Articles Posted in Business Disputes

|

In the ever-evolving world of technology and the internet, antitrust issues have become increasingly prevalent. One of the most notable cases in recent memory involves Google and its alleged anticompetitive practices in the app distribution market. The case brought against Google by Epic Games, the creator of the popular game Fortnite, has garnered significant attention and ended with an antitrust loss for the tech giant. In this blog post, we’ll delve into the details of the Epic Games case and discuss what this loss means for Google and other tech giants.

The Epic Games Case

Epic Games filed a lawsuit against Google in August 2020, alleging that the company engaged in anticompetitive behavior by monopolizing the distribution of Android apps through the Google Play Store. The crux of Epic Games’ argument was that Google’s restrictive policies and the 30% commission fee it charged to developers for in-app purchases were stifling competition and innovation in the app market.

In July 2021, a U.S. District Judge ruled in favor of Epic Games, finding that Google had indeed violated antitrust laws by maintaining its monopoly over the Android app distribution market. The judge’s decision was a significant blow to Google and has far-reaching implications for the tech industry as a whole.

Implications of the Antitrust Loss

  1. Increased Scrutiny on Tech Giants: Google’s antitrust loss in the Epic Games case is part of a broader trend of increased scrutiny and legal action against major tech companies. This case, along with similar cases involving Apple, Facebook, and Amazon, highlights growing concerns about the dominance and market power of these tech giants.
  2. Potential Changes in App Distribution: The ruling against Google could lead to changes in how app distribution platforms operate. It may encourage alternative app stores to emerge, offering developers and consumers more choice and potentially lower commission fees. This could foster greater competition in the app market.
  3. Impact on Google’s Business Model: Google’s revenue model heavily relies on advertising and its app ecosystem. The loss in the Epic Games case could force Google to reconsider its commission structure for app developers, potentially impacting its bottom line.
  4. Precedent for Future Cases: The ruling against Google sets a legal precedent that could be used in future antitrust cases against tech companies. It strengthens the argument that dominant players in the industry should not use their position to stifle competition unfairly.
  5. Calls for Regulatory Reform: The Epic Games case has reignited calls for regulatory reform in the tech industry. Policymakers and regulators may use this case as evidence that existing antitrust laws need to be updated to address the unique challenges posed by the digital economy.

Google’s antitrust loss in the Epic Games case serves as a reminder that even tech giants are not immune to legal challenges and regulatory scrutiny. This case highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the power and influence of major tech companies in today’s digital landscape. As the tech industry continues to evolve, it is likely that we will see more antitrust cases and regulatory actions aimed at promoting competition and innovation while preventing anticompetitive behavior. The outcome of these cases will shape the future of the tech industry and its impact on consumers and developers alike.

Continue reading ›

|

You’ve probably already heard of Alex Jones, but if you haven’t, or you need a refresher, he’s the right-wing conspiracy theorist who has used his media company, InfoWars, to promote the idea that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a giant hoax created and promoted by anti-gun activists. Among other things, Jones claimed the grieving families and survivors of the massacre were “crisis actors” who were paid to lie about the mass shooting.

Jones has built a huge following, and many of them believe his lies. Many of his listeners even reached the point of actively seeking out Sandy Hook survivors and the families of those slaughtered, threatening and harassing them for their alleged lies.

The families sued Alex Jones for defamation and were collectively awarded $1.1 billion in damages.

Soon after that ruling, Jones filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which would have allowed him to restructure his business and potentially avoid paying the money he owes those families.

A judge recently ruled that Jones could not use bankruptcy as a means to avoid paying the $1.1 billion payments. The families took this as a victory, but Jones says he isn’t done fighting.

Jones’s net worth was valued at $14 million, yet he claims he has no money. He says he is $1 million in debt, and that the millions of dollars generated by his media company go to pay the bills, making the $1.1 billion ruling hypothetical. He also says he will continue to appeal the decision.

Meanwhile, he is asking his listeners to make donations to help him pay his legal bills. But those bills and the huge ruling against him have not stopped him from spending close to six figures in one month, much of it on lavish meals and entertainment. Continue reading ›

|

Introduction

Shareholder derivative lawsuits are legal actions brought by individual shareholders on behalf of a corporation against its officers, directors, or other insiders. These lawsuits typically allege misconduct, mismanagement, or breaches of fiduciary duties by those in control of the corporation. Defending against a shareholder derivative lawsuit can be complex and challenging, but with the right strategies and considerations, it is possible to protect the interests of both the corporation and its shareholders. In this blog post, we’ll explore the key steps and considerations involved in defending against a shareholder derivative lawsuit.

