SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Proton AG, a Swiss privacy-first technology company, today joined an antitrust class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. The suit, brought on behalf of a proposed class of app developers, alleges that Apple engages in illegal, anti-competitive policies and practices through its App Store that harm developers, consumers, and the public interest.
The complaint details how Apple has abused its monopoly control over app distribution on iOS devices to impose predatory policies and tariffs through its App Store, resulting in inflated prices, diminished privacy protections, and degraded user experience. The legal action comes in the wake of recent rulings against Apple, including a €500 million fine issued by the European Commission, and a U.S. court decision finding Apple in willful defiance of court orders in Epic Games v. Apple. The latter noted that Apple’s misconduct was so extreme that the judge referred the company for criminal prosecution.
By joining that lawsuit, Proton aims to ensure that this suit will not only be about monetary damages to compensate app developers for Apple’s conduct, but also changes to App Store policies that will permanently end anti-competitive behavior on the App Store. Proton will donate any money it receives from the lawsuit to organizations fighting for democracy and human rights so that some portion of Apple’s profits are redirected to freedom.
The complaint alleges that Apple’s App Store practices—including mandatory 30% commission fees, censorship of privacy-first apps, and technical restrictions on competitors—constitute monopolistic behavior that stifles innovation.
It is widely reported that Apple has removed or censored apps at the behest of authoritarian governments, in order to continue profiting from those markets. The advocacy group GreatFire.org has found that 66 out of the 100 most popular apps worldwide, including news, social networking and messaging apps are unavailable to iOS users in China. Apple has also removed apps to help suppress protests, such as the 2019 case of HKmaps.org which was removed at the height of the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
Just last year Apple removed dozens of VPN apps from the Russian App Store, a particularly concerning step considering how vital these services are for Russian citizens trying to access independent media and bypass censorship by the Russian government. In 2020, Apple threatened to take Proton VPN off the App Store unless the company removed language that said the app could be used to “unblock censored websites.”
“It is critical for the future of the internet to end the monopoly on app distribution. Apple wields complete control over iOS app distribution and has time and time again used this power to harm competition and degrade users’ rights and experience for its own financial gain,” said Proton founder and CEO Andy Yen. “While it’s clearly a risk for Proton to take this stand, joining this lawsuit is the only way to push for tangible changes to Apple’s policies that will benefit developers and American consumers alike. Any money we receive from our participation in this lawsuit will be donated to organizations fighting for democracy and human rights so that some portion of Apple’s profits are redirected to causes that advance freedom around the world.”
Apple requires all developers pay a $99/year fee to be in the App Store, and takes a 30% cut from all revenue from all payments made through iOS apps. Companies that monetize user data in exchange for “free” services that abuse user privacy aren’t affected by this as they don’t process payments through the App Store. However, privacy-first companies that monetize through subscriptions are disproportionately hit by this fee, putting a major barrier towards the adoption of privacy-first business models. In many cases these are also the very companies Apple is directly competing with through its disingenuous “privacy” marketing campaigns.
“Our client, Proton, is bravely stepping forward to fight for meaningful change. Agreeing to lead a class action is inherently a selfless act as it requires doing work for the benefit of others,” said Michael Eisenkraft, partner at Cohen Milstein, one of the law firms representing Proton and the proposed class. “Without accountability, Apple could get away with behavior in the U.S. that stifles both competition and innovation.”
Apple claims the 30% fee is necessary to pay for the maintenance of the App Store, but evidence presented in Epic Games v. Apple indicated that Apple makes a staggering 78% profit margin on App Store fees. The company also prohibits developers from linking out to their websites, where users may be able to purchase service subscriptions directly from the developer, which has a negative impact on the user experience. Apple is able to bring in these steep profits at the expense of privacy-first developers due to the lack of competition in iOS app distribution.
Proton and the proposed class are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. The case was filed in the Northern District of California.
