ReportWire

Tag: antitrust

  • Vegas hotel giants MGM, Caesars, Wynn and Treasure Island sued for

    Vegas hotel giants MGM, Caesars, Wynn and Treasure Island sued for

    [ad_1]

    A federal lawsuit in Nevada is seeking class-action damages for countless hotel patrons who booked rooms in Las Vegas since 2019, alleging that most hotel-casinos on the Las Vegas Strip have used a third-party vendor to illegally fix prices.

    The complaint filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, alleges that casino giants MGM Resorts International and Caesars Entertainment, along with Treasure Island and Wynn Resorts, share information with a company that used pricing algorithms to “maximize market-wide prices.”

    It accuses the resorts and Rainmaker Group Unlimited, a revenue management company owned by Cendyn Group, of “algorithmic-driven price-fixing … at the expense of consumers and in violation of antitrust laws.”

    The Associated Press sent an email to Rainmaker seeking comment. Michael Bennett, a representative of Boca Raton, Florida-based Cendyn, declined to comment.

    The lawsuit was filed on behalf of plaintiffs Richard Gibson and Heriberto Valiente by attorneys from the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Seattle and Berkeley, California.


    Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck tie the knot in Las Vegas

    00:19

    “Tens … if not hundreds of thousands”

    The suit seeks class status and unspecified monetary damages for “tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands” of people based on alleged antitrust violations of the federal Sherman Act.

    MGM Resorts, which operates properties including Bellagio, New York-New York, MGM Grand and Mandalay Bay, responded Thursday with a statement calling the lawsuit “meritless.”

    “The claims against MGM Resorts are factually inaccurate, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously,” it said.

    Wynn Resorts declined to comment. The Associated Press left messages seeking comment from representatives of Treasure Island and Caesars Entertainment.

    Caesars Entertainment operates Las Vegas Strip properties including Caesars Palace, Harrah’s, the Horseshoe, Paris Las Vegas and the Flamingo.

    In a statement, plaintiffs’ attorney Steve Berman invoked and reshaped a ubiquitous advertising campaign tagline introduced in early 2003.

    “What happens in Vegas will no longer stay in Vegas,” Berman said. “We intend to expose the under-the-table deals perpetrated by these Vegas hotels.”

    Algorithm to “maximize pricing”

    Alan Feldman, a longtime MGM Resorts executive who is now a fellow at the International Gaming Institute at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said hotels, airlines and car rental companies monitor costs and prices throughout what he termed “the travel ecosystem.”

    “Rest assured, they watch each other,” Feldman said. “Then they can decide if they want to go above it, below it, or just ignore it.”

    “But I can’t imagine these companies talking to one another,” he said, “and certainly not on price.”

    The lawsuit points to concerns about algorithmic pricing identified in a 2017 speech by Maureen Ohlhausen, a former acting chairperson of the Federal Trade Commission.

    Ohlhausen defined a computer algorithm as a set of rules or instructions that can model thousands of “extremely complex and nuanced behaviors” in a fraction of a second “and react almost instantaneously to changes.”

    She said companies provide their pricing data to “a common, outside agent” that uses the information to program its algorithm “to maximize industrywide pricing.”

    “We even have an old-fashioned term for it,” Ohlhausen said, “the hub-and-spoke conspiracy.”

    “In effect, the firms themselves don’t directly share their pricing strategies,” she said, “but that information still ends up in common hands, and that shared information is then used to maximize market-wide prices.”

    The court filing said two former Rainmaker employees told attorneys the company’s products are used by 90% or “just about every” property on the resort-lined Las Vegas Strip. The lawsuit didn’t identify the former employees.

    The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that average daily room rates for Strip resorts hit record highs in 2022, topping $200 a night in October during a busy convention month.

    For the year through November, the average rate was $170.45, the highest in history, and did not include add-on resort fees or account for complimentary rooms provided to high-rollers, the newspaper said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google faces antitrust suit, accused of

    Google faces antitrust suit, accused of

    [ad_1]

    Google faces antitrust suit, accused of “monopolizing” digital ad market – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The Justice Department along with eight U.S. states is suing Google, accusing the tech giant of “monopolizing” the digital ad market. Bill Baer, former assistant AG for the Justice Department’s antitrust division, joins John Dickerson on “Prime Time” to discuss.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Department of Justice accuses Google of monopolizing advertising technology

    Department of Justice accuses Google of monopolizing advertising technology

    [ad_1]

    The Department of Justice and eights states sued Google on Tuesday, claiming the internet giant has an illegal monopoly over online advertising. 

