The Business Law Review at Georgetown

On February 17, 2026, attorneys for  UP released a letter to the STA confirming that they anticipate filing a revised application in this docket on April 30, 2026. There have been no further updates. 

Filed on July 29, 2025

Docket No. 36873

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is in charge of the approval process for this merger. 

Link to the STB webpage with all filings for UP & NS case. 

Link to official merger filing

Case Summary

On July 29, 2025, Union Pacific,  a major U.S. railroad holding company that operates in 23 states, announced their “most thoroughly planned merger in railroad history,”  with Norfolk Southern, another major U.S. freight railroad company that operates in 22 states. On December 19, 2025, they filed a request with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to combine the two railroads. This merger will create  the first transcontinental railroad in the United States. The original file contains over 6800 pages of documentation, 2000 of which are letters of support from stakeholders. Simply put, 99% of people who own stock in both railroads are in favor of this merger. With Union Pacifics’ Western coverage and Norfork’s eastern reach, railroads will have an end-to-end combination. This solution will provide 50,000 route miles that connect 43 states and more than 100 ports (NorfolkSouthern).

Key Characteristics

This transcontinental network will allow freight to bypass congested routes and go for ones that are most efficient. This will also set up flexible access to global markets because of the 100+ ports that will be connected to the railroad, including “10 international gateways to markets in Canada and Mexico” (NorfolkSouthern).  Additionally, it is scientifically proven that rail is more sustainable than trucks (75% less carbon according to the Association of American Railroads); therefore, the merger  will reduce emissions and increase sustainability. Now, what does this mean for the trucking industry? There are dozens of publications posted in opposition to this merger, with the monopoly competition challenge being the key issue. 

In 2001, the STB posted new rules that require applicants to demonstrate “enhanced competition,” such as efficiency maximization, that clearly overpowers anticompetition possibilities (STB 49 CFR Part 1180). The two companies argue that this merger will provide substantial public benefits because of their  reliable single-line rail services which open competitive markets and capture “new volumes flowing directly onto their rails.” In other words, this combination will open doors for many rail companies, with no mention of the impacts for the trucking industry. In terms of labor and employment, the companies expect 900 new positions by the end of the third year and no planned employee cuts during the duration of the merger. 

Current Status

On January 16 2026, STB rejected the proposed merger form because the application was incomplete, with three main problems: (1) Union Pacific claimed the merger would grow traffic and market share but did not provide any market share projections (only past data); (2) the companies did not submit the full merger agreement; (3) acquisition of a St. Louis rail terminal was incorrectly labeled as a “minor” even though there are  clear competitive concerns. STB  directed Union Pacific to either refile a complete, fully revised application or abandon the merger, due by February 17, 2026

What to Expect

Due to the high profile nature of this ~$85 billion merger, the companies are most likely in the process of amending their full merger agreement. They would be prioritizing the mistakes referenced by the STB and ensuring that all elements of the document are backed by evidence and up to date. Since the deadline is February 17, 2026, we can expect another board decision with a month of submission. 

Last Review Timestamp

Last reviewed on February 8, at 12:00 PM EST

Filed on March 21, 2024

15:2 Antitrust Litigation, Nature of Suit: 410 Anti-Trust

District Court, D. New Jersey

Docket Number: No. 2:24-cv-04055

Participating States: AZ, CA, CT, DC, ME, MI, MN, ND, NH, NJ, NY, OK, OR, TN, VT, WI

PDF of Complaint

PDF of Amended Complaint

PDF of Motion of Dismiss Denied

DOJ’s Classification of Case Violations: Horizontal Merger, Other Restraint of Trade, Monopolization, Attempt to Monopolize, Vertical Merger

Case Summary: 

The DOJ and sixteen states argue that Apple illegally maintains a monopoly over smartphones. This is for five main reasons: (1) They disrupt apps that function beyond IOS platforms to make it harder to switch to other smartphones, (2) They have blocked cloud-streaming app development that is inaccessible without additional payment, (3)  exclusion of multi-platform messaging apps, (4) Apple watches have limited third party functionality and, (5) Third Party apps have limited access to Apple Wallet (NAAG). According to the plaintiffs, Apple’s rules and technical barriers suppress competition, harm consumer choice, and make it harder to switch  from an iPhone to another device  Apple denies these claims as they argue that its ecosystem is designed for security and product integrity, not anti-competitive control. This case matters because the court’s ruling could reshape how tech companies design digital ecosystems and set the future rules for mobile platforms worldwide.

Key Characteristics
This  case is important because it tests how much control a company can legally exercise over its software ecosystem before it crosses into antitrust violations. Apple’s rules shape the experiences of millions of consumers and app developers; meaning, this dispute has a very wide reach. It also carries global implications because  regulators in the EU, UK, Japan, and India have similar investigations, meaning the outcome in the United States could influence international standards. Japan’s Fair Trade Commission made similar cases before its dismissal following Apple’s revisional measure back in 2021 (JFTC). This case is the largest antitrust action against a U.S. tech company since the government’s case against Microsoft (Justia).  It matters for business law because it brings together questions about platform governance, data control, interoperability, and how markets function when one company designs both the device and the operating environment around it. We chose this case because it sits at the center of consumer markets and software architecture, and its ruling could shape how tech companies design their systems and compete for years to come.

