Articles Posted in BigTech

Apple’s Gemini-Siri Deal Is the Next Microsoft Antitrust Case, Not the Next App Store Fight

May 14, 2026 | Bona Law PC

The Gate to the Kingdom May Be Closing for Good: Apple Puts Google Inside Siri

On January 12, 2026, Apple and Google announced a multi-year deal—reported at roughly $1 billion a year—under which a custom Google Gemini model will run as the backend “brain” of the rebuilt Siri and the next generation of Apple Intelligence. Apple plans to unveil the new assistant at WWDC on June 8, 2026, and ship it with iOS 27 in September. Apple’s own on-device Foundation Models will handle simpler, privacy-sensitive tasks. Heavier queries will route to Gemini on Apple’s private cloud. Siri’s cognitive core will no longer be Apple’s. It will be Google’s.

Meanwhile, ChatGPT—the model Apple spent 18 months positioning as the future of iPhone AI, and the one still at the center of the xAI antitrust lawsuit pending in the Northern District of Texas—continues to sit where it has always sat: in a separate, opt-in, off-by-default layer that users have to turn on themselves. In iOS 27, Apple will expand that layer into an “Extensions” framework that lets users pick from Claude, Grok, Copilot, Perplexity, and a user-selectable Gemini chatbot app alongside ChatGPT.

On the surface, the Gemini deal looks like Apple conceding ground—admitting it cannot build a frontier AI model of its own and paying Google to fill the gap. It is not. Apple does not fear a better chatbot. It fears losing the user to one. By routing Siri’s cognition through a supplier Apple controls contractually, it keeps the interface, the invocation, the defaults, the billing, and the brand—everything that makes an operating system a platform—while outsourcing the only layer it never wanted to own: the AI model. It is classic Apple, but this time with Google as an ally instead of a threat.

Where The xAI Case Stands

Elon Musk’s X Corp. and xAI sued Apple and OpenAI on August 25, 2025, in the Northern District of Texas.

The theory of harm has two layers. First, ChatGPT’s integration into iOS, iPadOS, and macOS—announced in June 2024—delivers billions of iPhone-originated prompts to a single model. Second, the complaint alleges that Apple deprioritized rival chatbots in App Store rankings, making it harder for Grok and others to reach users even outside the system layer.

In late September 2025, Apple and OpenAI moved to dismiss. Apple argued the deal is “expressly not exclusive.” OpenAI called the suit part of a “lawfare” campaign. Judge Mark T. Pittman denied both motions on November 13, 2025, in a one-page order signaling the case is “more well-suited for adjudication through a motion(s) for summary judgment.” Discovery opened on October 10, 2025, and closes on May 22, 2026.

Two rulings tell us the real story.

The source-code ruling: Courts don’t want to become engineers, they just want evidence of platform foreclosure

On January 22, 2026, Magistrate Judge Hal R. Ray Jr. denied X’s motion to compel OpenAI to produce ChatGPT’s source code. X argued it needed the code to rebut any defense of lack of feasibility, to establish whether Apple could integrate Grok into the Apple iOS, and whether it would be feasible to integrate multiple AI products from various providers on the iPhone. The court disagreed on both relevance and proportionality.

On relevance, the order is blunt: “At this stage, it is unclear how the source code is relevant to whether Apple unlawfully excluded Grok from its products and conspired with the other defendants to create a monopoly.” On proportionality, the court noted that OpenAI had already produced API documentation and offered to stipulate that neither side would rely on proprietary source code. X refused the compromise. The court refused the production.

For a platform-exclusion case, that ruling is not a setback. It is a roadmap. Courts do not want plaintiffs dissecting competitor IP to infer what could have happened. They want direct evidence of platform misconduct—integration terms, routing logic, default settings, App Store treatment. That is where antitrust liability lives in a case like this. The court said so in plain terms, and future plaintiffs should take the hint.

The April 2026 motion to compel: Valuation and training data

X filed a second motion to compel on April 10, 2026, this one aimed squarely at OpenAI’s document production. The motion accuses OpenAI of having “persistently evaded its discovery obligations,” noting that OpenAI had produced 7,475 documents compared with X’s 32,116. The requested materials include valuation studies, financial projections through 2030, ChatGPT usage by country, and documents about OpenAI’s use of X data to train its models.

The valuation request is the one to watch. X tells the court that OpenAI’s valuation grew by more than $500 billion in the past year—from $300 billion at the end of March 2025. X argues the jump “does not make sense unless OpenAI and its investors understand that ChatGPT’s exclusive deal with Apple is cementing OpenAI’s dominance.” That is a causation theory built on investor behavior, not technology.

The training-data request matters for a different reason. OpenAI has defended the case in part by arguing that Grok’s foreclosure from iPhone-originated prompts is insubstantial because xAI has asymmetrical access to X data. X’s response is direct: if OpenAI also trains on X data, the asymmetry disappears. That question—who gets to learn from where—sits at the center of every theory of harm in generative AI.

Both motions, taken together, ask the court to analyze platform foreclosure through evidence: deal terms, integration architecture, valuation impact, data flows. None of it is specific to OpenAI nor depends on getting inside OpenAI’s code.

That same framework applies to Gemini.

Gemini Isn’t Apple’s Competitor. It’s Apple’s Supplier.

Apple’s decision to build Siri on Gemini at the backend, while offering third-party chatbots through Extensions on top, reshapes the competitive picture more than any filing in Texas has.

Apple did not retreat from AI. It relocated AI. Every layer a platform needs—distribution, defaults, billing, invocation, user interface, identity—remains Apple’s. When a user says, “Hey Siri” and Gemini answers, Apple delivers the answer. The supplier is invisible. Apple owns the user relationship.