    It’s the fifth federal antitrust suit against the Alphabet-owned company since 2020, when the DOJ sued it over what the government claims is a monopoly in search.

    By buying up competitors and steering potential customers to its own products, Google “has corrupted legitimate competition in the ad tech industry,” the government said in its complaint.

    “Google uses its dominion over digital advertising technology to funnel more transactions to its own ad tech products where it extracts inflated fees to line its own pockets at the expense of the advertisers and publishers it purportedly serves,” the suit states.

    The company makes more than 80% of its revenue from advertising, totaling $209 billion in 2021, the most recent year available.

    Thwarting the free market?

    “Google has thwarted meaningful competition and deterred innovation in the digital advertising industry, taken supra-competitive profits for itself, and prevented the free market from functioning fairly to support the interests of the advertisers and publishers who make today’s powerful internet possible,” the Justice Department alleged.

    Tuesday’s suit, filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, was joined by the states of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia.

    Google disputes that its advertising practices hurt competition. 

    “Today’s lawsuit from the DOJ attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector. It largely duplicates an unfounded lawsuit by the Texas attorney general, much of which was recently dismissed by a federal court,” the company said in a statement. “DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow.”


    California files antitrust lawsuit against Amazon

    04:27

    Antitrust advocates expressed support for the government’s latest lawsuit against Google. 

    “Today’s lawsuit by the Department of Justice against Google for the monopolization of advertising will be remembered as one of the most important antitrust cases in American history,” Barry Lynn, executive director of Open Markets Institute said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Big Tech And Its Congressional Allies Kill Most — But Not All — Antitrust Legislation

    Big Tech And Its Congressional Allies Kill Most — But Not All — Antitrust Legislation

    [ad_1]

    The two biggest antitrust bills in more than 50 years are dead after they were not included in year-end congressional spending legislation released Tuesday, angering anti-monopolists who believe Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) killed the best chance for this Congress to meaningfully limit corporate power.

    While a pair of smaller provisions in the omnibus will help antitrust advocates take on the nation’s largest tech companies in the future, the death of the Open App Markets Act and the American Innovation and Choice Online Act — both of which had the necessary support to pass the Senate, advocates insist — amounts to a massive win for Big Tech’s well-funded lobbying and influence machine.

    Antitrust advocates blame Schumer for promising Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) a vote on her American Innovation and Choice Online Act, postponing action for nearly a year, and then finally failing to deliver on his pledge by excluding it from the omnibus spending bill.

    “Schumer has erased much of the goodwill he formed with the tech startup ecosystem during the net neutrality debates. He spent a full year running interference for the most powerful companies in the world and repeating the myth that this broadly bipartisan legislation ‘didn’t have the votes,’” Luther Lowe, the senior vice president for public policy at Yelp, told HuffPost.

    “Thanks to him, Europe will lead the global rule-making for the internet indefinitely, and European consumers are enjoying better protections than U.S. consumers.”

    The European Union adopted far-reaching antitrust legislation in March, against the wishes of Big Tech companies. The new law included provisions that died on the vine in the U.S. Senate, such as rules barring companies like Apple and Google from requiring smartphone owners to use their respective app stores for digital purchases.

    David Segal, a co-founder of liberal advocacy organization Demand Progress, suggested that the demise of the antitrust bills could lead progressives to doubt future promises from Schumer, who worked throughout the past two years to keep the left satisfied on issues like student debt cancellation.

    “Unfortunately, Schumer’s behavior made it clear that he was never serious about keeping this commitment,” Segal said. “Activists should be even warier of commitments he purports to make going forward.”

    “They had bipartisan support and would’ve helped rein in an industry that in too many areas is out of control.”

    – Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

    At least one prominent antitrust advocate withheld criticism and praised the omnibus legislation’s smaller wins. One measure allows state attorneys general to keep antitrust cases in the state where they’re filed, which should prevent Big Tech from working to combine cases in a way that slow-walks the eventual decisions.

    Another provision increases the filing fees that companies pay to antitrust agencies like the Federal Trade Commission when they merge, giving those regulators a funding boost.