###
About Proton AG
Proton was founded in 2014 in Switzerland by scientists from CERN. Our vision is an internet where privacy is the norm – supported by an ecosystem of services that are accessible to everyone, anywhere, anytime.
Our first product, Proton Mail, is now the largest encrypted email service in the world. Complementary products like Proton VPN, Proton Calendar, Proton Drive, and Proton Pass also use advanced encryption technologies to give users full control over their data. All our products are open-source and are developed by a dedicated team of over 500 people, supported by an active community in more than 180 countries. The Proton Foundation, a nonprofit organization based in Geneva, is the main shareholder of Proton. Today, we make privacy accessible to everyone and protect over 100 million accounts, including those of journalists, major international organizations, and ordinary people around the world.
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.
About Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP is the largest law firm in the world devoted solely to business litigation and arbitration. Quinn Emanuel has been deemed the “most feared” law firm in BTI Consulting Group’s 2025 “Most Feared Law Firms in Litigation” guide in both 2024 and 2025.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Cohen Milstein is pleased to announce that public pension fund investors and EQT Corporation have reached an agreement to settle In re EQT Corporation Securities Litigation, a certified securities class action, in its entirety, for a cash payment of $167.5 million.
The settlement agreement, pending court approval, provides a favorable result for investor class members because it provides for a cash recovery and resolves any further litigation. The $167.5 million settlement is particularly significant given that, among other things, it is the largest securities class action recovery ever in the history of the Western District of Pennsylvania and the 14th largest in the history of the Third Circuit.
Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel believe that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members and represents a favorable result.
As court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel, Cohen Milstein represents the lead plaintiff group consisting of the Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Annuity Fund (f/k/a Northeast Carpenters Annuity Fund), Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Pension Fund (f/k/a Northeast Carpenters Pension Fund), Government of Guam Retirement Fund, and Cambridge Retirement System.
Background of Case and Settlement
In re EQT Corporation Securities Litigation is a certified securities class action brought against EQT and certain of the company’s current and former senior executives for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of the following class:
all persons and entities who: (i) purchased the common stock of EQT Corporation (“EQT”) during the period from June 19, 2017 through June 17, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”); (ii) held EQT shares as of the record date of September 25, 2017 and were entitled to vote with respect to the Acquisition at the November 9, 2017 special meeting of EQT shareholders; (iii) held Rice Energy Inc. (“Rice”) shares as of the record date of September 21, 2017 and were entitled to vote with respect to the Acquisition at the November 9, 2017 special meeting of Rice shareholders; and/or (iv) acquired the common stock of EQT in exchange for their shares of Rice common stock in connection with the Acquisition, and were damaged thereby.
The amended complaint alleged that from June 19, 2017 through June 17, 2019, the defendants made materially false or misleading representations and omissions regarding EQT’s drilling performance and capability, as well as the purported benefits of EQT’s acquisition of competing oil and gas company Rice Energy. The alleged false and misleading statements concerned, among other things, the combined company’s ability to drill 1,200 lateral wells at an average lateral length of 12,000 feet, and to realize $2.5 billion in synergies. The complaint asserted that the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions caused investors to purchase EQT common stock at artificially inflated prices and/or to approve EQT’s proposed acquisition, and to suffer damages when the truth was revealed.
In arriving at this settlement, lead counsel, including Cohen Milstein and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, reviewed over 5 million pages of documents, participated in depositions of 33 fact witnesses and 9 expert witnesses, retained and worked with experts on the subjects of damages, loss causation, natural gas drilling, and corporate due diligence, and thoroughly reviewed the applicable facts and law. Furthermore, the Parties extensively briefed motions (i) to dismiss, (ii) for class certification, (iii) for summary judgment, and (iv) to exclude expert opinions and testimony.
During the course of the hard-fought litigation, the court certified the class on August 11, 2022, and on September 23, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied defendants’ petition for interlocutory review of the court’s order granting class certification.