That is the Google Search playbook applied one floor up in the stack. The existing Apple–Google deal to make Google the default search engine in Safari has existed for over a decade, with payments roughly reaching $18–$20 billion a year in the early 2020s. Google delivered the search results. Apple kept the browser, the UI, the defaults, and the customer. Nobody ever thought of Safari as “the Google browser.” That deal survived the U.S. v. Google antitrust trial not because it was invisible, but because it proved how much Apple gained by making a dominant rival pay for access instead of competing on equal terms.

The Gemini arrangement reuses the same design. At the foundational layer, Gemini is Siri’s cognitive backend—contractual, invisible, and not subject to user choice. At the visible layer, the iOS 27 Extensions framework lets users swap among ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, Perplexity, and a Gemini chatbot app for certain requests. Apple will point to that second layer as evidence of openness. But the first layer is where platform control actually lives. Whatever model a user picks through Extensions runs on top of an infrastructure Apple has already built around Gemini. Apple does not compete with Gemini. Apple neutralizes it by absorbing it. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

Forget the App Store. This is Microsoft All Over Again

The App Store line of cases is a distraction here. The real analogue is the Microsoft browser and search monopolization litigation, both in the United States and the EU.

Continue reading →

Beyond the DOJ Complaint: Potential Exclusionary Conduct Theories in the Apple Ecosystem

May 4, 2026 | Bona Law PC

Authors: Pat Pascarella & Luke Hasskamp

Recent proceedings involving Apple Inc.—including the U.S. Department of Justice case and Epic Games v. Apple—together with developments in AI markets, suggest an evolving framework for platform-focused antitrust analysis. This article considers how those threads may fit together.

I. The DOJ Has Done Substantial Groundwork

Begin with market power. In U.S. v. Apple, the district court accepted as plausible a U.S. smartphone market in which Apple holds roughly 65%—now closer to 70%—reinforced by barriers to entry, network effects, and switching costs.

The DOJ also presents an alleged pattern of exclusionary conduct: the repeated neutralization of technologies that reduce platform dependence, including middleware, super apps, cloud streaming, smartwatches, messaging, and digital wallets. According to the complaint, each time a product threatened to make device choice less consequential, Apple constrained or neutralized it. If this allegation is supportable, such a pattern could address concerns about improperly “punishing success.”

II. The Markets Apple Controls at 99 Percent

If a higher market share is needed, the more compelling market is not some smartphone submarket. Rather, it will be markets Apple controls at 99 percent: the iOS functionalities and apps themselves. While not every function is a separate product, some may well be—particularly those Apple allegedly targets.

Epic v. Apple is instructive on this point, and not fatal. The court did not hold that iOS-tethered markets are inherently non-cognizable—only that Epic failed to establish that consumers lacked awareness of iOS restrictions and could not factor them into purchasing decisions. But those gaps seem addressable.

The full scope of any restraints—and their costs—is obscured in a dense web of contractual and technical restrictions. No reasonable consumer could anticipate the extent to which app review, API access, and distribution control could be wielded against rivals. Nor should antitrust liability turn on whether consumers anticipated unlawful conduct.

Even if consumers had advance knowledge of such restraints, a single-brand market is not foreclosed. Apple’s own counsel acknowledged in Epic that consumers entering the iOS ecosystem cannot predict downstream costs related to app distribution, in-app payments, or aftermarkets. If the costs of any restraints are unknowable at the time of purchase, foremarket competition cannot discipline aftermarket conduct. The remaining elements of a single-brand iOS functionality or app market also appear to be present, including allegations of intentional degradation of interoperability to maintain switching costs—without corresponding loss of share or margin.

III. CoStar, Exclusive Dealing, and the End User License Agreement

Some claims may not require pleading a single-brand market. For example, under the Ninth Circuit’s decision in CoStar v. CREXi, “substantial foreclosure” is sufficient to plead an exclusive dealing agreement.

The agreement? The EULA itself. While a web of contractual and technical restrictions might enable foreclosure, the enforceable agreement between Apple and the user is embodied in the EULA. In that sense, Apple may have supplied potential plaintiffs with the central instrument of its own potential liability.

IV. The EULA as a Negative Tie

The EULA may also provide a foundation for tying claims. Courts often resist tying theories in platform cases, frequently reasoning that coercion must be directed at consumers rather than suppliers. That argument, though contestable, is predictable.

A potential response may be that it is the EULA that effectively conditions use of the platform on the consumer’s agreement not to obtain competing products, services, or apps outside Apple’s approval.

V. Attempted Monopolization and Dangerous Probability of Success

Tying allegations also expand the analytical framework, though courts ultimately may analyze them as attempted monopolization. On the “dangerous probability of success,” a defendant such as Apple likely would invoke concerns about outdated leveraging theories. But this would not be a classic leveraging case.

Any company that demonstrates both the ability and the willingness to neutralize technologies or rivals that threaten its market position may struggle to characterize that conduct as competing on the merits. Such a pattern should reduce concerns about punishing a company simply for being successful. Where a company has demonstrated a pattern of exclusion and retains the ability to repeat it, the “dangerous probability” standard should be satisfied.

VI. Inextricably Intertwined—and Antitrust Standing

A direct monopolization claim targeting the U.S. smartphone market faces a threshold question: standing. Developers and rivals operating at the functionality level are neither customers nor competitors in the smartphone market.

