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

Banks to Settle With Investors in Suit Over Financial Crisis.  Twelve of the largest banks in the world are apparently on the verge of paying $1.865 billion to settle accusations that they illegally conspired to control a derivatives market that stood at the center of the financial crisis.  The banks have faced public criticism since the financial crisis for the opaque manner in which their traders bought and sold credit default swaps, a type of financial contract that allows investors to speculate and hedge against losses and that figured prominently in the crisis.

U.S. doctors group says planned health mergers are anti-competitive.  The American Medical Association, the leading U.S. physicians’ organization, is arguing that two proposed mergers of U.S. health insurers worth tens of billions of dollars could lead to higher prices in 17 states for companies that buy insurance for their workers or people who buy their own insurance.  Aetna announced plans to buy smaller rival Humana in early July, and Anthem agreed to buy Cigna later that month.  Both mergers are being reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice and state insurance officials.

EU regulators to rule on $16.7 billion Intel, Altera deal by October 14.  European Union antitrust regulators will decide by Oct. 14 whether to clear U.S. chipmaker Intel’s $16.7 billion bid for Altera Corp, its largest ever deal.  The EU competition authority can either clear the deal with or without conditions in a preliminary review or open a full-scale investigation.

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

U.S. judge approves $415 million settlement in tech worker lawsuit.  U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has granted final approval to a $415 million settlement of the high profile antitrust class action in which workers accused Apple, Google and two other Silicon Valley companies of conspiring to hold down salaries.  The plaintiffs alleged that Apple, Google, Intel Corp and Adobe Systems conspired to avoid poaching each other’s employees, thus limiting job mobility and, as a result, keeping a lid on salaries.

Google Antitrust Inquiries Spread Over Globe, With India the Latest Problem.  Google is now coming under antitrust scrutiny in India.  After a three-year investigation, the Competition Commission of India, India’s antitrust authority, has reportedly sent Google a report expressing concern (similar to European complaints) that Google is abusing its dominant position in search and online advertising by ranking its own services ahead of those of competitors.

German carmakers win US antitrust approval to buy Nokia maps.  German carmakers BMW, Audi and Mercedes have won U.S. antitrust approval to buy Nokia’s maps business for around 2.5 billion euros ($2.8 billion), according to the Federal Trade Commission.  Germany’s three premium carmakers will hold equal stakes in the business, known as HERE, and may allow automakers to offer new premium features, like autonomous driving, in luxury cars, shaking up the pecking order between car makers, their parts suppliers and software rivals like Uber and Google.

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

FTC offers first-ever guidance on ‘unfair competition.’  The Federal Trade Commission has released unprecedented guidance on what constitutes “unfair competition,” but has stopped short of offering the level of detail long sought by businesses.  The guidance is actually the first attempt by the FTC to precisely define “unfair competition,” which is barred by Section 5 of 1914 Federal Trade Commission Act.  Stressing that its enforcement practices would not change, the FTC said it would be guided by consumer welfare concerns in applying the law.

Europe Gives Google More Time to Respond to Antitrust Charges.  The European Commission is giving Google until the end of August to answer claims that it favored its own comparison shopping search over those of rivals.  The move came just days before an August 17 deadline that Europe’s competition authorities had set for Google to respond to the charges.

TrueCar says it considers U.S. antitrust probe to be closed.  The Federal Trade Commission has closed an investigation into whether auto dealers ganged up against shopping website TrueCar in order to raise prices, TrueCar said in a securities filing on Wednesday.  TrueCar said in the filing it had responded to an FTC request for documents and considered the matter to be closed.

A View from Constantine Cannon’s London Office

By Richard Pike and Yulia Tosheva

The European Commission (“EC”) announced yesterday it has opened two antitrust investigations into possible abusive behavior by the U.S. technology company Qualcomm, the world’s largest supplier of baseband chipsets.

Investigation into rebates

The first investigation will examine whether Qualcomm abused its dominant market position by offering rebates and other financial incentives to customers on condition that they buy baseband chipsets exclusively from Qualcomm.

click here for more »

By Seth D. Greenstein

The European Court of Justice ruled today that the owner of a standard-essential patent abuses its dominant position when it seeks an injunction in an action for patent infringement against an infringer that has expressed genuine willingness to license the patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (“FRAND”) terms.

In Case C-170/13, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. ZTE Corp. (July 16, 2015), the Court of Justice held that such an abuse of a dominant position violates Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  This is the first definitive statement by the European Court on an issue that has received close attention in United States courts and from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”).  Its opinion provides some of the most definitive guidance on negotiations of FRAND licenses and lawful licensing conduct – and stakes out perhaps the most aggressive posture on the consequences of a patent owner’s failure to follow that guidance.

click here for more »