#us justice department | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

enterprisewired · 1 month

Text

US Justice Department and States Sue Apple Over Antitrust Allegations

Share Post:

Twitter

Facebook

source – News18

Blockbuster Lawsuit

In a significant move, the US Justice Department, alongside over a dozen states, has initiated an antitrust lawsuit against tech giant Apple, marking the latest in a series of similar actions targeting major players in the industry. This lawsuit, distinguished by its scale, underscores the government’s tightening grip on Big Tech, whose dominance has largely gone unchecked for decades.

Allegations of Monopoly

The lawsuit, long-anticipated, follows years of criticism accusing Apple of stifling competition through its app store policies, exorbitant fees, and closed ecosystem. Critics argue that while Apple’s products are user-friendly, the company’s tight control over its hardware and software ecosystem limits competition and innovation. This control often translates into preferential treatment for Apple’s own products over those of competitors.

Challenges and Scrutiny

The lawsuit alleges that Apple’s actions have led to a monopolistic hold on smartphone markets, using contractual terms that harm various aspects of competition, including text messaging and mobile payments. The tech giant’s practices, it’s argued, hinder innovation and restrict consumer choice. Despite years of legal challenges and criticism, Apple has largely maintained its reputation and legal standing, until now.

International Pressure and Evolving Landscape

While the US Justice Department pursues legal action, Apple is also facing pressure overseas, particularly in the European Union. A new EU law has compelled Apple to make significant changes to its app store policies, allowing users in the bloc to download apps from third-party stores. However, critics remain skeptical, accusing Apple of violating EU regulations.

A Shifting Paradigm

Once celebrated for its innovation and design, Apple now faces accusations of stifling competition and limiting innovation. While the company remains financially robust, its reputation for groundbreaking innovation has waned under the leadership of CEO Tim Cook. The lawsuit not only poses a significant challenge to Apple’s business practices but also serves as a symbol of the Biden administration’s commitment to fostering competition in the digital age.

As legal proceedings unfold, the outcome of the lawsuit against Apple could have far-reaching implications, shaping the future of competition in the tech industry and potentially prompting changes to Apple’s policies and practices.

#US Justice Department

0 notes

head-post · 1 month

Text

US Justice Department files landmark antitrust lawsuit against Apple

The US Department of Justice announced on Thursday the filing of a historic antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company “relies on exclusionary anti-competitive conduct” to maintain its leadership in the smartphone market.

Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that Apple “has maintained monopoly power in the smartphone market, not simply by staying ahead of the competition on the merits, but by violating federal antitrust law.”

“We allege that Apple has employed a strategy that relies on exclusionary anti-competitive conduct that hurts both consumers and developers.”

The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for New Jersey, was joined by 16 state and county attorneys general. The document alleges that Apple’s actions have harmed consumers by inflating prices, reducing choice in the marketplace and reducing the quality of apps, phones and accessories. It claims that the company is also forcing developers to comply with rules “that insulate Apple from competition.”

Read more HERE

#world news #world politics #news #us #usa #us politics #us news #america #united states #usa news #usa politics #usa today #united states of america #us justice department #apple inc #apple news #phone #techreview #version

0 notes

designingmonkey · 2 months

Text

A thought regarding SCOTUS…

There are 13 Appellate Courts (1 US Court of Appeals for the Federal District & 12 Regional) there then should be 13 Supreme Court Justices, one for each.

#scotus #us justice department #us law

1 note · View note

svalleynow · 2 months

Text

Justice Department Files Lawsuit against State of Tennessee and the TBI

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the state of Tennessee and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The department previously notified Tennessee and the TBI that they violated the ADA by enforcing the state’s aggravated prostitution statute against people living with HIV. The department’s investigation found that the state…

View On WordPress

#Bledsoe County News #Chattanooga News #Dunlap News #Grundy County News #Haletown #Jasper News #Kimball News #Marion County News #Monteagle #New Hope #Pikeville #Sequatchie County News #Sequatchie Valley News #South Pittsburg News #Tennessee #Tennessee Bureau of Investigation #US Justice Department #Whitwell News

0 notes

motogadi · 1 year

Text

The US Justice Department is looking into Tesla's self-driving features.