Continue reading →

Antitrust Lawyers: AI’s Wartime Consiglieres

February 17, 2026 | Bona Law PC

Author: Pat Pascarella

AI will weaponize antitrust. AI markets have high fixed costs, winner-take-all dynamics, platform leverage, bundling power, and data lock-in. These dynamics predict concentration. And market concentration is an accelerant for antitrust litigation—both private and government. We saw it with IBM, Microsoft, and the telecom wars.

Private actions will move faster than government enforcers—not because they are necessarily stronger on the merits, but because they are less constrained by politics and bandwidth. A well-timed complaint can slow a rival’s rollout, trigger regulatory scrutiny, and create settlement leverage. When markets tip quickly, the losers litigate.

Continue reading →

Banks, Stablecoins, and Base by Coinbase: Fighting for Open Money Without Gatekeepers

February 10, 2026 | Bona Law PC

Author: Luis Blanquez

Congress didn’t set out to redesign money with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. Yet that is where the debate has now landed. The bill—intended to end regulation‑by‑enforcement and draw a workable line between SEC and CFTC authority—has stalled because stablecoins force a choice the status quo would rather avoid. Are digital dollars going to be corralled into a bank‑shaped box, or will they remain programmable cash that pressures incumbents to compete on yield, speed, and service? Everything else is downstream of that decision.

Banks, Stablecoins and the Need for Real Competition

Stablecoins have become the functional rails of crypto today—payment instruments, settlement media, and trading collateral—sometimes accompanied by yields from lending, reserve income, or activity‑based rewards. Banks see this as deposit‑like remuneration without bank‑level prudential rules. And they warn of deposit flight and regulatory arbitrage.

Senate negotiators have responded with draft provisions that limit “interest for simply holding a stablecoin,” while permitting some incentives tied to real activity (e.g., payments volume). Crypto firms counter that this approach smuggles the legacy model back in: if a fully reserved, transparent stablecoin can’t share its economics with users or experiment with market incentives, what exactly is the innovation? And if tokenized assets are pushed back into broker‑dealer rails, how meaningful is on‑chain finance?

This is not a sterile policy scuffle. It’s a market‑structure fork. Treat stablecoins like quasi‑deposits with minimal yield and centralized chokepoints, and you’ll get the same existing incumbent-protection and innovation-fenced banking channels. Treat them as programmable, interoperable dollars with risk‑appropriate guardrails, and you’ll get competition—on rates, UX, interoperability, and transparency.

Base—Coinbase’s Layer‑2 Network

Meanwhile, the market is already revealing the tradeoffs. Consider Base—Coinbase’s Layer‑2 on Ethereum’s OP Stack. It solves real problems: cheaper transactions, faster confirmation, and effortless ramps. It is the rare bridge from Web2 familiarity to Web3 innovation, powered by the distribution of an innovative public company. A very successful project so far indeed.

But Base also shows how “Web3‑branded” platforms can quietly recreate Web2 chokepoints. Today, a single sequencer—run by Coinbase—controls transaction ordering, inclusion, and liveness. Users can self‑custody, yet the network’s heartbeat depends on one operator.

At the asset layer, USDC, a stablecoin co‑created by Coinbase and Circle, is the default settlement currency. This is unsurprising given reserve‑yield economics and compliance benefits. While other tokens can technically be used on Base, the user experience strongly privileges USDC, shaping behavior through design rather than choice. None of this makes Base malign; it makes Base effective. But it also makes it an ecosystem managed by corporate incentives rather than a neutral public protocol.

The Bitcoin and Nostr Lesson: Protocols as Antidotes to Chokepoints

Here’s where Bitcoin and Nostr matter as living proof that open protocols can scale human coordination without reintroducing gatekeepers.

Bitcoin is bearer money with credible neutrality. There is no issuer to lean on, no off‑chain promise to redeem, no corporate switch to flip. With Lightning, small payments settle in native BTC without bridges or custodial wrapping. That architecture prevents a single firm from deciding who transacts, in what order, or at what fee. It’s not frictionless; liquidity management and UX remain hard. But Bitcoin/Lightning delivers something corporate L2s cannot promise: a censorship‑resistant exit option. When “Web3‑branded” stacks drift toward walled gardens, the mere availability of a neutral settlement layer disciplines behavior—users and developers can route around control points.

Nostr offers the same lesson for communications. It is a simple, open event protocol for publishing and relaying messages. There are no accounts to seize, no central servers to pressure, and no mandatory app store chokepoints. Anyone can run a relay, anyone can build a client, and identities travel with the user, not the platform. Like Bitcoin, Nostr isn’t perfect: spam resistance, moderation norms, and discovery are hard. But its permissionless interoperability and portable identity prevent the quiet re‑centralization that Web2 perfected and “Web3‑branded” platforms sometimes emulate. In practice, Nostr and Lightning together show how value and speech can move across a network where the rules are baked into open code rather than corporate policy.

The point isn’t to crown Bitcoin and Nostr as universal solutions (although we think highly of them): It’s to recognize their governance properties—credible neutrality, forkability, non‑discriminatory access—as the antidote to the chokepoints corporate platforms tend to recreate nowadays.

How Corporate L2s Can Earn Trust—and Avoid Antitrust Trouble

The solution isn’t to reject polished, easy‑to‑use platforms. It’s to make sure that as these networks grow, they don’t quietly become new chokepoints. Base—and any corporate‑run Layer‑2—could earn long‑term trust by committing to three simple principles:

Decentralize the Infrastructure

Right now, Base relies on a single sequencer. To avoid becoming a gatekeeper, it should eventually open this role to many independent operators. That means multiple entities helping order transactions, clear rules preventing any one party from dominating, and technical safeguards so users can always get their transactions included—or withdraw to Ethereum—if something goes wrong.

