U.S. v. AT&T Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. New York v. Deutsche Telekom AG

    439 F. Supp. 3d 179 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)   Cited 10 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing efficiencies such as the accelerated introduction of cellular service based on new technology

    The DOJ and at least one other court have also used CMAs to define local geographic markets when assessing the competitive impact of mergers upon markets for mobile wireless telecommunications services, further indicating that CMAs provide a workable framework for the calculation of local market shares in this context. See United States v. AT & T Inc., 541 F. Supp. 2d 2, 4-5 (D.D.C. 2008). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the national RMWTS Market and the CMAs defined by the FCC constitute the relevant geographic markets in this case.

  2. U.S. v. Republic Services, Inc.

    723 F. Supp. 2d 157 (D.D.C. 2010)   Cited 1 times
    Finding that “[i]n light of the deferential review to which the government's proposed remedy is accorded, [amicus curiae's] argument that an alternative remedy may be comparably superior, even if true, is not a sufficient basis for finding that the proposed final judgment is not in the public interest”

    While CCWI appears to argue that the parties must provide independent factual support for the proposed remedies, a court may "make its public interest determination on the basis of the competitive impact statement and response to comments alone." Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d at 17. For example, in United States v. AT T Inc., 541 F. Supp. 2d 2, 7 (D.D.C. 2008), the court concluded that the proposed final judgment was in the public interest without citing expert affidavits or other factual support outside of the complaint and public comments. Here, the government analyzed each geographic market individually and tailored each divestiture to the competitive concerns of the particular market.

  3. Commonwealth v. Partners Healthcare System, Inc.

    No. SUCV2014-02033-BLS2 (Mass. Super. Jan. 29, 2015)

    Although a prosecutorial decision to settle a case is entitled to substantial deference, a Court should not simply " rubber-stamp" the government's proposal: rather, it must make an independent determination of whether it is in the public interest. See, e.g, United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1458, 312 U.S.App.D.C. 378 (D.C.Cir. 1995); United States v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc., 2014 WL 1653269 at *4 (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2014) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.); United States v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 959 F.Supp.2d 55, 58-59 (D.D.C. 2013); United States v. Apple, Inc., 889 F.Supp.2d 623, 631 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); United States v. AT& T, Inc., 541 F.Supp.2d 2, 6 (D.D.C. 2008); United States v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 489 F.Supp.2d at 15. " [T]he relevant inquiry is whether there is a factual foundation for the government's decisions such that its conclusions regarding the proposed settlements are reasonable."