Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In United States antitrust law, monopolization is illegal monopoly behavior. The main categories of prohibited behavior include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing. Monopolization is a federal crime under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
The request comes after a federal judge in August found that the tech company had illegally maintained a monopoly in search. Google said it disagreed with the decision and plans to appeal. Read ...
The Justice Department contends Google built and maintained a monopoly in “open-web display advertising,” essentially the rectangular ads that appear on the top and right-hand side of the page ...
In economics, a government-granted monopoly (also called a "de jure monopoly" or "regulated monopoly") is a form of coercive monopoly by which a government grants exclusive privilege to a private individual or firm to be the sole provider of a good or service; potential competitors are excluded from the market by law, regulation, or other mechanisms of government enforcement.
The Justice Department sued Ticketmaster and its parent company Thursday, accusing them of running an illegal monopoly over live events in America and asking a court to break up the system that ...
Map showing alcoholic beverage control states in the United States. The 17 control or monopoly states as of November 2019 are: [2]. Alabama – Liquor stores are state-run or on-premises establishments with a special off-premises license, per the provisions of Title 28, Code of Ala. 1975, carried out by the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
Google must sell its Chrome internet browser after a federal court ruled earlier this year that the company maintained an illegal monopoly over internet searches, the DOJ argued on Wednesday.
For example, in its 1962 decision Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, [24] the Supreme Court ruled that a proposed merger was illegal even though the resulting company would have controlled only five percent of the relevant market. [22] In a now-famous line from his dissent in the 1966 decision United States v.