Neutralize the Asset Layer

If the network defaults to USDC everywhere, people will naturally end up using it—even if they’d prefer something else. Base could avoid that by offering a neutral asset picker and allowing different stablecoins, ETH, and even non‑custodial Bitcoin payment paths, to truly compete on equal footing. It should also separate any reserve income from network decisions and make switching between assets or providers easy and low‑cost.

Build Fair, Transparent Governance

To avoid ever looking like a walled garden, Base could give more groups a seat at the table, such as developers, users, and independent voices. Clear rules against self‑preferencing, public audits, transparent fee policies, and easy data portability, all would make the ecosystem more antitrust friendly.

These three steps aren’t just good crypto hygiene. They are antitrust risk reducers. The legal vulnerability for a dominant exchange‑wallet‑L2 bundle is the appearance of leveraging distribution power to foreclose rivals—by steering order flow, setting biased defaults, or discriminating in access. Open sequencers, neutral defaults, and documented non‑discrimination would make Base look less like a vertically integrated gatekeeper and more like neutral infrastructure.

What Congress Should Do

Policy should reflect the same principles.

Continue reading →

Germany’s Competition Authority Sanctions Amazon Over Its Control of Seller Pricing on its Marketplace

February 8, 2026 | Bona Law PC

Author: Luis Blanquez

On 5 February 2026, Germany’s competition authority, the Bundeskartellamt, announced a landmark ruling prohibiting Amazon from continuing practices that influenced how independent sellers priced their products on the German Amazon Marketplace. The authority also ordered Amazon to disgorge €59 million in economic benefits that it determined were gained through these anticompetitive practices.

At the center of the ruling lies Amazon’s dual role in Germany’s online retail ecosystem. As in the United States, the company not only sells products through its own retail arm, Amazon Retail, but also operates the Amazon Marketplace, a platform where independent third‑party sellers list and sell goods directly to consumers. About 60% of all items sold on Amazon.de come from these independent sellers, who bear full responsibility for setting prices and managing the financial risks of their businesses.

The Bundeskartellamt concluded that Amazon used a variety of “price control mechanisms” to review whether sellers’ prices were “too high.” When Amazon’s systems flagged a price as unacceptable, the company responded by either fully removing the listing from the platform or excluding the offer from the Buy Box—the prominent purchasing option that strongly influences sales volume. These measures can severely limit a seller’s visibility and revenue.

According to the authority, this system created a significant competitive imbalance. President Andreas Mundt emphasized that Amazon directly competes with the very sellers who rely on its platform. When a dominant marketplace operator can restrict or manipulate competitor pricing—even indirectly through algorithmic controls—it risks shaping the entire price landscape according to its own commercial interests. Mundt warned that such interference could prevent sellers from covering their costs, potentially pushing them off the marketplace entirely.

The Bundeskartellamt made clear that it does not object to Amazon’s ambition to offer low prices to consumers. Instead, the issue lies in how Amazon has attempted to achieve that goal. Regulators argue that Amazon can provide competitive prices without directly constraining the pricing choices of independent sellers. To address the issue, the authority has restricted Amazon from using price control tools except under narrowly defined circumstances—particularly cases of excessive or exploitative pricing—and only in compliance with detailed requirements that the Bundeskartellamt has now established.

The regulator highlighted the implications of Amazon’s market position. Amazon accounts for roughly 60% of Germany’s online goods retail market, making it an undeniably influential digital gatekeeper. Because independent sellers depend heavily on Amazon’s infrastructure and visibility, any internal policy that affects pricing can have sweeping economic impact. The authority asserts that Amazon’s previous practices allowed it to act as both a competitor and an arbiter of acceptable pricing behaviors, creating a structural conflict of interest.

By limiting Amazon’s ability to use these mechanisms, the Bundeskartellamt aims to restore pricing freedom to third‑party sellers and safeguard the competitive process. The decision stresses the need to prevent dominant digital platforms from exploiting their market position by embedding competitive advantages into the algorithms and systems that govern visibility, listing status, and price acceptability. According to the authority, this type of intervention is crucial to ensuring that Amazon cannot extend its competitive power on the marketplace into the broader retail economy.

Continue reading →

Could Elon Musk Acquire TikTok Under a Joint Operating Agreement Exception to the Antitrust Laws?

January 17, 2025 | Bona Law PC

Authors: Pat Pascarella and Aaron Gott

The idea of Elon Musk purchasing TikTok might sound like a headline ripped from a speculative business column, and maybe it is. But as antitrust lawyers, we couldn’t resist. Obviously, Mr. Musk already owns X, and any such acquisition might raise antitrust concerns.

But could you head off those concerns by structuring the deal with an exception to the antitrust laws known as a Joint Operating Agreement? While JOAs were related to the newspaper industry and are largely seen as a relic of the past, their principles could provide a framework for addressing modern concerns.

A Brief History of Joint Operating Agreements

Joint Operating Agreements emerged during the 20th century as a mechanism to save failing newspapers thereby maintaining at least some level of editorial competition. By the mid-20th century, many U.S. cities had two major newspapers, but declining revenues and readership often left one teetering on the edge of closure. To prevent monopolization of the news market, Congress enacted the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970, which allowed competing newspapers to enter into JOAs.

Under a JOA the two newspapers would be permitted to merge their business operations, so long as they agreed to maintain separate editorial teams. The goal was to preserve journalistic diversity in cities that were about to find themselves with only one surviving paper. But JOAs required approval from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and were contingent on demonstrating that one of the newspapers was “failing.”

