Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Federal Trade Commission et al v. Kroger Company et al
as 3:2024cv00347
Plaintiff:
Federal Trade Commission, State of Arizona, State of California and others
Defendant:
Kroger Company and Albertsons Companies, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0045 Federal Trade Commission Act
Federal Trade Commission et al v. Amazon.com Inc
as 2:2023cv01495
Plaintiff:
Federal Trade Commission, State of New York, State of Connecticut and others
Defendant:
Amazon.com Inc
Intervenor:
Walmart, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0045 Federal Trade Commission Act
Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms Inc., et al
as 5:2022cv04325
Plaintiff:
Federal Trade Commission
Defendant:
Meta Platforms Inc.,, Within Unlimited, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg and others
Interested Party:
Apple Inc., Alphabet Inc., Nike, Inc. and others
Amicus Curiae:
State of New York, State of Alaska, State of California and others
Not Classified By Court:
ByteDance Inc., Valve Corporation, HTC America, Inc. and others
Petitioner:
Forte Nexus, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0053 Federal Trade Commission Act
State of Utah et al v. Google LLC et al
as 3:2021cv05227
Plaintiff:
State of Utah, State of New York, State of North Carolina and others
Defendant:
Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commercial Limited and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation
as 3:2021md02981
Defendant:
Alphabet Inc., Google Payment Corp., Google Commerce Limited and others
Plaintiff:
Jared Stark, Ashly Esquivel, Robert Wing and others
Counter Defendant:
Epic Games, Inc., Match Group, LLC and Humor Rainbow, Inc.
Counter Claimant:
Google LLC and Google Asia Pacific PTE. Limited
Not Classified By Court:
Activision Blizzard, Inc., Niantic, Inc., Big Fish Games and others
Amicus Curiae:
American Antitrust Institute and Economists Supporting Dr. Rysman as Proposed Amici
3Rd Party Defendant:
Riot Games, Inc.
Interested Party:
Valve Corporation, Nintendo of America Inc., Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit and others
Petitioner:
Amazon.com LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Boardman et al v. Pacific Seafood Group et al
as 1:2015cv00108
Amicu:
Attorney General of the State of Oregon
Defendant:
Bandon Pacific, Inc., Bio-Oregon Properties, LLC, Bio-Oregon Protein, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Jeff Boardman, MY Fisheries, Inc., Miss Sarah, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 Antitrust Litigation
The State of California et al v. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation et al
as 3:2012cv05229
Plaintiff:
The State of California , The State of Arizona , The State of Arkansas and others
Defendant:
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
The State of California by its Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and the City and County of San Francisco Ex Rel Dennis J. Herrera, The County of Santa Clara, and Los Angeles Unified School District o et al v. Toshiba Corporation et al
as 3:2012cv05230
Plaintiff:
The State of California by its Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and the City and County of San Francisco Ex Rel Dennis J. Herrera, The County of Santa Clara, and Los Angeles Unified School District o , The State of Arizona by its Attorney GeneralTom Horne , The State of Arkansas by its Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and others
Defendant:
Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
The State of California et al v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al
as 3:2012cv05231
Plaintiff:
The State of California , The State of Arizona , The State of Arkansas and others
Defendant:
Hitachi, Ltd. and Hitachi America, Ltd.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
State of Oregon v. AU Optronics Corporation et al
as 3:2010cv04346
Plaintiff:
State of Oregon
Defendant:
AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc., Chi Mei Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
