Keller Lenkner represents the State of Texas in its antitrust case against Google. According to the complaint, Google entered into an unlawful agreement with rival Facebook to maintain control of the marketplace for header bidding. If what Texas is alleging is true, then both companies may have violated federal antitrust law—and committed felonies in the process.
The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas has retained national plaintiffs’ law firm Keller Lenkner LLC to represent the State in antitrust litigation against Google LLC. The suit, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleges that Google monopolized or attempted to monopolize products and services used by advertisers and publishers in online-display advertising.
Keller Lenkner’s Ashley Keller argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Zantac MDL yesterday, opposing the defendants’ arguments that state-law claims over design and labeling defects should be dismissed because they are preempted by federal law. Keller, who chairs the MDL plaintiffs’ Law & Briefing Committee, argued that state laws create multiple duties to consumers, not all of which conflict with federal law. “There cannot be preemption when there are parallel claims like this,” Keller said.
A proposed class of consumers has hit Facebook with an antitrust lawsuit in California federal court accusing the social media giant of deceiving consumers about the data-privacy protections it gives users and exploiting the “rich data it deceptively extracted from its users to identify nascent competitors.” Named plaintiffs Sarah Grabert and Maximilian Klein said in their complaint Thursday that Facebook Inc. has been using its market dominance as a “weapon to clear the field of any and all competitors that threaten to take away market share.”
National plaintiffs’ law firm Keller Lenkner LLC and global business litigation firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook, Inc. alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and California law on behalf of Facebook users. The complaint alleges that Facebook obtained and maintained a social network and social media monopoly by consistently deceiving consumers about the data-privacy protections it provided to users, and by exploiting the data it extracted from users to target smaller startup companies for destruction or acquisition.
Keller Lenkner LLC has filed a federal lawsuit against LinkedIn alleging unfair-competition, fraud, and breach-of-contract claims on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who purchased advertisements on the platform. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the complaint alleges that LinkedIn consistently overcharges advertisers because it inflates the advertising metrics on which businesses rely when placing bids to purchase LinkedIn advertising.
A New York federal judge on Monday slapped down Peloton’s bid to toss a proposed class action against the stationary bike giant claiming it falsely advertises an “ever-growing” library of online fitness classes, ruling while a Michigan customer can’t sue under New York law, the New York-based lead plaintiff can.
The full Eleventh Circuit is being pressed to review a panel decision in a dispute over a $1.4 million robocall settlement that found class representatives can’t recover routine incentive awards, with the lead plaintiff arguing that this categorical ban would hobble class action litigation and an objector to the deal taking issue with the calculation of class counsel’s fees.
A group of Pizza Hut delivery drivers Monday asked a Texas bankruptcy judge to deny franchise owner NPC International’s request to find that July’s Chapter 11 stay extends to a wage suit against individual executives, saying the company has no obligation to defend them.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce cannot file an amicus brief supporting Postmates’ challenge to a California law that lets workers sue if companies take too long to pay arbitration fees, couriers facing a suit by the delivery service have told a federal judge, arguing the Chamber’s views would add nothing to the case.