The Antitrust Week In Review

Here are some of the developments in antitrust news this past week that we found interesting and are following.

SolarCity Sues Arizona Utility For Antitrust Violations.  SolarCity, a San Mateo based solar company filed a lawsuit in federal court in Arizona alleging that the Salt River Project, a utility based in Arizona, violated antitrust laws.  SolarCity is alleging that the utility has sabotaged the ability of Arizona consumers to switch to solar energy.

Judge Sets Date for Hearings in Sysco-U.S. Foods Antitrust Suit.   The proposed merger of the nation’s two largest food distributors, Sysco Corp. and U.S. Foods Inc., will face a crucial test starting on May 5, with the start of a federal court hearing into the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust lawsuit challenging the deal.  Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia scheduled the hearing to consider the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking the deal pending the FTC’s full-blown administrative trial scheduled for July.

Google’s Eric Schmidt Meets EU’s New Antitrust Chief.  Google’s Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt, travelled to Brussels last week to meet the European Union’s new antitrust chief, Margrethe Vestager, ahead of a key decision on where to take the EU’s long-running investigation into the U.S. search giant.  For the past five years the EU has been investigating whether the U.S. search giant abuses its dominance of Europe’s online search market, where its market share of more than 90% far exceeds its share of the U.S. market.

Apple, Google Poaching Settlement Appears Headed for Approval.  A federal judge seems satisfied with a new proposed $415 million settlement that would end a lawsuit in which tech workers accused Apple, Google and two other Silicon Valley companies of conspiring to hold down salaries.  While Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California did not formally rule on whether she would preliminarily approve the new deal, she expressed no objections about the size of the settlement and set another hearing date to consider the $415 million deal.  Last August, Judge Koh rejected the previous proposed $324.5 million settlement as too low after one of the plaintiffs objected.