Antitrust News

YES

YES

YES

YES

KalshiEX LLC v. CFTC (ban on prediction markets for elections)

Clarke v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (PredictIt Case)

Ryan v. FTC (Non-compete ban case)

United States v. Sam Bankman-Fried

U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Google LLC (Google antitrust case)

Federal Trade Commission, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon antitrust case)

U.S and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc. (Apple antitrust case)

United States v. Binance Holdings (charges against Binance for iolating several laws, including the Bank Secrecy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the Commodity Exchange Act)

Federal Trade Commission v. Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard, Inc (Attempt to block Microsoft's merger/acquisition of Activision Blizzard)

United States v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta antitrust case)

Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC (E-cigarette supreme court case)

TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland (TikTok Ban)

YES

Apple

Apple gets subjected to financial penalties

Opening Up of NFC and Other Hardware Features - Apple is required to provide third-party developers access to hardware features currently restricted, such as the NFC chip used for tap-to-pay transactions.

IApple gets mandated to implement interoperability measures for messaging and smartwatch functionalities

The ruling forces Apple to allow developers to use their payment systems within their apps, bypassing Apple's in-app purchase system and the associated fees.

The court sets clear deadlines for when Apple must implement these changes, such as within 90 days of the ruling, providing a clear timeline for verification.

The court orders Apple to revise Apple's App Store guidelines to allow for more competition.

Establishment of a mechanism for ongoing oversight of Apple's compliance with the lawsuit's rulings.

Apple is compelled to allow developers more freedom in presentation and monetization of apps, including enabling different app discovery methods (ex : use of icons or tiles for mini programs, categorizing them, or using virtual currencies).

Mandatory Allowance of Third-Party App Stores and Sideloading

The court finds Apple guilty of monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the performance smartphone market and/or the broader smartphone market in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The court defines specific permissible actions for super apps and cloud gaming services on iOS, like not requiring each game or service within a super app to be submitted to the App Store individually.

If state antitrust laws are violated, Apple could be fined a specific dollar amount per incident of anticompetitive conduct, as defined by state statutes. (Conditional market)

The court requires Apple to permit cloud gaming services on its devices

The lawsuit leads to a decision that deems Apple's 30% commission rate as excessive.

The court may issue injunctions to prohibit Apple from continuing the specific practices that are identified as anticompetitive, such as using control over app distribution and private APIs to undermine competition.

The court mandates a specific maximum percentage for App Store commissions, such as reducing the current 30% fee to a lower figure, like 15% or 10%.

The court orders Apple to apply its rules and guidelines fairly across all apps and not enforce them selectively to benefit its services or harm competitors.

Apple gets ordered to give restitution to developers or consumers who have been adversely affected by its policies.

The court could require a measurable increase in the number of apps or services in previously restricted categories, such as digital wallets or cloud gaming, available on iOS within a certain period post-ruling.

NO

YES

NO

YES