The Curious Case of Artificial Teeth and the DOJ’s Lawsuit Against Apple
The Third Circuit’s Favorable Plaintiff Laws
The Department of Justice’s decision to file its massive antitrust lawsuit against Apple in New Jersey might seem puzzling at first glance. However, the state’s connection to artificial teeth may shed some light on this choice. According to William Kovacic, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission and professor at the George Washington University Law School, the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey, boasts “some pretty good law for plaintiffs on monopolization issues.” Kovacic specifically references a successful antitrust case against a fake teeth manufacturer in the same jurisdiction.
Samsung’s Presence in New Jersey
While the fake teeth case may have influenced the DOJ’s decision, it’s not the only factor at play. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of the 16 attorneys general involved in the lawsuit, suggests that Samsung’s US headquarters being located in New Jersey also played a role. The lawsuit identifies Samsung and Google as Apple’s two “meaningful competitors” in the premium smartphone market, making Samsung’s presence in the state a relevant consideration.
Precedent in Antitrust Lawsuits
The DOJ’s choice of venue for the Apple lawsuit differs from its previous antitrust cases against tech giants. The Google lawsuit was filed in Washington, DC, while the ad tech lawsuit against the company was filed in the nearby eastern district of Virginia. Similarly, the DOJ’s antitrust case against Microsoft was not heavily reliant on the fake teeth case from the Third Circuit.
As the lawsuit against Apple unfolds, it will be interesting to see how the choice of venue and the precedent set by the artificial teeth case impact the proceedings and ultimate outcome.
2 Comments
Oh, suddenly Apple’s crunching more than just numbers, huh
Apple in an antitrust case over teeth? Now that’s a bite out of the ordinary!