1. Understand the Basics of Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits

Before diving into defense strategies, it’s crucial to have a clear understanding of what a shareholder derivative lawsuit entails. These lawsuits are filed on behalf of the corporation, not individual shareholders, and seek to hold company insiders accountable for alleged wrongdoing. Understanding the legal framework is the first step in formulating an effective defense.

2. Evaluate the Merits of the Lawsuit

The first line of defense in any shareholder derivative lawsuit is a thorough evaluation of the merits of the claims. Engage experienced legal counsel to assess the allegations and evidence. Determine whether the allegations have a factual basis and whether they meet the legal requirements for pursuing a derivative action. If the claims lack merit, you may have grounds to seek dismissal. Continue reading ›

|

Any contract you’ve signed with a company (including the “Terms of Service” most of us don’t read before clicking the box next to “I agree that I have read and agree to the terms”) has included a clause about where you and that company can resolve legal disputes. In some cases, it’s in a certain state, or even a specific county, but increasingly courts have been forcing their customers, vendors, and employees into arbitration.

Arbitration was originally designed as a way for companies to settle legal disputes with other companies outside of court so they wouldn’t flood the court system. But several years ago companies started including arbitration clauses in their contracts with individuals, often without those individuals realizing they were signing away their rights to a fair trial.

As the issue of companies getting out of control when it comes to their arbitration clauses has become more widespread, judges and legislators have started taking measures to curb companies’ use of arbitration agreements with individuals – especially when it comes to their customers and employees.

So far, Pennsylvania is the only state to pass a law requiring all corporations doing business in the state to consent to being sued in Pennsylvania court by anyone, for conduct the corporation engaged in anywhere. Continue reading ›

|

Donald J. Trump is already facing dozens of criminal charges for allegedly falsifying business records and misusing campaign funds in an alleged attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election. Yet Trump is back in court suing his former attorney, Michael Cohen, for $500 million.

The lawsuit accuses Cohen of talking publicly about things that should have remained confidential between him and his former client. The lawsuit also accuses Cohen of telling lies about Mr. Trump in the media and in Cohen’s two books, Disloyal: A Memoir: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump, and Revenge: How Donald Trump Weaponized the U.S. Department of Justice Against His Critics.

The first book was published prior to the 2020 presidential election, whereas the second was released in 2022. Among other things, the books accuse Trump of being a racist and of lying about just about everything. Continue reading ›

|

We all know attorneys are not allowed to represent both sides in a lawsuit, but what if the law firm currently representing one side used to represent the other side? Wouldn’t that be considered a conflict of interest? It’s especially likely to pose a problem if the issue involved in the lawsuit is the same issue the law firm previously handled for the other side.

If the law firm had recently represented the company they’re currently suing, it’s obvious how that could cause problems. But what if the prior legal work in question was performed more than a decade ago? Would that be long enough to erase the conflict of interest?

All that is in question as Walgreens seeks to disqualify a law firm currently filing a lawsuit against it on behalf of major health insurance providers.

Walgreens claims the law firm, Crowell & Moring, has breached its fiduciary duty to the giant retail company by representing major health insurers suing Walgreens over drug prices. The law firm sought to have the claims dismissed, but U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall said Walgreens had provided enough evidence to keep their claim alive, at least for now. Continue reading ›

|

A Call from a Friend Led Him to a Multi-Million-Dollar Case

A lot of people tend to assume lawyers have enormous salaries, but a lot of lawyers, especially those working at small firms, make only a modest income. So, the millions of dollars that might be on their way to attorney David Wasinger as part of a settlement agreement he negotiated and a case he won is anything but business as usual for him.

Wasinger is the only partner of a small law firm in St. Louis, Missouri. He works with just four other lawyers and his firm handles mostly business disputes. He had never represented a whistleblower until he got a call from an old business acquaintance in early 2012.

A whistleblower is someone who works in an organization that is allegedly committing fraud against the government, and they decide to alert the authorities. Because whistleblowers are risking their jobs and their reputation, they usually receive 15-25% of the settlement or court-ordered award that comes out of the lawsuit as an incentive to alert the government to fraud.

