Artificial Intelligence Litigation Roundup

July 7th, 2025|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Intellectual Property|Tags: , , , , |

The ongoing rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping legal landscapes, with a surge in antitrust and copyright lawsuits challenging the way AI integrates into business and creative industries. Key cases target AI-driven pricing platforms like RealPage and Yardi Systems, with plaintiffs alleging these tools enable collusive price fixing and drive up costs in sectors such as real estate, healthcare, hospitality, and equipment rental by aggregating and sharing sensitive commercial data. Meanwhile, copyright battles have intensified as creators, publishers, and developers sue major tech companies—including Cohere, Stability AI, OpenAI, Meta, GitHub, Microsoft, and Google—over the unlicensed use of their works to train AI models. These lawsuits argue that using copyrighted material without consent threatens creators’ rights and business models, while defendants counter with fair use and public domain defenses. The outcomes of these pivotal cases will set crucial precedents on acceptable AI practices, copyright scope, and the use of data for training language models. As AI continues to advance, these legal battles will play a defining role in shaping the future of competition, creativity, and consumer protection across industries worldwide. Read an excerpt and click to the full story on the Mogin Law LLP website.

Valid Antitrust Concerns or Partisan Objectives: Which Will Guide Trump’s FTC?  

April 9th, 2025|Categories: Class Actions, Corporate Compliance, HB Tort Notes, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , |

Concerned that the spirit of retribution that drove executive orders against some of the nation's largest law firms will carry over to business deals, Tom Hagy writes about recent changes at the Federal Trade Commission and some of the comments from the new chair that suggest infusion of retribution into the process of examining business deals is inevitable.

Key Developments in Antitrust Class Action Litigation: Recent Developments, Key Class Action Trends, Significant Rulings, and Major Settlements Shaping the Future of Antitrust

February 11th, 2025|Categories: Class Actions, CLE OnDemand, Complex Business Litigation, New Webinars|Tags: , , , , |

Gain an understanding of the latest developments in antitrust class action litigation, including evolving class certification standards, key rulings on multi-district litigation, and major settlements shaping the field on a CLE webinar featuring experienced antitrust attorneys Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Sean P. McConnell. Explore significant court decisions on pricing algorithms, the right-to-repair movement, and baseball’s antitrust exemption while staying informed on critical trends in competition law. Register now!

Algorithmic Software Facilitated Price Fixing with Jonathan Rubin

July 3rd, 2024|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, ELP, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

Everyone knows that price fixing is against the law, chiefly Section 1 of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Competitors may not collude to set prices. However, there are relatively new price-calculation tools that some companies maintain take them out of the equation. With these tools, shared across an industry, firms do not have to directly swap private information with competitors. Instead, they feed their data to a third-party which uses algorithms to come up with prices. In this episode, we discuss what algorithmic or software-facilitated pricing is, what the law says about price collusion, how this new pricing mechanism violates the law, and recent developments in litigation. Our guest highly regarded antitrust attorney Jonathan Rubin, Partner and Co-Founder of MoginRubin LLP.

Cracking the College Sports “Cartel”: Good for Athletes, Competition, and the Games by Joy Sidhwa and Tim LaComb

February 13th, 2024|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Journal, Mass Torts, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

Momentum in the national debate over whether a college athlete should profit from licensing deals for their “names, images, and likenesses,” or NILs, swung in favor of players on June 21, 2021, when the Supreme Court ruled for the athletes in NCAA v. Alston. Authors Joy Sidhwa and Tim LaComb of MoginRubin, LLP discuss the impacts of the decision and subsequent court decisions and state legislation which have further cemented and defined the changing amateurism rules in college sports. As the authors note, "the ultimate test of whether amateurism drives demand will come after new state laws allow compensation unrelated to education. If compensation doesn’t trigger a drop in demand, the NCAA will lose its procompetitive justification for the restriction and likely bring an end to amateurism rules".

FTC v. Amazon: Market Definitions and Section 5 of the FTC Act

December 21st, 2023|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Journal, Mass Torts, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

Traditional antitrust economics face significant challenges grappling with the relatively new digital economy. The author, Jonathan Rubin examines these and other issues raised in the case of FTC v. Amazon, which he anticipates will be a crucial test for antitrust and the FTC Act.

Spotting the Risk, Reaping Rewards: Avoiding Increased Antitrust Scrutiny

September 15th, 2023|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Journal, Mass Torts, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

The Authors Katie has favorably represented antitrust clients in matters involving monopolization, conspiracy, price fixing, exclusive dealing, and other competition-related disputes, including trade secrets and non-compete actions. She has extensive knowledge of the regulatory hurdles and obligations her clients face. Katie earned her J.D. from the New York University School of Law, cum laude. Natalie West represents sophisticated clients in complex commercial disputes. She regularly serves as the lead brief writer in antitrust cases, employment and consumer class actions, and appellate matters. Natalie graduated with high honors from the University of Texas School of Law, where she served as a member of the Texas Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Avoiding Antitrust Scrutiny Spotting the Risk, Reaping Rewards The increase in aggressive antitrust enforcement has certainly received significant attention. For the moment, juries are not rewarding the prosecutors. That said, even an unsuccessful government investigation is itself costly and can motivate plaintiffs’ lawyers. Best practices involve not only following the law but also maintaining solid optics to avoid the need for an expensive, if ultimately successful, defense. [...]