The case team at Cohen Milstein included Steven J. Toll, Daniel S. Sommers, S. Douglas Bunch, Christina D. Saler, Benjamin F. Jackson, and Alexandra Gray.
Following the Bayer-Monsanto merger, litigation has resulted in a valuable settlement that, pending final approval, affirms the rights of ADR investors to hold foreign companies accountable under U.S. securities laws.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today, a federal judge in California granted preliminary approval of a $38 million cash settlement between Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund, and International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware, and Bayer AG to resolve a certified securities class action against the pharmaceutical giant and certain executives.
Originally filed in 2020, the lawsuit stems from Bayer’s highly controversial acquisition of Monsanto in 2018. Plaintiffs alleged that Bayer, along with its CEO, the chairman of its Supervisory Board, and several other senior executives made false and misleading statements concerning the company’s due diligence on the risks associated with an ongoing large mass tort litigation alleging that Roundup, Monsanto’s flagship glyphosate-based herbicide, causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Following the merger, Bayer sustained a barrage of court defeats in that toxic tort litigation, forcing it to establish a $10.9 billion settlement fund.
The settlement follows nearly five years of intensive cross-border litigation and brings closure to, pending final approval, an important case that addressed critical questions about the adequacy and transparency of disclosures concerning due diligence in high-profile corporate mergers. The litigation also reaffirms that investors who purchase American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) on the over-the-counter market have enforceable rights under U.S. securities laws.
“This is an important settlement and resolution for our clients and investors who invest in publicly traded foreign companies through the U.S. over-the-counter markets,” said Carol Gilden, a partner at Cohen Milstein and court-appointed lead counsel in this matter. “This has been a hard-fought dispute. After years of litigation and international discovery, this resolution, pending final approval by the court, will help ensure accountability of a foreign company under U.S. securities laws. It will also provide closure for ADR investors harmed by Bayer’s alleged misleading statements.”
Central to the case were novel and complex questions about whether the plaintiffs’ and the class’s purchases were foreign transactions outside the scope of U.S. securities laws.
In May 2023, the court granted class certification, appointing Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund, and the International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware as class representatives and Cohen Milstein as sole class counsel. Notably, the court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor on the extraterritoriality issue, resulting in a landmark decision affirming the rights of ADR purchasers on the over-the-counter market—and particularly those of sponsored ADRs like Bayer’s.
Discovery was also expansive and complex, spanning multiple continents and legal systems. Among other things, plaintiffs were required to initiate proceedings under the Hague Convention to obtain the testimony of Bayer’s former general counsel in Germany—a process that demanded significant coordination with German counsel and judicial oversight from both U.S. and German courts.
The case is styled: Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, et al. v. Bayer Aktiengelsellchaft, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04737, U.S. District Court, District of Northern California.
###
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
With more than 100 attorneys in eight offices, Cohen Milstein is one of the largest plaintiff-side law firms in the United States. With more than four decades of experience litigating securities fraud class actions, we have recovered billions of dollars to investors. We are perennially recognized as among the top securities practices in the country by legal publications such as The National Law Journal, Law360, Chambers USA, and The Legal 500.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A student, “John Doe,” and his mother, “Jane Doe,” have filed a civil rights lawsuit against a Washington, D.C. private school, St. Anselm’s Abbey School. The lawsuit challenges the school’s failure to protect John Doe from daily harassment to which he was subjected based on his race and disability. Rather than protect John Doe from harassment by his peers, the school suspended him and barred him from re-enrolling for the following school year.
As detailed in the complaint, a student at St. Anselm’s Abbey School, John Doe was relentlessly harassed by his classmates because he is Black and autistic. They publicly called him race- and disability-based slurs, including “burnt chicken nugget,” “n*gger,” “brown monkey,” and “autistic n*gger,” among others. They also harassed him in class-wide group text threads, threatened him, and physically assaulted him while at school. John Doe and his mother repeatedly complained to school staff and administrators, who failed to take necessary action to address this harassment. The abuse not only continued, it escalated to the point that John Doe was too afraid to ride the school bus, could not focus in class, and contemplated suicide. Text records of some of this harassment will be part of the record before the Court.