    “Big Tech, Big Ag and Big Pharma spent extraordinary sums in an unprecedented effort to keep Congress from delivering on antitrust reform and undermine the ability of state and federal enforcers to uphold the law — and they lost,” said Sarah Miller, the executive director of the antitrust-focused American Economic Liberties Project. She noted that the filing fee hike would be the first congressional action to strengthen antitrust enforcement since 1976.

    Even that provision, however, is weaker than it could be. The increased filing fees won’t go into effect for another two years, giving corporations time to kill them and depriving antitrust advocates in President Joe Biden’s administration — including FTC Chair Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter, the assistant attorney general for antitrust enforcement at the Justice Department — of resources as they battle Google and Apple.

    “Including Merger Filing Fees is an important step forward for Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter’s ability to crack down on monopolies and fight for consumers – but the unnecessary two-year delay means we must hold onto the White House in 2024 to ensure this funding is used to enforce our antitrust laws,” said Emma Lydon, the managing director of the progressive group P Street.

    Other antitrust proponents had more mixed reactions, expressing disappointment in Democratic leaders in Congress without dismissing the new funding for enforcement.

    Segal argued that the new revenue would help Khan and Kanter continue to “push the bounds within the existing jurisprudence in order to ensure that antimonopoly policy works for everyday people and our broader economy.”

    Lowe also acknowledged that the additional funding was a positive sign, noting that the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division will now get specific appropriations in congressional funding.

    “I don’t see how as a Big Tech CEO you feel great about the broader trends across the globe in terms of greater enforcement of anticompetitive behavior,” he said.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who proposed full-on breakups of major tech companies during her 2020 presidential run, avoided directly criticizing the majority leader but made clear that she thought the antitrust bills deserved stand-alone votes from the omnibus legislation.

    “The ones that were omitted should’ve been included. We should’ve voted on them over the past several months,” Warren told HuffPost. “They had bipartisan support and would’ve helped rein in an industry that in too many areas is out of control.”

    Warren was unsure about the effectiveness of the antitrust provisions that did survive. “We’re still reading the fine print,” she said. “The devil’s in the details.”

    The pair of bipartisan bills that Schumer effectively killed would have provided Khan, Kanter and other antitrust enforcement officials with additional tools to curb the abuses of Big Tech.

    Klobuchar’s American Innovation and Choice Online Act would have barred major platforms, such as Google and Amazon, from providing preferential treatment to their own products. The bill — which was backed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee — advanced out of committee on a 16-6 vote in January.

    Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), left, and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) pushed for passage of more meaningful antitrust legislation.

    The Open App Markets Act, introduced by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would have prohibited companies like Apple and Google from engaging in restrictive contracts with app developers that, among other things, prevent them from selling their apps in competitors’ stores. That bill had even greater bipartisan support, advancing out of committee on a 20-2 vote in February.

    However, a person familiar with the negotiations said Friday that the legislation was dead at the behest of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)— an assertion viewed skeptically by progressives wary of Schumer. McConnell’s office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

    The powerful tech platforms Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon — sometimes identified collectively by the acronym GAFA — argue that such bills restrict the organic growth that has enabled the United States to become a world leader in technological innovation. They compare Amazon giving preference to its own branded merchandise with supermarkets giving prominent placement to generic store brand goods alongside other products.

    But anti-monopolists maintain that the opposite is true, contending that the kind of innovation seen in Silicon Valley during the 1980s and ’90s would likely not be possible today amid the barriers to competition that tech giants have erected to protect their profit streams.

    For example, they point to Meta’s Facebook co-opting the original features of newer platforms like Snapchat and acquiring would-be competitors like Instagram and WhatsApp. Meanwhile, Amazon’s preferential treatment of its own products, they say, goes far beyond what supermarkets do — both because of the leverage that Amazon has over sellers on its platform and the information it culls from sellers in the interest of undercutting them. (Amazon’s particular tactics were the focus of an influential paper by Khan as a student at Yale Law School.)

    “These guys are gatekeepers in the economy,” said Lowe, whose company, Yelp, has spent years battling what it sees as Google’s abuses. “They have a special ability to distort the entire market place and bend it to their own ends.”

    As much as Schumer has courted those on the left in recent years, they’ve long been suspicious of his intentions around Big Tech companies. The businesses are a major source of campaign funding, and the electorally conscious Schumer would be wary of losing access to their cash or having the money turned against vulnerable Democratic incumbents.