The Plight of the Indirect Purchaser

June 30th, 2023|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, ELP|Tags: , , , , |

Consumers and businesses -- indirect purchasers of products whose prices are fixed by those who supply the maker of your purchase may not collect damages in states that -- surprisingly, do not have antitrust laws that give them standing. But what about federal law? Why do some states provide for damages and others do not? Are there alternatives? 

Litigation Funding Battle Over Litigation Control

April 26th, 2023|Categories: HB Risk Notes|Tags: , , , , |

Sysco and Burford Capital Butting Heads Over Litigation Control. Food giant claims funder is interfering with antitrust litigation. Funder says its client is settling for too little.  Public dustups over litigation funding are rare. Leading litigation funder Burford Capital LLC and food distribution giant Sysco Corp. are locking horns over the control and use of litigation funds. Burford says Sysco is settling Burford-funded antitrust litigation for amounts that deny the financial company optimal return on its investment. Sysco says the funder has overstepped its bounds and interfered with Sysco’s litigation oversight. Sysco received $140 million from Burford in part to fund price-fixing lawsuits against poultry, pork and beef producers – complex multidistrict litigation involving hundreds of plaintiffs, dozens of defendants, and related criminal suits brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ). So far, settlements of private antitrust litigation have reached into the hundreds of millions, and DOJ has levied more than $100 million in fines. Burford, which gets a share of any settlements in the antitrust litigation, says Sysco is settling for too little. Sysco has sued companies associated with Burford – Glaz LLC, Posen Investments LP, and Kenosha Investments LP – claiming they are meddling in Sysco’s settlement efforts. Glaz, Posen, and Kenosha are all companies which have Burford Capital Limited as the only direct or [...]

Supplier Beware: The DOJ & FTC Investigating Manufacturing & Supply Chains

February 24th, 2023|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

The Author Jennifer M. Driscoll (jdriscoll@rc.com) is counsel with Robinson+Cole in New York where she focuses on investigations, litigation, arbitration, mergers, and counseling. She has extensive experience in the medical devices, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and automotive industries. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Supplier Beware: DOJ & FTC Investigating Manufacturing & Supply Chain Issues “Although competitors may attend trade association meetings, the company representative in attendance should be well versed on the line between lawful discussions and ruses to disguise unlawful collusion in violation of the Sherman Act.” Abstract: Challenged by the pandemic, the global supply chain has generated a heightened amount of scrutiny for its impact on the economy, the labor market, the delivery of goods and services, and national security. Attention from the Biden administration portends an era when the federal government will shine a spotlight on the supply chain to root out misconduct. In this article, the author reviews recent supply chain disruptions and reactions from the DOJ and FTC, as well as the government’s efforts to support competition in the labor markets by eliminating noncompete agreements in employment contracts. Finally, she discusses proactive steps companies can take to [...]

Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin

January 4th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

The Author Jonathan Rubin (jrubin@moginrubin.com) is Co-Founder and Partner of MoginRubin LLP, a boutique antitrust, mergers and acquisitions, and class action law firm. Since 2001, he has focused his legal practice exclusively on antitrust and competition law and policy. As a litigator he has led trial teams in major antitrust cases in courts throughout the country. Rubin is a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track? "The failure to appropriately adjust the patent system to accommodate the competitive circumstances created when patents are incorporated into standards undermines the purposes of the standard-setting enterprise and impairs the utility and proliferation of standardized technologies. Without a course correction among the judiciary, the United States risks finding itself as a less desirable jurisdiction for pro-growth and pro-competitive patenting and standard-setting activities." Abstract: A consensus at the intersection of patent and anti-trust law was achieved after a series of decisions finding that in some circumstances owners of standard essential patents (SEPs) have an antitrust duty to [...]

Epiq Class Action Settlement Efficiency

August 19th, 2022|Categories: Class Actions, CLE OnDemand, Complex Business Litigation|Tags: , , , , |

Epiq presents a CLE-eligible webinar Wait Wait ... Don't Settle! Essential elements of effective class action settlements. When it comes to complex class action litigation, once the hard work is done – litigation and settlement – more hard work begins – administering it.  But is the deal really ready? After years of arduous proceedings, discovery, motions, appeals, hearings, negotiations, and more, the scope and structure of your settlement has been drafted. Everyone is in agreement. The hard work of the courts, the attorneys, the legal teams, and the litigants is complete. Now it's time to administer the settlement. Send out notices. Cut the checks. Get people paid. Boom! Sit back and relax. Get a claims administrator to take it from there. But wait … you find out that the terms of the agreement, the promises made, the budget established, and the deadlines calendared are not only inefficient, they are completely unworkable. Now the settlement is in jeopardy. The clients are frustrated. The court is frustrated. And you have a headache. That is a situation you, as a class action attorney, never want to find yourself in. The best way to avoid this quagmire is for attorneys to work with a professional and experienced claims administrator before you agree on settlement terms, someone who has been to this rodeo [...]

Go to Top