October 2021 | 174 comments (174 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: disturbance in the US antitrust farce (none / 0)

Facebook asks court to dismiss FTC antitrust complaint

"The FTC's fictional market ignores the competitive reality: Facebook competes vigorously with TikTok, iMessage, Twitter, Snapchat, LinkedIn, YouTube, and countless others to help people share, connect, communicate or simply be entertained," Facebook said in a statement. "The FTC cannot credibly claim Facebook has monopoly power because no such power exists."
[...]
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg had ruled in June that the FTC's original lawsuit was "legally insufficient" and didn't provide enough evidence to prove Facebook was a monopoly. He dismissed the states' separate complaint outright.

You get what you pay for.

archived Essays in competition policy, "Identifying antitrust markets"

by Cat on Tue Oct 5th, 2021 at 03:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: disturbance in the US antitrust farce (none / 0)

"involuntary public figure" has entered the shadow docket.
archived no relation

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Wed Oct 13th, 2021 at 07:19:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

they/them/their gender/sex publicity (none / 0)

Heard v Depp v Heard

Judge won't send ~~Johnny Depp's defamation suit~~ Amber Heard's $100M counter claim to Virginia Supreme Court

In a ruling from the bench, Judge Penney Azcarate refused to allow lawyers for actress Amber Heard, Depp's ex-wife, to petition the Virginia Supreme Court to weigh in on legal issues at the core of her last attempt to dismiss ~~the~~ Depp's case.
Essentially, [Heard's] attorneys wanted the state's high court to tackle whether [USA] case law supports their contention that the court should embrace findings from a United Kingdom [libel laundry] that Depp, 58, abused his ex-wife on a dozen occasions. This would have ended the [Depp's] Virginia case, which is ~~based upon~~ Depp's charge that Heard, 35, defamed him by describing herself as a domestic abuse survivor.
[...]
Filed in March 2019, Depp contends that an op-ed written by Heard and published in the Washington Post defamed him....Depp lost his "Pirates of the Caribbean" part four days after publication of the editorial.
[...]
Depp's attorney, Ben Chew ... pointed out that in August, Azcarate handed down a 10-page opinion rejecting [Heard's] argument that the case should be dismissed because of the U.K. ruling.
[...]
In her opinion, Azcarate noted, "[Depp's] defamation claim [against The Sun] in the U.K. was based on completely different statements than the present case." In her ruling today, Azcarate ticked through each legal standard required to send [Heard's appeal] to the Virginia Supreme Court and concluded that the case didn't qualify.