JOA Requirements

For a JOA to be approved, the following conditions had to be met:

Failing Firm Doctrine: One of the parties had to demonstrate that it was financially unsustainable and would likely exit the market absent the agreement.
No less anticompetitive alternative: There must not be a less anticompetitive alternative to the joint operation agreement.
Preservation of Competition: The agreement had to preserve a degree of competition, particularly in areas such as content creation or editorial independence.
DOJ Oversight: The DOJ maintained the authority to review and approve any proposed JOAs, ensuring they aligned with antitrust laws.

Applying the JOA Framework to a Musk-TikTok Deal

Elon Musk’s ownership of X likely would raise antitrust concerns about the acquisition of TikTok. But a JOA (or JOA.2) could provide a creative solution to balance these concerns with broader policy objectives, such as ensuring competition with other tech giants like Meta and Alphabet while also addressing national security issues tied to TikTok’s current Chinese ownership.

A critical hurdle, however, would be demonstrating that TikTok meets the “failing firm” criterion. While TikTok is far from failing financially, isn’t “failing” simply another term for “about to involuntarily exit the market.” Same outcome, hence same justification.

But this difference could mean a crucial difference under the JOA legal framework. As explained above, there must be no less anticompetitive alternative available. When it came to the failing newspapers, there was no alternative: failing newspapers did not have buyers lining up to buy them. But popular social media platforms do.

But there’s an answer here as well. One idiosyncrasy of the TikTok situation is that the Chinese government has taken the position that the TikTok algorithm is a Chinese national security secret. So any sale of TikTok means, as a practical matter, that it is not likely to come with a functioning algorithm. This limits the potential pool of buyers to those who either have one they can adapt or who can put one together on the fly.

This likely narrows significantly the existing pool of willing buyers to those who already have social media companies, or possibly even to those people who are known to drive their teams to accomplish skunkworks-like missions on impossible timelines.

Political and Regulatory Considerations

Continue reading →

Unpacking the Implications of the FTC’s Antitrust Case Against Amazon for Online Marketplace Competition

October 22, 2024 | Bona Law PC

Author: Sabri Siraj

The Federal Trade Commission has survived a motion to dismiss in a high-stakes lawsuit against Amazon, igniting critical discussions about competition in the online marketplace. As a dominant player in global e-commerce, Amazon’s practices have long affected both consumers and competitors. Will this case change those practices or otherwise have implications for online marketplaces?

Important Note

Bona Law is currently representing Zulily in a similar lawsuit against Amazon in federal district court. You can read the complaint here.

About the Case

The FTC’s lawsuit, filed in Washington State federal court, stems from allegations that Amazon engages in anticompetitive practices that inhibit competition and violate the Sherman Act, the FTC Act, and consumer protection laws. The FTC alleges Amazon pricing practices harm competition by limiting consumer choices, and that Amazon engages in coercive tactics that disadvantage third-party sellers, creates barriers for new entrants, overcharges sellers, and makes it more expensive for sellers to offer their products on other platforms. Numerous states have joined the FTC’s lawsuit.

Amazon denies the allegations and asserts that its practices benefit consumers and competition. The court dismissed some state law claims but has otherwise allowed the lawsuit to proceed, with trial scheduled for October 2026.

Will the Case Affect Amazon’s Competitors?

For Amazon’s existing competitors, the FTC’s actions could provide both opportunities and challenges. If the lawsuit successfully restricts Amazon’s anti-competitive practices, it may level the playing field for other marketplaces like Walmart, eBay, and Shopify. These companies have often struggled to compete with Amazon’s extensive resources, alleged anticompetitive conduct, and customer loyalty programs. A more dynamic marketplace could enable them to attract more sellers and consumers, driving innovation and diversity in e-commerce offerings.

Moreover, if Amazon’s pricing strategies are curtailed, consumers could benefit through lower prices and improved service from competitors. This could encourage a competitive environment where companies strive to enhance their offerings, benefiting consumers.

Continue reading →

Mergers & Acquisitions, AI and Antitrust: The New Creative Ways for Big Tech to Enter the AI Market and Avoid HSR Rules

July 21, 2024 | Bona Law PC

Author: Luis Blanquez

Two of the main pillars from the Biden Administration Antitrust Policy in 2023 have been an aggressive merger enforcement agenda and its crusade against Big Tech and vertical integration.

On the merger side, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have published new Merger Guidelines (see also here) and proposed new changes to Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) notification requirements (see also here.) In addition, both antitrust agencies have challenged more mergers in 2022 and 2023 than ever before. In a letter from November 2023 responding to questions from Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis., FTC Chair Lina Khan stressed the fact that:

“a complete assessment of the FTC’s success in stopping harmful mergers reveals that of the 38 mergers challenged during my tenure as Chair, 19 were abandoned, another 14 were settled with divestitures, and two are pending a final outcome.”

This includes key acquisitions such as the Nvidia/Arm Ltd or Meta/Within, among many others. And the FTC is showing no signs of slowing down this aggressive approach. Another recent example of a merger challenge by the DOJ is the Live Nation/Ticketmaster’s complaint.

But despite the FTC’s Chair confidence and the recent new challenge by the DOJ, this hasn’t been an easy path for the antitrust enforcers. Courts in the US have pushed back several of the agencies’ extreme challenges and new theories, such as in the Microsoft/Activision, (see also here, here, and here.)

On the Big Tech front things do not look much better. Both agencies have filed major illegal monopolization cases, sometimes together with State AGs, against Apple (Smartphones), Google (Google Search and Google Ad Technology), Amazon (Online Retail), and Meta (Instagram/WhatsApp––see also here––, and Within acquisitions.)

In other words, if you work in Big Tech, forget about acquiring an AI startup, unless you want to go through a long and hostile review process. This is having a serious impact on the most disruptive and growing industry we’ve seen in years.