The US Department of Justice has launched an investigation into Tesla's driver-assistance systems,

The complaint comes as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) continues to investigate Tesla’s “Autopilot” feature. The US Department of Justice has launched an investigation into Tesla’s driver-assistance systems, according to a financial document released Tuesday. The complaint comes as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) continues to investigate…

View On WordPress

#Elon musk #Tesla #tesla electric car investigation #tesla self driving feature #us justice department

0 notes

kriswager · 1 year

Text

A couple of good US court rulings

There is no doubt that the news out of the US Supreme Court has been abyssal this year, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Fortunately, this doesn’t necessarily reflect on the rest of the US courts, where there have been a number of good rulings. Among these are the nearly $1.5 billion rulings against Alex Jones, the sanctions against Trump lawyers, and a course a number of…

View On WordPress

#Alex Jones #Donald Trump #Jack Burkman #Jacob Wohl #January 6th #Kelly Meggs #Oath Keepers #Stewart Rhodes #US justice department #US presidential election #US Supreme Court

0 notes

reasonsforhope · 9 months

Text

Note: They're saying "alleged" because that's what journalists are supposed to do until there's a conviction. ABC isn't trying to cast doubt, they're trying to follow professional standards and also not get sued for libel.

"Former President Donald Trump, bent on staying in power, undertook a sweeping "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including repeatedly pushing lies about the results despite knowing that they were correct, and doubling down on those falsehoods as the Jan. 6 riot raged, a sweeping federal indictment alleges.

This is the third indictment faced by the former president, who -- as the Republican frontrunner in the 2024 presidential race -- continues to insist that the vote was rigged.

Prosecutors say the alleged scheme, which they say involved six unnamed co-conspirators, included enlisting a slate of so-called "fake electors" targeting several states; using the Justice Department to conduct "sham election crime investigations"; enlisting the vice president to "alter the election results"; and doubling down on false claims as the Jan. 6 riot ensued -- all in an effort to subvert democracy and stay in power.

The six alleged co-conspirators include several attorneys and a Justice Department official.

The sweeping indictment, based on the investigation by special counsel Jack Smith, charges Trump with four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights...

In the history of the country, no president or former president had ever been indicted prior to Trump's first indictment in April."

-via ABC News, August 1, 2023

WE FUCKING DID IT

#trump #jack smith #donald trump #trump indictment #united states #us politics #gop #election 2024 #mike pence #department of justice #justice system #good news #hope #jan 6 #jan 6 insurrection #insurrection

2K notes · View notes

timesofocean · 2 years

Text

Julian Assange can be extradited from UK to US, says UK home secretary

New Post has been published on https://www.timesofocean.com/julian-assange-can-be-extradited-from-uk-to-us-says-uk-home-secretary/

Julian Assange can be extradited from UK to US, says UK home secretary

London (The Times Groupe)- UK Home Secretary Priti Patel has approved Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition to the US.

The Home Office said Julian Assange has 14 days to appeal the decision.

As a result of the courts’ findings, extradition is not “incompatible with his human rights” and he will be treated fairly while in the US”.

Assange is being sought by American authorities over documents leaked in 2010 and 2011.

He has been incarcerated since he was removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2019 and arrested by British police after Ecuador revoked his asylum.

In response to the home secretary’s order, Wikileaks confirmed it would appeal her decision.

Stella Assange, Assange’s wife, said her husband had done “nothing wrong” and “he has not broken any law”.

“He’s a journalist and a publisher, and he’s being punished for what he does.”

While Assange was serving a jail sentence in the UK for breaching bail, the US justice department filed 17 charges against him for violating the Espionage Act – alleging that the Wikileaks material endangered lives.

Assange’s legal team argued that the classified documents published by Wikileaks, which related to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, exposed US wrongdoing and were in the public interest.

In March, the Supreme Court ruled that Assange’s case raised no legal questions regarding assurances the US gave to the UK about how he would be treated.

Amnesty International said enabling the extradition would put him at “great risk and send a chilling message to journalists”.

“Diplomatic assurances provided by the US that Assange will not be kept in solitary confinement cannot be taken on face value given previous history”, general secretary Agnes Callamard said.

David Davis, a former government minister, said he didn’t believe Assange would get a fair trial in the US.

“This extradition treaty needs to be rewritten to give British and American citizens identical rights, unlike now”, he said.

According to a spokesperson for the Home Office, the Secretary of State “must sign” an extradition order if “there are no grounds to prevent it”.

“The UK courts have not found that it would be oppressive, unjust or an abuse of process to extradite Assange”, the Home Office added.

0 notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 9 months

Text

Forget hush money payments to porn stars hidden as business expenses. Forget showing off classified documents about Iran attack plans to visitors, and then ordering the pool guy to erase the security tapes revealing that he was still holding on to documents that he had promised to return. Forget even corrupt attempts to interfere with election results in Georgia in 2020.

The federal indictment just handed down by special counsel Jack Smith is not only the most important indictment by far of former President Donald Trump. It is perhaps the most important indictment ever handed down to safeguard American democracy and the rule of law in any U.S. court against anyone.