    In July, antitrust advocates aired a television ad targeting Schumer on cable channels in Washington, backed by a relatively small buy that further underscored the forces they were up against. The Big Four tech companies, or groups they fund, had spent $120 million on television ads attacking the proposed antitrust legislation and $95 million lobbying against it.

    Arthur Delaney contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • American Airlines’ Alaska Air Deal Differs From Its JetBlue Deal. Does That Matter?

    American Airlines’ Alaska Air Deal Differs From Its JetBlue Deal. Does That Matter?

    [ad_1]

    An alliance with American Airlines has helped Alaska Airlines
    ALK
    compete on the West Coast, providing a valuable choice for the region’s airline passengers. In many ways, the alliance resembles the alliance between American and JetBlue, but in some key areas it is more restrictive.

    The American/Alaska alliance, known as the West Coast International Alliance or WCIA, was announced in February 2020. It enables the carriers to codeshare, particularly on flights connecting with American international flights but also on flights serving domestic destinations.

    Within the alliance, “We are not permitted to do certain things with on the West Coast with American Airlines because of DOJ restrictions,” Andrew Harrison, Alaska chief commercial officer, said Thursday during a trial in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.

    “We cannot code on overlap markets,” Harrison said. “We can’t be as competitive. American and JetBlue can partner. We can’t.” He cited Seattle-Dallas/Fort Worth as an example of an “overlap” route, originating in each direction in a partner hub, as a route where American and Alaska cannot code share.

    At the trial, Department of Justice antitrust attorneys are seeking to block the Northeast Alliance or NEA between American and JetBlue. Or might they would seek to modify it along the lines of the WCIA? U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin will decide whether and how the NEA goes forward.

    DOJ antitrust attorney Bonny Sweeney said the NEA is “unprecedented” in the ability of American and JetBlue to coordinate capacity on domestic flights.

    Questioning Harrison, Sweeney said, “You agree that what American and JetBlue have done is different than what you have done in capacity coordination.

    “The ability to coordinate on domestic is unprecedented, sharing revenue on overlap routes is unprecedented, allocating markets is unprecedented in domestic markets,” Sweeney said.

    Harrison responded, “In my tenure of knowledge, yes.”

    Comparing the WCIA and the NEA, Harrison said, “They coordinate capacity planning and allocation in JFK And Boston, and we cannot.”

    Commenting on the NEA, Harrison said that of the 1,600 daily departures from the three principal New York airports, “United and Delta are the largest and strongest; American and JetBlue are much more distant. JetBlue (with) American can present a much more compelling proposition for folks.”

    Harrison also said that DOJ restrictions, imposed after Alaska’s 2016 acquisition of Virgin America, badly impaired Alaska.

    Harrison said Alaska once had a partnership with Delta in Seattle, but the partnership started to break up in 2014 when Delta wanted a bigger presence in Seattle in order to build a trans-Pacific hub. The partnership “became more and more strained,” he said, as Delta grew its own departures to 160 daily from 37 daily. “Delta made clear they really only wanted us to partner with them and the airlines they wanted us to partner with,” as opposed to letting Alaska pick its own international partners such as British Airways and Emirates, he said.

    Delta “started pulsing in flight after flight after flight, blanketing our network,” he said. “In many cases the markets had too many seats in them and fares collapsed. It put a huge strain on our ability to generate revenues.” As the Delta partnership broke up, Alaska moved to add codeshare agreements with American.

    In 2016, Alaska acquired Virgin America. DOJ approved the $4 billion acquisition, but demanded codeshare restrictions. In a December 2016 investor presentation, Alaska detailed the restrictions. It said, “There are 45 markets where Alaska loses existing codeshare revenue, and the net financial impact is between $15-$20 million.” It now seems the impact was understated.

    Harrison said Thursday, “We lost a lot of connections over their hubs.” Partially as a result, he said, “We had a very serious problem. The Delta relationship was gone and ended. The American relationship was basically wound down to nothing.

    “The order so stifled our ability,” he said. “We had normal code shares; we acquired Virgin America. Then DOJ put rules on top of us that no one else has to follow. Our relationship (with American) fell apart.”

    The WCIA has revived the American alliance. “American Airlines really needed to build up their international network on the West Coast,” Harrison said. “They were really struggling in Los Angeles. What we could help them with is to build and to (connect) our guests to help fill their international flights.” Today, Harrison said, 8% of Alaska revenues come from partnerships, primarily with American.

    [ad_2]

    Ted Reed, Senior Contributor

    Source link