The complaint also details that after John Doe was attacked by a group of non-Black students, the school suspended him — not the harassers — for defending himself. St. Anselm’s then barred John Doe from re-enrolling for the next school year. When John Doe’s mother met with the headmaster to discuss the school’s decision to expel John Doe, the headmaster said that “the only thing [the school] did wrong was accept an autistic child” and that he “would have never accepted [John] if [he] knew [John] was autistic,” notwithstanding that Jane Doe had disclosed his disability during the admissions process. The lawsuit alleges that the school violated the District of Columbia Human Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Jane Doe had enrolled her son in St. Anselm’s because they regarded it as the premier Catholic school in Washington, and they believed this was one of the only schools where John Doe could get a high-quality education while being immersed in Catholic values. The abuse John Doe suffered, therefore, was especially jarring, as it subjected him daily to ridicule and humiliation while shattering his connection to the Catholic community.
Alexandra Brodsky, litigation director of Public Justice’s Students’ Civil Rights Project, said: “John Doe, like all students, deserved a safe and equitable learning environment. Instead, he faced relentless harassment — and when he asked his school for help, they punished him instead. Private schools are not above the law. They should be on notice that, if they discriminate and retaliate against their students, they will have to defend their cruelty in court.”
“Every student is entitled to respect and dignity while at school, no matter their race or disability,” said Andrew Adelman, partner at Correia & Puth. “St. Anselm’s Abbey School was unable to provide this. Rather than address and work to prevent race- and disability-based harassment of John Doe, St. Anselm’s responded to complaints about that harassment by blaming John, suspending him, and effectively expelling him. I am proud to stand alongside John Doe and Jane Doe to hold St. Anselm’s to account.”
“St. Anselm’s failures shattered a family’s trust in education, in their Catholic faith, and in our society,” said Alisa Tiwari, associate at Cohen Milstein. “Today, our lawsuit is making it clear: no school can turn a blind eye to race or disability discrimination. John and Jane Doe seek to recover for the searing harm they suffered and to ensure that no other child is degraded for being different.”
Jane and John Doe are represented by Public Justice, Correia & Puth, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.
###
Public Justice takes on the most significant systemic threats to justice of our time —abusive corporate power and predatory practices, the assault on civil rights and liberties, and the destruction of the earth’s sustainability. We link high-impact litigation with strategic communications and the strength of our partnerships to combat these abusive and discriminatory systems and achieve social and economic justice.
Correia & Puth, PLLC is a civil rights law firm based in the District of Columbia dedicated to representing individuals confronting discrimination, retaliation, and unfair treatment. The lawyers of Correia & Puth are staunch advocates for individuals who face discrimination in the workplace, schools, healthcare settings, and other places of public accommodation.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.
Cohen Milstein’s Eric Kafka, a data privacy and consumer protection partner, named interim co-lead counsel
NEW YORK – Today, a California federal judge appointed Eric Kafka, a data privacy and consumer protection partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, to co-lead In Re: Tiktok, Inc., Minor Privacy Litigation, a consolidated multidistrict litigation (MDL) about TikTok’s collection and use of children’s personal information.
TikTok, one of the world’s largest social media platforms, has millions of users in the United States. Parents of children who are under the age of 13, claim that TikTok collects and uses the personal information of children without notifying parents or gaining parents’ verified consent in violation of COPPA and the COPPA Rule.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated six class actions into the MDL on April 3, 2025 before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and assigned the Honorable George H. Wu to preside.
“I’m incredibly honored by Judge Wu’s appointment. This is a critical case for protecting children’s privacy rights. I look forward to seeking justice on behalf of the millions of families who have been impacted by TikTok collecting their children’s personal information.” said Eric A Kafka, a partner at Cohen Milstein.