For those who have been closely following Trump’s attempt to subvert the results of the 2020 election, there was little new information contained in the indictment. In straightforward language with mountains of evidence, the 45-page document explains how Trump, acting with six (so far unnamed, but easily recognizable) co-conspirators, engaged in a scheme to repeatedly make false claims that the 2020 election was stolen or rigged, and to use those false claims as a predicate to try to steal the election. The means of election theft were national, not just confined to one state, as in the expected Georgia prosecution. And they were technical—submitting alternative slates of presidential electors to Congress, and arguing that state legislatures had powers under the Constitution and an old federal law, the Electoral Count Act, to ignore the will of the state’s voters.

But Trump’s corrupt intent was clear: He was repeatedly told that the election was not stolen, and he knew that no evidence supported his outrageous claims of ballot tampering. He nonetheless allegedly tried to pressure state legislators, state election officials, Department of Justice officials, and his own vice president to manipulate these arcane, complex election rules to turn himself from an election loser into an election winner. That’s the definition of election subversion.

He’s now charged with a conspiracy to defraud the United States, a conspiracy to willfully deprive citizens the right to vote, a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and obstructing that official proceeding. If you’re doing the math, that is four new counts on top of the dozens he faces in the classified documents case in Florida and the hush money case in New York.

So far Trump has not been accountable for these actions to try to steal an American election. Although the House impeached Trump for his efforts soon after they occurred, the Senate did not convict. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in voting against conviction in the Senate despite undeniable evidence of attempted election subversion by his fellow Republican, pointed to the criminal justice system as the appropriate place to serve up justice. But the wheels of justice have turned very slowly. Reports say that Attorney General Merrick Garland was at first too cautious about pursuing charges against Trump despite Trump’s unprecedented attack on our democracy. Once Garland appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel to handle Trump claims following the release of seemingly irrefutable evidence that Trump broke laws related to the handling of classified documents, the die was cast.

It is hard to overstate the stakes riding on this indictment and prosecution. New polling from the New York Times shows that Trump not only has a commanding lead among those Republicans seeking the party’s presidential nomination in 2024; he remains very competitive in a race against Joe Biden. After nearly a decade of Trump convincing many in the public that all charges against him are politically motivated, he’s virtually inoculated himself against political repercussions for deadly serious criminal counts. He’s miraculously seen a boost in support and fundraising after each indictment (though recent signs are that the indictments are beginning to take a small toll). One should not underestimate the chances that Donald Trump could be elected president in 2024 against Joe Biden—especially if Biden suffers any kind of health setback in the period up to the election—even if Trump is put on trial and convicted of crimes.

A trial is the best chance to educate the American public, as the Jan. 6 House committee hearings did to some extent, about the actions Trump allegedly took to undermine American democracy and the rule of law. Constant publicity from the trial would give the American people in the middle of the election season a close look at the actions Trump took for his own personal benefit while putting lives and the country at risk. It, of course, also serves the goals of justice and of deterring Trump, or any future like-minded would-be authoritarian, from attempting any similar attack on American democracy ever again.

Trump now has two legal strategies he can pursue in fighting these charges, aside from continuing to attack the prosecutions as politically motivated. The first strategy, which he will no doubt pursue, is to run out the clock. It’s going to be tough for this case to go to trial before the next election given that it is much more factually complex than the classified documents or hush money cases. There are potentially hundreds of witnesses and theories of conspiracies that will take much to untangle. Had the indictment come any later, I believe a trial before November 2024 would have been impossible. With D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan—a President Barack Obama appointee who has treated previous Jan. 6 cases before her court with expedition and seriousness—apparently in charge of this case, there is still a chance to avoid a case of justice delayed being justice denied.

If Trump can run out the clock before conviction and be reelected, though, he can get rid of Jack Smith and appoint an attorney general who will do his bidding. He could even try to pardon himself from charges if elected in 2024 (a gambit that may or may not be legal). He could then sic his attorney general on political adversaries with prosecutions not grounded in any evidence, something he has repeatedly promised on the campaign trail.

Trump’s other legal strategy is to argue that prosecutors cannot prove the charges. For example, the government will have to prove that Trump not only intended to interfere with Congress’ fair counting of the electoral college votes in 2020 but also that Trump did so “corruptly.” Trump will put his state of mind at issue, arguing that despite all the evidence, he had an honest belief the election was being stolen from him.

He also will likely assert First Amendment defenses. As the indictment itself notes near the beginning, “the Defendant has a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won.” But Trump did not just state the false claims; he allegedly used the false claims to engage in a conspiracy to steal the election. There is no First Amendment right to use speech to subvert an election, any more than there is a First Amendment right to use speech to bribe, threaten, or intimidate.

Putting Trump before a jury, if the case can get that far before the 2024 elections, is not certain to yield a conviction. It carries risks. But as I wrote last year in the New York Times, the risks to our system of government of not prosecuting Donald Trump are greater than the risks of prosecuting him.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the conduct of this prosecution will greatly influence whether the U.S. remains a thriving democracy after 2024.