Current Status
As of the most recent filings, the case remains in active pre-trial litigation. Parties have exchanged briefs that address Apple’s challenges to the complaint. This includes arguments about the scope of the alleged smartphone monopoly and whether Apple’s conduct qualifies as exclusionary under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The court is currently reviewing extensive technical and economic materials submitted by both sides. No trial date has been set yet, but the court has continued to issue  scheduling orders as the case moves toward discovery.

What to Expect
Because the case is still early in litigation, the next steps will likely include a discovery schedule that includes document production, depositions, and expert analyses. We would also see possible additional motions from Apple that directly challenge specific parts of the complaint. There is a chance for pre-trial hearings that would address the admissibility of technical evidence about the iOS ecosystem. As with all cases in this tracker, these expectations are procedural — actual developments may vary based on the court’s pace and the parties’ filings.
Last Review Timestamp
Last reviewed on December 7, 2025, 4:00 PM EST.

This case is still in the discovery phase. The updated activities are mostly about the addition of more documents into the case. The Plaintiff’s Update Letter contains information regarding next steps. In January 2026, the DOJ and plaintiff notified that court that they finished negotiating search terms with Apple. This means that there is a reduction of the number of documents Apple must review. Instead of roughly 11 million documents, Apple now needs to review around 4 million. This undercuts Apple’s earlier argument that discovery was too large and time-consuming. 

Additionally, there is still the ongoing dispute over which Apple employees’ records must be produced. The parties have agreed on only 4 out of 19 proposed custodians. Apple has also refused to provide certain internal HR data that would help identify relevant custodians, despite there being proposed privacy limits. In the letter, the plaintiffs are asking the court to step in and set a deadline and procedure to finish resolving custodian issues so discovery can move forward.

A case management conference (CMC)  is set for January 22, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. A CMC is a meeting between the judge and the lawyers to organize how the case will move forward. No evidence is argued, it is to cover the logistics of the case. At a CMC, the judge typically sets or adjusts deadlines for discovery, decides how disputes (like document fights) should be handled, discusses scheduling for motions, and makes sure the case is not stalling. In short, it is the court stepping in to keep the case on track and moving efficiently.

PDF of Document 368-3307 (Order and Amended Scheduling Order); this document is publicly available on courtlistener.

On January 30, 2026, the court ordered that both parties should try to meet and reach an 

agreement on a certain deadline for the requested data samples. If they can’t reach a middle group, each party needs to send a letter with their own requests by March 3. The court has also ordered that both parties have until February 24 to conclude their negotiations on the Plaintiff’s 15 remaining custodians. The court has decided that all documents should be completed by June 15, 2026. Lastly, the parties are scheduled for an in-person case management conference on March 19, 2026. We can expect another update after the custodian agreement is entered in the official court docket.  There are no further updates as of February 8, 2026.

PDF of Order by Magistrate Wettre

On March 2, 2026, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff permission to file a joint letter brief with the Defendant that includes a mutually agreed upon schedule. The parties submitted 2 versions of a schedule with discrepancies between dates. For example, Plaintiff proposed the deadline to respond to contention interrogatories to be September 25, 2026 while Apple proposed February 12, 2027. Clearly, the defense is pushing for extended time to gather evidence and data on this case. Most recently, Magistrate Judge Leda Wettre released a letter ordering Apple to submit their amended schedule by April 16, 2026.

Filed on May 23, 2024

Docket No. 1:24-CV-03973-AS

Civil Merger

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Participating States: AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, IA, IL, IN, KS, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY

PDF of Complaint

PDF of Amended Complaint

PDF of Motion of Dismiss Denied

PDF of Motion to Transfer Denied

PDF of Amended Protective Order

DOJ’s Classification of Case Violations: Civil Merger, Horizontal Merger, Antitrust Division

Case Summary

The DOJ and roughly thirty states argue that Live Nation and Ticketmaster illegally maintain monopoly power over live event ticketing and concert promotion. According to the government, Live Nation uses its control over promotion, venues, and ticketing tools to keep competitors out and force artists and venues to rely on Ticketmaster. The complaint states that this structure raises prices for consumers and limits innovation in the ticketing market. Live Nation denies these claims because it argues that it competes fairly and that market conditions instead of monopoly control can explain pricing and venue relationships. The case matters because it questions the structure of the live events industry and whether one company can control both the supply chain and consumer-facing ticket sales.