In 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against TikTok for violating COPPA and the COPPA Rule. In March 2019, the Central District of California permanently enjoined TikTok from collecting and using personal information from children under the age of 13 without notifying their parents or gaining their parents’ verifiable consent. However, TikTok continued to violate COPPA. Then in August 2024, the DOJ filed a new lawsuit against TikTok – again for violating COPPA and illegally collecting and using personal information of young children.
Kafka is known for litigating high-stakes data privacy and unfair business class actions against major technology companies. In 2020, he helped successfully settle LLE One v. Facebook (N.D. Cal.) for $40 million. He is currently litigating DZ Reserve v. Meta Platforms (N.D. Cal.) and In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation (N.D. Cal.).
Along with Kafka, the court appointed Derek Loeser of Keller Rohrback LLP as interim co-lead counsel.
###
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.
The class certification brings fired probationary employees one step closer to reinstatement
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In what is believed to be a first since the Trump administration issued government-wide layoffs, an Administrative Judge at the Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB) certified a class of fired probationary employees at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The decision allows fired probationary employees at the agency to together challenge their terminations as unlawful and to litigate their entitlement to reinstatement as a group.
This move marks a major victory for fired probationary workers, who lack many of the protections that other federal workers enjoy. In federal court, the Trump administration has successfully challenged and overturned district courts’ attempts to slow the administration’s push to gut the federal workforce, including in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
What’s more, attaining class certification in the MSPB is no small achievement—there are only a few documented instances of class certification in the MSPB in prior decades. The Administrative Judge’s decision to certify a class is a recognition the terminated workers at DHS were fired in a blanket, en masse push to downsize the federal government, without heed to those workers’ often-stellar records of performance or other factors that should have informed terminations.
“This is heartening news for the scores of probationary workers whose rights have been trampled on and whose lives were turned upside down by what we believe were illegal reductions in force,” said Christopher Bonk, partner at Gilbert Employment Law. “We’re looking forward to continuing our fight to get these employees back to serving the mission they joined the civil service to pursue.”
Leading employment and civil rights attorneys representing federal workers say that the widespread probationary employee layoffs violated at least a dozen laws, regulations, and constitutional protections. The workers argue that the mass terminations constituted a constructive reduction in force (RIF), which require that government agencies consider an employee’s tenure, performance and veteran status when making termination decisions. Regulations also typically require 60 days advance notice of termination in a RIF. Instead, public servants were abruptly terminated, with total disregard for these key protections.
The probationary DHS employees are represented by Brown Goldstein Levy, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Gilbert Employment Law and James & Hoffman.
###
About Brown Goldstein Levy
For almost four decades, Brown, Goldstein & Levy has been recognized as Maryland’s leading private law firm for high impact, public interest cases. Our attorneys have handled these challenges in the Supreme Court and most of the federal appellate circuits, as well as in state courts throughout Maryland and around the country. The attorneys at Brown, Goldstein & Levy devise creative and practical solutions to workplace issues. And when negotiated solutions are not possible, we provide effective and tenacious representation.
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. It has litigated landmark civil rights and employment disputes before the highest courts in the nation and continues to actively shape civil rights and employment law in the United States.
About Gilbert Employment Law, P.C.
Gilbert Employment Law, P.C., is the worker’s voice in litigation involving employee rights violations. Gilbert’s attorneys are highly skilled in representing federal employees before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and other federal administrative agencies. Gilbert Employment Law, P.C., has also represented employees in county and state courts, as well as U.S. District and Appeals Courts.