The “Magnificent Seven” Tech Companies

The ascendency of Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Tesla, Meta, Alphabet and Amazon, the so-called “Magnificent Seven” tech stocks––is indicative of “a fundamental shift”, primarily propelled by advancements in AI. Currently, the top seven tech stocks have not only accounted for about half of the gains in the entire S&P 500, but also contributed to over a quarter of the index’s total market capitalization. These companies are not merely riding the wave of current technologies but actively shaping the future of AI. They collectively gather most of the market cap in the industry.

But until we see a shift on the current enforcers’ antitrust policy against acquisitions involving Big Tech, it doesn’t matter how well these companies perform. Why? Because as a startup in the tech industry (and really in any industry), your main goal is to either try to eventually go public through an IPO––if you become big enough––, or rather look for one of the Big Tech companies to acquire you. But with the antitrust agencies’ current appetite to block such transactions, Venture Capital companies and investors in the AI industry are thinking twice before risking their money on a startup, unless they specifically know that company is going public. Otherwise, the risk that VCs and investors see to get the deal blocked by either the FTC or DOJ is just too high, regardless of the potential these startups might have. And let’s be honest, the number of companies that make it to that level is already extremely low.

First, this is clear evidence of how such an aggressive and disproportionate approach to acquisitions involving Big Tech is currently hindering innovation in the most relevant and disruptive industry we’ve seen in years. But this is a topic for another article.

Second, what I want to discuss in this article is how because of such an extreme approach from the Biden Administration, Big Tech are starting to develop new and creative strategies to get involved in the AI industry, without having to acquire any startups and face the antitrust agencies. At least not until now, because this has already raised some eyebrows at both the DOJ and FTC.

Microsoft/Inflection

The first of these deals involves Microsoft and Inflection.

Backed by Microsoft, Nvidia and billionaires Reid Hoffman, Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt; ex-DeepMind leader Mustafa Suleyman––now Google’s main AI lab, and Reid Hoffman, who co-founded LinkedIn, started Inflection in 2022, claiming to have the world’s best AI hardware setup.

Inflection thesis was based on AI systems that can engage in open-ended dialogue, answer questions and assist with a variety of tasks. Named Pi for “personal intelligence,” Inflection’s first release helped users talk through questions or problems over back-and-forth dialog it then remembers, seemingly getting to know its user over time. While it can give fact-based answers, it’s more personal and “human” than any other chatbot.

In March of this year, Microsoft announced the payment of $650 million to inflection. $620 million for non-exclusive licensing fees for the technology (meaning Inflection is free to license it elsewhere) and $30 million for Inflection to agree not to sue over Microsoft’s poaching, which includes co-founders Mustafa Suleyman and Karén Simonyan. Suleyman will run Microsoft’s newly formed consumer AI unit, called Microsoft AI–– a new division at Microsoft that will bring together their consumer AI efforts, as well as Copilot, Bing and Edge––, whereas Simonyan is joining the company as a chief scientist in the same new group. Inflection will host Inflection-2.5 on Microsoft Azure. It will be also pivoting away from building the personalized AI chatbot Pi to become an AI studio helping other companies work with large language model AI.

So here is where it gets interesting. Microsoft didn’t formally need to make an offer to acquire Inflection. In other words, technically Inflection remains an independent company. But the antitrust agencies seem to disagree and have started asking themselves the following questions.

First, if the key people, money and technology have all left the company to go to Microsoft, what’s really left in Inflection to still be considered as a competitor in the market?

Second, could this qualify as a change in control according to 16 C.F.R. §801.1(b)? What about a file-able acquisition of just “assets”––a term currently undefined by the HSR statute and regulations?

And third, does this move create a “reverse acqui-hire” transaction, a practice which is becoming very popular in the AI industry? The so-called “acqui-hires,” are transactions in which one company acquires another with the main purpose to absorb key talent. But what’s going on in the AI industry is not quite the same. Big Tech are acquiring key employees––such as Suleyman and Simonyan with their core teams in this case––, while licensing technology, leaving the targeted company still functioning independently––so no HSR filing requirement is apparently triggered. This is not the first time we’ve seen this scenario in the AI industry. Last month, Amazon poached Adept’s CEO and key employees, while getting a license to Adept’s AI systems and datasets.

But the antitrust enforcers have started to ask themselves whether Inflection and Adept are still real competitors in the AI market. The FTC has already sent subpoenas to both parties in the Microsoft/Inflection transaction, asking for information about a potential gun-jumping scenario: whether the $650 million deal may qualify as an informal acquisition requiring previous government approval. In the case of Amazon/Adept, the FTC has also decided to start an investigation and asked for more information.

OpenAI, Nvidia and Microsoft

The FTC and DOJ are finalizing an agreement to split duties to investigate potential antitrust violations of Microsoft, OpenAI, and Nvidia.

According to Politico, the DOJ will lead the Nvidia investigation, and its leading position in supplying the high-end semiconductors underpinning AI computing, while the FTC is set to probe whether Microsoft, and its partner OpenAI, have unfair advantages with the rapidly evolving technology, particularly around the technology used for large language models. At issue is the so-called AI stack, which includes high-performance semiconductors, massive cloud computing resources, data for training large language models, the software needed to integrate those components and consumer-facing applications like ChatGPT.

Continue reading →

The Apple Store is in the Crosshairs of US and EU Antitrust and Competition Enforcers

April 9, 2024 | Bona Law PC

Author: Luis Blanquez

Apple is currently feeling the heat from antitrust authorities all over the world. Probably more than ever. Below is an article we recently published in the Daily Journal discussing in some detail the last developments in the Epic Games saga, both in the EU and the US.