A share of that money goes to the lawyers representing the whistleblower, which is why whistleblower cases are highly competitive. Wasinger’s position is unique in that he didn’t compete to represent this client – the client reached out to him because they already had a relationship. When you’re blowing the whistle on fraud worth billions of dollars, you need someone you can trust.

The first lawsuit Wasinger brought to court accused Bank of America’s Countrywide unit of engaging in widespread fraud. In January of 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan announced it would be asking for as much as $2.1 billion in penalties from the bank after a jury found it to be guilty of fraud. Continue reading ›

|

When someone files a lawsuit alleging physical or emotional abuse, they can often find the legal process to be retraumatizing. They are forced to relive the incident(s) that hurt them over and over again, first when hiring a lawyer, then in deposition, then again in court. It’s not an easy process, and it’s a big reason that many victims never pursue legal action. It’s also a big reason many of those who do file never pursue it all the way to court.

Moss Gropen is one such victim who alleges he was abused and neglected by Palomar Medical Center. According to the lawsuit, Gropen went to the hospital for a scheduled procedure to remove fluid from the area surrounding his lungs. Instead, he claims he was admitted to the emergency room where doctors inserted a chest tube, then put him in a windowless room and left him alone with substandard nutrition. Gropen alleges he suffered from uncontrollable sobbing and anxiety, which resulted in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), from which he says he continues to suffer.

Gropen is suing the hospital along with several of its doctors and employees for causing his PTSD. When he appeared at the offices of the hospital’s lawyers in July to provide his deposition, his wife came with him to provide emotional support during what was bound to be a challenging time for Gropen.

The lawyers immediately objected to the presence of Gropen’s wife at the deposition because she is a witness in the lawsuit. Having Gropen’s wife present while he provides his deposition could lead to the two of them colluding on their testimony. Gropen refused to provide testimony without his wife present and ended up leaving the office without providing testimony. Continue reading ›

|

In the case of Pickering v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 265 Ill. App. 3d 806, the plaintiff sought punitive damages against the defendant for the defendant’s failure to warn consumers of the dangers associated with asbestos exposure. Punitive damages are damages awarded in addition to compensatory damages and are intended to punish the defendant for their wrongful conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future.

In this case, the plaintiff sought to discover the net worth of the defendant as part of their efforts to establish punitive damages. The defendant objected to the request for net worth discovery, arguing that it was irrelevant to the issue of punitive damages and that it was overly burdensome and intrusive.

The court held that net worth discovery was relevant to the issue of punitive damages and that the defendant had a duty to disclose its net worth. The court noted that punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant and that the amount of punitive damages awarded should be proportionate to the defendant’s ability to pay. The court also noted that net worth discovery is a common practice in cases involving punitive damages. Continue reading ›

|

“The focus of the crime fraud exception is on the intent of the client (citation omitted), not the legitimacy of the services provided by the attorney. An attorney may be completely innocent of wrongdoing, yet the privilege will give way if the client sought the attorney’s assistance for illegal ends.” People v. Radojcic, 2013 IL 114197, ¶ 49.

A lawyer’s participation in intentional breaches of fiduciary duty triggers the crime-fraud exception even though a fiduciary breach is no necessarily a crime or act of common law fraud. Intentional fiduciary breaches are regularly called constructive fraud however and give rise to the crime fraud exception. See Mueller Indus., Inc. v. Berkman, 399 Ill.App.3d 456, 469-73 (2d Dist. 2010) abrogated by People v. Radojcic, 2013 IL 114197 on other grounds (“In concluding that an intentional breach of fiduciary duty may serve as the fraud necessary to establish the crime-fraud exception, we take note of Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476 (Ky.1991). … The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the breach of fiduciary duty was ‘on an equal par with fraud and deceit.”’) Lawyers who aid and abet fiduciary breaches and other torts are subject to suit. As Thornwood, Inc. v. Jenner & Block, 344 Ill. App. 3d 15, 28–29 (1st Dist. 2003), as modified on denial of reh’g (Nov. 10, 2003) recognized, a lawyer may not “escap[e] liability for knowingly and substantially assisting a client in the commission of a tort.” Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address office.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW
Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, DiTommaso Lubin, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design