About James & Hoffman
James & Hoffman is a law firm that represents workers and labor unions across the country, advancing their interests in critical matters arising in state and federal courts, administrative proceedings, and arbitrations. The firm is a national leader in representation of federal government employees. It is based in Washington, D.C.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com
Winner Announced for 23rd Annual Jerry S. Cohen Award for Antitrust Scholarship
The American Antitrust Institute and Cohen Milstein announce outstanding contributions to antitrust scholarship.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In recognition of his outstanding contribution to antitrust scholarship, the author listed below has been selected as recipient of the 23rd Annual Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award:
- Daniel Francis, Assistant Professor of Law, NYU School of Law
The award will be presented during the gala luncheon at the American Antitrust Institute’s 26th Annual Policy Conference on May 29, 2025 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
Professor Francis will be honored for his article:
“Monopolizing by Conditioning,” 124 Colum. L. Rev. 1917 (2024). Professor Francis demonstrates that conditional dealing should be recognized as its own, separate form of monopolistic conduct. For too long, courts have attempted to squeeze conditioning into ill-fitting categories in existing monopolization law, leading to poor results. In his article, Professor Francis provides a new analytical framework for evaluating conditional dealing, including a definition of conditioning, as well as standards for gauging its exclusionary impact, contribution to power, and procompetitive justifications. Also, he explains why courts’ current criteria for evaluating claims based on conditional dealing should be jettisoned. Professor Francis’ article meaningfully advances our understanding of the harms that arise from monopolists’ conditional dealing, why the current legal regime has failed to confront those harms, and how to fix the problem
Professor Francis will receive a $12,500 prize and a specially commissioned and inscribed artwork by Lori Milstein, artist and daughter of Herb Milstein, co-founder of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
In addition, this year’s award selection committee conferred nine category awards recognizing numerous other outstanding contributions to antitrust scholarship in 2024:
- Best Antitrust Publication of 2024 on Burdens of Proof: Christopher R. Leslie, “False Analogies to Predatory Pricing,” 172 U. Pa. L. Rev. 329 (2024)
- Best Antitrust Publication of 2024 on Healthcare: Zarek Brot, Zack Cooper, Stuart V. Craig and Lev Klarnet, “Is There Too Little Antitrust Enforcement in the Hospital Sector?,” American Economic Review: Insights 6 (4): 526–42
- Best Antitrust Publication of 2024 on Merger Enforcement: Daniel Sokol & Sean Sullivan, “The Decline of Coordinated Effects Enforcement and How to Reverse It,” 76 Fla. L. Rev. 265 (2024)
- Best Antitrust Publication of 2024 on Noncompete Agreements: Michael Lipsitz & Mark J. Tremblay, “Noncompete Agreements and the Welfare of Consumers,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 16 (4): 112–53
- Best Antitrust Publication of 2024 on Non-Price Effects: Christopher R. Leslie, “Pharmacy Deserts and Antitrust Law,” 104 Boston L. Rev. 1593 (2024)
- Best Publication of 2024 on Antitrust and Intellectual Property: Christopher Buccafusco, Jonathan S. Masur, Mark P. McKenna, “Competition and Congestion in Trademark Law,” 102 Tex. L. Rev. 437 (2024)
- Best Publication of 2024 on Antitrust Remedies: Ian Ayres, C. Scott Hemphill, Abraham L. Wickelgren, “Shorting Your Rivals: Negative Ownership as an Antitrust Remedy,” 86 Antitrust L.J. 317 (2024)
- Best Publication of 2024 on Labor Antitrust: Eric Posner, “The New Labor Antitrust,” 86 Antitrust L.J. 503 (2024)
- Best Antitrust Student Publication of 2024: Frank Schulze, “Old, Not Odd: Running Laches Against the States and the Future of Antitrust After New York v. Meta Platforms,” 123 Mich. L. Rev. 111 (2024)
This year’s award selection committee consisted of Zachary Caplan, Shareholder at Berger Montague; Warren Grimes, Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School; John Kirkwood, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law; Roger Noll, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Stanford University; Leslie Marx, Professor of Economics at Duke Fuqua School of Business; Robert Lande, Emeritus Professor of Law at University of Baltimore School of Law; Daniel H. Silverman, Partner at Cohen Milstein; and Daniel A. Small, Of Counsel at Cohen Milstein.