Epic Games Has Returned to the Apple Store. Will Apple Throw a Hail Mary?

If you are a developer in the Web3 space trying to access the Apple Store, you should also review this article:

Antitrust, Web3 and Blockchain Technology: A Quick Look into the Refusal to Deal Theory as Exclusionary Conduct

So, what’s on Apple’s plate in the antitrust world on both sides of the pond?

In the European Union, the European Commission has fined Apple over €1.8 billion for abusing its dominant position on the market for the distribution of music streaming apps to iPhone and iPad users (‘iOS users’) through its App Store. The Commission found that Apple applied restrictions on app developers preventing them from informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available outside of the app. Such anti-steering provisions ban app developers from the following:

Informing iOS users within their apps about the prices of subscription offers available on the internet outside of the app.
Informing iOS users within their apps about the price differences between in-app subscriptions sold through Apple’s in-app purchase mechanism and those available elsewhere.
Including links in their apps leading iOS users to the app developer’s website on which alternative subscriptions can be bought. App developers were also prevented from contacting their own newly acquired users, for instance by email, to inform them about alternative pricing options after they set up an account.

At the same time, the European Commission has just opened a non-compliance investigation under the new Digital Markets Act about Apple’s rules on (i) steering in the App Store; (ii) its new fee structure for alternative app stores; and (iii) Apple’s compliance with user choice obligations––to easily uninstall any software applications on iOS, change default settings on iOS and prompt users with choice screens which must effectively and easily allow them to select an alternative default service.

Meanwhile, antitrust enforcement is also heating up for the Cupertino company in the United States.

Besides several private litigation actions, Epic Games recently filed a motion accusing Apple of violating an order issued last year under California law barring anti-steering rules in the App Store.

And just few days ago, the Justice Department, joined by 16 other state and district attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Apple for monopolization or attempted monopolization of smartphone markets in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, Apple has monopoly power in the smartphone and performance smartphones markets, and it uses its control over the iPhone to engage in a broad, sustained, and illegal course of conduct. The complaint alleges that Apple’s anticompetitive course of conduct has taken several forms, many of which continue to evolve today, including:

Blocking Innovative Super Apps.Apple has disrupted the growth of apps with broad functionality that would make it easier for consumers to switch between competing smartphone platforms.
Suppressing Mobile Cloud Streaming Services. Apple has blocked the development of cloud-streaming apps and services that would allow consumers to enjoy high-quality video games and other cloud-based applications without having to pay for expensive smartphone hardware.
Excluding Cross-Platform Messaging Apps. Apple has made the quality of cross-platform messaging worse, less innovative, and less secure for users so that its customers have to keep buying iPhones.
Diminishing the Functionality of Non-Apple Smartwatches. Apple has limited the functionality of third-party smartwatches so that users who purchase the Apple Watch face substantial out-of-pocket costs if they do not keep buying iPhones.
Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets. Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets.

The complaint also alleges that Apple’s conduct extends beyond these examples, affecting web browsers, video communication, news subscriptions, entertainment, automotive services, advertising, location services, and more.

Continue reading →

The FTC Keeps Digging Its Own Grave: Microsoft-Activision Merger Deal Can Move Ahead Says Federal Judge in California

July 14, 2023 | Bona Law PC

Authors: Steve Cernak and Luis Blanquez

This week a federal judge in California denied a preliminary injunction to block Microsoft’s $68.7 billion merger with Activision Blizzard Inc. Both parties may now move ahead and close the deal––subject to further clearance in the UK and Canada––before the July 18 contractual deadline. The FTC has decided to appeal the Court order. We do not yet know the grounds for the appeal but the Court hammered hard almost every single argument from the agency.

The Order includes a detailed background of this case. In a nutshell, the FTC alleges in its complaint that Xbox-maker Microsoft would be incentivized to block Sony PlayStation access to crucial Activision games, especially the very popular Call of Duty game. Below we discuss the main three key antitrust issues involved.

Market Definition

If any, this might be the only partial victory for the FTC in this case.

The Judge states in the Opinion that at this stage of the litigation the FTC need only make a “tenable showing” and she must accept the market definition proposed by the FTC: The Gen 9 consoles market––with Microsoft’s Xbox and Sony’s PlayStation as the only competitors. But at the same time, she did not shy away from highlighting her doubt about the FTC’s market definition surviving a full-blown court review and that she would likely also include Nintendo’s Switch. Why? Because despite its content and functional differences with the Xbox and PlayStation, the FTC failed to consider whether its price, portability, and battery are factors the customer balances when deciding which console to purchase, and because many of the most popular Activision games are available on the three consoles.

As to the FTC’s additional proposed markets of the multigame content library subscription services and cloud gaming, the Court assumed––without deciding––they were each their own product market.

This is as good as it gets for the FTC in this Opinion.

The Clayton Act Requires Competition to be Harmed Substantially, Which is a Higher Standard

A vertical merger involves companies at different levels of the supply chain and are usually less problematic from an antitrust point of view. That’s why for almost fifty years neither the FTC nor the DOJ rarely challenged them. But that has recently changed under the Biden administration and the new head of the FTC Lina M. Khan.

Indeed, this case is the third recent challenge to a vertical merger. The other two were the Illumina’s acquisition of Grail (currently on appeal to the Fifth Circuit; Bona Law filed an amicus brief supporting Illumina’s position) and the Meta-Within transaction. The latter was another unsuccessful attempt by this FTC to block a vertical merger.

