing out that Google Play’s ‘existential question’ had nothing to do with competing with Apple and everything to do with maintaining Android” (The Verge). The verdict, returned after just four hours of deliberation, has been widely described as a “landmark” antitrust trial victory (The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, PBS, The Washington Post, and others).
Represented GoDaddy.com in an antitrust lawsuit filed by Entri, a tech company that developed a product called Entri Connect, which Entri claims can automate the process of configuring a website’s DNS settings to connect with various third-party applications, such as Mailchimp or Square. Entri alleged that, starting in 2023, GoDaddy forbade and technically disabled use of Entri Connect (and similar products) in connection with domain names registered by GoDaddy in violation of the antitrust laws, and it also asserted that GoDaddy tortiously interfered with Entri’s existing and prospective business relationships by prohibiting use of Entri Connect. GoDaddy disputed Entri’s allegations and filed counterclaims. The parties settled with neither party paying any money. (See “GoDaddy Escapes Antitrust Litigation After Competitor Drops Case,” Bloomberg).
Representing a major gaming company in connection with novel Sherman Act claims asserted by a team owner and players alleging anticompetitive and monopolistic practices in connection with a leading esports league.
Representing Amazon.com and three Amazon executives in a high-profile case brought the Federal Trade Commission alleging that Amazon.com used unfair trade practices to enroll consumers in Amazon’s Prime subscription service in violation of the FTC Act and other federal law. (See “FTC Sues Amazon Over ‘Manipulative’ Tactics Used to Enroll Millions in Prime,” Wall Street Journal).
Successfully defended Masimo Corp. in cases in the U.S. and China against claims of monopolization of the pulse oximeter monitor market, conspiracy to monopolize, group boycott, agreement in restraint of trade, Walker Process monopolization, and tying. (Masimo Corp. v. Mindray DS USA Inc.)
Represented GlaxoSmithKline in a high-profile antitrust, unfair competition, and breach of contract action against Abbott Laboratories, alleging Abbott abused its market dominance and engaged in predatory pricing of HIV drugs. Settled on favorable grounds for the client.
Representing Yelp in connection with its involvement in antitrust lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice and numerous state attorneys general against Google alleging unlawful monopoly maintenance through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search advertising markets.
Settled favorably with no charges pursued against a former AT&T executive in antitrust case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against DIRECTV and AT&T for alleged unlawful information sharing in connection with negotiations to telecast Dodgers games in the Los Angeles area. (United States v. DIRECTV Group Holdings LLC and AT&T Inc.)
Representing an officer of a major Korean energy companies charged with bid-rigging on sales of fuel to the U.S. Air Force in Korea in United States v. SK Energy, et al. In the course of the representation, we have worked with Korean counsel and successfully obtained a non-prosecution decision by the Korean Fair Trade Commission.
Represented a leading mobile handset manufacturer regarding price-fixing antitrust claims under U.S. and international laws against manufacturers of lithium-ion batteries worldwide.
Represented a Fortune 100 telecommunications company in assessing claims against manufacturers of LED and LCD parts used by the telecommunications company.
Represented a leading information technology manufacturer regarding antitrust and breach of contract claims against a major supplier.
Represented Sabry Lee, an auto lights distributor, in an antitrust case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of aftermarket auto lights. (United States v. Sabry Lee (USA) Inc.)
Represented Chef’s Choice Mesquite Charcoal, a leading distributor and seller of charcoal throughout the U.S., in an antitrust case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging conspiracy to refrain from competing for the sale of charcoal.
Represented United Talent Agency in a matter involving allegations of conspiracy to fix prices in the market for television and motion picture “packaging fees” in violation of the Sherman Act and Cartwright Act and unlawful group boycott. (WGA v. UTA, et al.)
Represented Warner Bros. in a matter involving allegations that the major studios, networks, and talent agencies conspired to fix prices by agreeing to a standardized “net profits” definition for profit participants. (Estate of Garrison v. Warner Bros.)
Represented Fortress in a matter involving allegations that Fortress, a unit of SoftBank Group Corp., violated federal antitrust law through an illegal “patent aggregation scheme.” (Intel v. Fortress Investment Group)