About the Award
The Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award was created through a trust established in memory of Jerry S. Cohen, an outstanding trial lawyer and antitrust scholar. The award is administered by the law firm he founded, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
The award honors the best antitrust writing published during the prior year that is consistent with the values that animated Jerry S. Cohen’s professional life – a genuine concern for economic justice, the dispersal of economic power, effective limitations upon economic power, and the vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws.
About Cohen Milstein
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.
About the American Antitrust Institute
The American Antitrust Institute (AAI) is an independent, nonprofit organization devoted to promoting competition that protects consumers, businesses, and society. AAI serves the public through research, education, and advocacy on the benefits of competition and the use of antitrust enforcement as a vital component of national and international competition policy.
LANSING, MI – The Michigan Court of Claims has denied the State of Michigan’s motion for summary disposition, allowing homeowners from Midland and Saginaw Counties to move forward to trial with their mass tort and class action lawsuits seeking to hold the state accountable for the 2020 failure of the Edenville Dam and the resulting widespread flooding and property damage.
Judge James R. Redford noted that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to support their claim that the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy was aware of the risk of the Edenville Dam failing yet continued to maintain the reservoir behind the dam at lake levels. This evidence includes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) repeated citations of the dam owner, now-bankrupt Boyce Hydro Power, LLC, for violations of federal regulations, which led FERC to revoke the company’s license to produce electricity. Subsequently, Michigan state agencies assumed regulatory responsibility for the Edenville Dam.
“We are very pleased with the court’s ruling. The evidence is clear. The state of Michigan knew about the Edenville Dam’s safety issues for years before its failure in 2020. Thousands of residents were evacuated throughout Midland and Saginaw Counties due to an avoidable and tragic circumstance. Hundreds of homes were destroyed by the massive flooding that resulted,” said Leslie M. Kroeger, co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s Complex Tort practice and counsel to the homeowners in the case. “We look forward to pursuing justice on behalf of the residents and homeowners whose homes, businesses, and properties were destroyed.”
Homeowners allege that for decades, the Edenville Dam failed to meet federal and state safety standards, as demonstrated by FERC’s multiple citations, posing a significant risk of catastrophic harm. The violations of federal regulations were so egregious that FERC eventually ordered the dam operators to cease power generation and revoked Boyce Hydro Power’s license to operate the dam.
In 2018, Michigan State agencies assumed regulatory responsibility for the Edenville Dam. Plaintiffs allege that the agencies were aware the dam lacked the necessary capacity to handle a significant flood but failed to take any action to address spillway capacity or to mitigate the risk of dam failure. To the contrary, the state authorized raising the water level of Wixom Lake, the reservoir held back by the Edenville Dam.
Nearly five years ago, on May 19, 2020, following heavy rainfall and flash flooding on the Tittabawassee and Tobacco Rivers, the Edenville Dam failed. This failure caused the downstream Sanford Dam to become overwhelmed and fail as well, resulting in historic flooding throughout Midland, Saginaw, Arenac, Gladwin, and Losco Counties.
Nearly 10,000 residents in Midland County and surrounding areas were evacuated, and lost homes, businesses and other property. The flooding caused millions of dollars in property damage. The dam failure also drained Wixom and Sanford Lakes, significantly reducing the value of surrounding properties and businesses.
Plaintiffs seek damages for property damage and destruction; loss of the use and enjoyment of property; diminished value of real and personal property, residences, and businesses; and loss of future business earnings.
This case is named: Borchard v. Michigan Department of Environment, et. al., Case No. 20-000121-MM, Mich. Crt. Of Claims.
WEST PALM BEACH, FL – Today, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of key claims brought on behalf of more than 1,000 homeowners who sued the City of Miramar and its engineering consultant, Kimley-Horn, Inc., for irreversible property damage allegedly caused by improperly treated water from the City’s West Water Treatment Plant. The appellate court determined the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ case with prejudice was not warranted and remanded it for further litigation.