All of these challenges have one thing in common: the FTC’s aggressive stretching of the Clayton Act’s coverage. And this last case is no different. Here the District Court–– citing the well-known AT&T acquisition of TimeWarner in 2018 (See United States v. AT&T, 310 F. Supp. 3d 161, 189–92 (D.D.C. 2018) states that:

“[T]he outcome “turn[s] on whether, notwithstanding the proposed merger’s conceded procompetitive effects, the [g]overnment has met its burden of establishing, through ‘case-specific evidence,’ that the merger of [Microsoft] and [Activision], at this time and in this remarkably dynamic industry, is likely to substantially lessen competition in the manner it predicts.” See AT&T, 916 F.3d at 1037.

In the Court’s own words: “it is not enough that a merger might lessen competition—the FTC must show the merger will probably substantially lessen competition. That the combined firm has more of an incentive than an independent Activision says nothing about whether the combination will “substantially” lessen competition. See UnitedHealth Grp., 630 F. Supp. 3d at 133 (“By requiring that [the defendant] prove that the divestiture would preserve exactly the same level of competition that existed before the merger, the Government’s proposed standard would effectively erase the word ‘substantially’ from Section 7”).

Thus, like the ALJ in the Illumina case, and the District Court in the AT&T case, Judge Scott Corley once again finds in this case that the FTC did not show anything more than a “mere possibility” of substantial lessening of competition. This is not the right legal test as we have stated in a recent amicus brief in the Illumina case.

Ability and Incentive: Both Necessary to Show a Foreclosure Theory

One of the keystones of the antitrust policy under the Biden-administration has been to challenge previous case law on how to block problematic transactions, both horizontal and vertical. But so far, the agency has not been particularly successful.

Again, in the Court’s own words:

“As a threshold matter, the FTC contends it need only show the transaction is “likely to increase the ability and/or incentive of the merged firm to foreclose rivals.” [ ] For support, it cites its own March 2023 decision in Illumina, 2023 WL 2823393, at *33. The FTC in Illumina reasons:

[t]o harm competition, a merger need only create or augment either the combined firm’s ability or its incentive to harm competition. It need not do both. Requiring a plaintiff to show an increase to both the ability and the incentive to foreclose would per se exempt from the Clayton Act’s purview any transaction that involves the acquisition of a monopoly provider of inputs to adjacent markets. 2023 WL 2823393, at *38 (cleaned up) (emphasis added).

The FTC in Illumina, however, provides no authority for this proposition, nor could it. Under Section 7, the government must show a “reasonable probability of anticompetitive effect.” Warner, 742 F.2d at 1160 (emphasis added). If there is no incentive to foreclose, then there is no probability of foreclosure and the alleged concomitant anticompetitive effect. Likewise, if there is no ability, then a party’s incentive to foreclose is irrelevant.”

Judge Scott Corley makes clear in her Order that to establish a likelihood of success on the merits for a foreclosure theory in this case, the FTC must show that the combined firm (1) has the ability to withhold Call of Duty, (2) has the incentive to withhold Call of Duty from its rivals, and (3) competition would probably be substantially lessened as a result of the withholding.

The Court held that while Microsoft may have the ability to foreclose competition because it would own the Call of Duty franchise, it has no incentive to do so. The Judge supports her conclusion on the fact that: (i) immediately upon the merger’s announcement, Microsoft committed to maintain Call of Duty on its existing platforms and even expand its availability, entering a new agreement to extend Activision’s obligation to ship Call of Duty at parity on PlayStation, (ii) sent Valve a signed letter agreement committing to make Call of Duty available on Steam for ten years, and (iii) expanded Call of Duty to non-Microsoft platforms, bringing Call of Duty to Nintendo’s Switch.

In addition, the Judge noticed that the deal plan evaluation model presented to the Microsoft Board of Directors to justify the Activision purchase price (iv) relied on PlayStation sales and other non-Microsoft platforms post-acquisition, and (v) reflected access to mobile content as a critical factor in favor of the deal.

The Court further concluded that (vi) Microsoft’s witnesses’ testimony consistently confirmed the lack of Microsoft’s plans to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, (vii) Call of Duty’s cross-platform play was critical to its financial success, and (viii) agreed with Microsoft’s arguments anticipating irreparable reputational harm in case of foreclosing Call of Duty from PlayStation.

The judge reached the same conclusion on the likelihood of Microsoft blocking access through online subscription services. As for cloud gaming, the Court was also persuaded by Microsoft’s recent agreements with five cloud-streaming providers to freely license Activision games––including Call of Duty––for ten years, a key factor for the European Commission to also clear the transaction in the EU few months ago.

Following this ruling, Microsoft and UK antitrust officials have agreed to suspend litigation and focus on trying to reach an agreement on how the acquisition might be modified to address any competition concerns.

Supreme Court Case Law Obligates Merger Challenges to Address the Deal and Certain Proposed Fixes

The FTC desperately tried to also show that Microsoft’s binding offer was just a “proposed remedy” that may not be considered until the remedy phase, after a Section 7 liability finding.

As support, it relies on its own 2023 Illumina decision and E.I. du Pont, 366 U.S. But once again the Court disagrees with the FTC:

“E.I. du Pont does not support the Commission’s holding. It involved a remedy proposed after a finding of a Section 7 violation. The Court held: “once the Government has successfully borne the considerable burden of establishing a violation of law, all doubts as to the remedy are to be resolved in its favor.” E.I. du Pont, 366 U.S. at 334. E.I. du Pont says nothing about whether the merger-challenging plaintiff must address offered and executed agreements made before any liability trial, let alone liability finding; that is, whether the FTC must address the circumstances surrounding the merger as they actually exist.” This same point is key to the Illumina appeal currently pending in the Fifth Circuit.

Continue reading →