Originally filed in 2023, Antezana, et al. v. Kimley Horn, et al. (Cir. Crt. Broward Cnty.) is a high-profile property damage lawsuit brought against the City of Miramar and Kimley-Horn by Miramar homeowners. Filed as a putative class action lawsuit, the homeowners seek to represent other individuals and businesses who suffered property damage as a result of the City’s improperly treated water. They claim that due to the negligence of the City and the professional malpractice and negligence of Kimley Horn, their water supply was not properly treated, resulting in irreversible and costly damage to the copper piping in their homes.
“On behalf of Miramar residents, we are very pleased with the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision. This ruling represents significant progress for Miramar residents who have suffered substantial plumbing and property damage. Many homeowners faced expenses in the tens of thousands of dollars, with some forced to completely re-pipe their homes. They shouldn’t bear the financial burden of the City’s failure to properly treat their water supply. We look forward to pursuing a full measure of justice on their behalf,” said Leslie Kroeger, co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s Complex Tort practice and lead plaintiffs’ counsel in Antezana, et al. v. Kimley Horn, et al.
The City of Miramar owns and operates its own water treatment plants. Miramar’s West Water Treatment Plant supplies water to thousands of residents and businesses throughout the central and western portions of the City of Miramar. Plaintiffs allege that from 2016 to 2022, the City’s water treatment process at this plant removed essential minerals but failed to properly restore them—particularly calcium carbonate. This deficiency, combined with improper alkalinity and hardness levels, allegedly rendered the water corrosive to copper pipes.
The complaint further alleges that after residents reported premature plumbing failures, the City contracted with Kimley-Horn to evaluate the situation, but the consultant failed to recommend appropriate remedial measures, instead suggesting that non-water-related factors were to blame. Rather than addressing the underlying issue, the City allegedly advised homeowners to replace their plumbing at their own expense and offered a program for residents to borrow up to $10,000 from the City to pay for their new pipes.
The plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Romano Law Group, and Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.
States must fill enforcement vacuum being left by federal regulators who are abandoning these cases under Trump administration
Attorney General Dan Rayfield today filed a lawsuit against Coinbase, one of the largest cryptocurrency trading platforms in the United States, for violating the Oregon Securities Law. The lawsuit claims that Coinbase has both encouraged and helped the sale of unregistered cryptocurrencies to people in Oregon. In doing so, Coinbase has reaped millions of dollars in fees as Oregonians have faced huge losses, often devastating, from risky investments in a market that’s stacked against them and hard to navigate.
“After building trust with Oregon consumers, Coinbase sold high risk investments without them being properly vetted to protect consumers,” Rayfield said. “Oregonians lost money, and we believe Coinbase should be held accountable and take steps to protect consumers.”
The complaint filed today in Multnomah County Circuit Court claims that Coinbase created and operated an exchange that drives and supports the sale of unregistered securities – or in other words, risky investments. Coinbase approves the cryptocurrencies listed on its platform, connects buyers and sellers, handles their trades, manages their funds and assets, and actively promotes and encourages Oregonians to buy these digital assets.
As detailed in the complaint, these unregistered securities are vulnerable to pump-and-dump schemes and fraud, which often end in devastating losses for investors. Meanwhile, the insiders behind these tokens profit from investors not being able to fully research their investments.
In one example, the cryptocurrency called ICP, short for “Internet Computer Protocol,” which the SEC previously identified as an unregistered security, plummeted in price from $700 to $72 within one month after it was launched for public trading on Coinbase. Today, the coin trades around $7 per share, a price drop of almost 99% that wiped out billions of dollars of investors’ money.
This lawsuit comes as the SEC recently dropped its case against Coinbase and reassigned the lawyer leading the case to the SEC’s IT office. Attorney General Rayfield says the states must fill the enforcement vacuum being left by federal regulators who are giving up under the new administration and abandoning these important cases.
“I am committed to protecting Oregon’s investors so they’re not taken advantage of.”