Key Characteristics

This case examines how vertical integration in entertainment can shape consumer markets and limit competition. Clearly, millions of fans, artists, promoters, and venues are affected by Ticketmaster which gives the case a wide public reach. In this economy, public attention to ticketing fairness is high, especially after several large-scale sales failures that brought national scrutiny. The scale of the lawsuit makes it one of the most significant antitrust challenges in entertainment in decades and raises questions about how competition law applies to industries that rely on exclusive contracts (NAAG). We chose this case because it highlights the tension between market efficiency and market control, and the ruling could influence how ticketing platforms, promoters, and venue contracts operate going forward.

Current Status

The case is in active pre-trial litigation. Since filing the complaint, the court has entered scheduling orders and both sides have begun early procedural steps. Live Nation has signaled that it plans to challenge the complaint and contest the DOJ’s market definitions and harm theories. Currently, there are discovery preparations  and the government continues to add exhibits and economic materials to the record. No trial date has been finalized but the case remains fully active on the docket. 

What to Expect

Live Nation will likely file a motion to dismiss or narrow the complaint, followed by detailed briefing on market structure, exclusivity agreements, and vertical integration. The court may schedule hearings on evidence and expert reports as the case moves toward full discovery. Because the DOJ is seeking structural relief,  litigation is expected to be lengthy. These expectations describe standard procedural steps, and actual developments may differ depending on the court’s timeline and the parties’ filings.

Last Review Timestamp

Last reviewed at 5:00 pm EST on December 7.

As of January 18, 2026, there are no notable updates at this time. The case is still in its discovery phase, where attorneys on both sides are working on selecting opinions and counsels.

PDF of memorandum in support of Defendants motion to strike fan witnesses

The case is still going through its discovery phase, where most of the documents are confirming certain positions and document statuses. On February 4, 2026, the Defendant filed an oral argument request to defend the motion to strike the Plaintiff’s witnesses, Callie Brennan and Lori Kelly, on the basis that it was an untimely witness disclosure that lacks merit. They argued that their own witnesses were announced months before any other complaint filings. Because of this, they argue that they have suffered substantial prejudice, which simply means their ability to meaningfully present their case at trial has been compromised. They argue that this last  minute witness situation has led them to speculate instead of plan out their case in a fair manner. The plaintiffs admit to interviewing these 2 witnesses in November 2025 and waiting until January 2026 to announce their identities. The court has not made a decision whether they will strike the two Plaintiff witnesses. We expect more updates in February in regards to this matter. The last update was on February 8, 2026.

In March 2026, the case moved into its final pretrial stage and began trial proceedings. On March 2, 2026, the court began jury selection which marked the start of the antitrust trial against Live Nation. In the days that followed, the court continued the resolvement of procedural and evidentiary issues such as hearings on motions that needed to be decided before testimony could continue. On March 9, 2026, the court held a Final Pretrial Conference and a motion hearing, which are typically the last procedural steps before a trial proceeds. 

A major development occurred on March 9, 2026, when the U.S. Department of Justice and Live Nation announced that they had reached a tentative settlement while the trial was already underway. The agreement proposes many changes to Live Nation’s business practices such as opening parts of Ticketmaster’s ticketing platform to competitors, limiting certain exclusive venue contracts, and creating a $280 million fund for states that choose to join the settlement. However, the settlement created controversy because more than 30 state attorneys general involved in the lawsuit were given only one day to decide whether to join the deal, and most of them had not signed onto the agreement. Several states argued they were left out of negotiations and asked the court for a mistrial and additional time to reorganize their case. In court filings, the states claimed they learned about the settlement negotiations through media coverage and were not included in discussions with the DOJ or Live Nation.

During a hearing this week, Judge Arun Subramanian criticized both the DOJ and Live Nation for negotiating the settlement without informing the court while the trial was already in progress. The judge noted that the parties allowed a jury to be selected and sworn in even though leadership at both the DOJ and Live Nation had already signed a preliminary settlement term sheet days earlier. He called the situation “hard to understand” and said the conduct from both sides strained the standards of responsible courtroom practice (CNN). The judge has temporarily paused the trial and ordered the head of the DOJ Antitrust Division and Live Nation’s CEO to remain at the courthouse and attempt to negotiate a broader agreement that could include the states that have not yet joined the settlement. If the parties cannot reach a deal, the court will determine the next procedural steps, including whether the trial will continue with the remaining state claims. As of the most recent update, the trial is currently on hold while negotiations continue between Live Nation, the DOJ, and the state attorneys general, and the judge has not yet ruled on the states’ request for a mistrial.

Filed on May 26, 2021

Docket No. 2:21-cv-00693-RSM

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Antitrust Litigation, Class Action, Consumer Protection, High Tech Litigation

PDF of Amended Consolidated Complaint

PDF of Motion of Dismiss Denied

PDF of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Amazon to Produce Documents and Information Granted

Case Summary

Plaintiff argues that Amazon uses unfair marketplace practices that keep prices artificially high across the internet. They argue that Amazon’s rules penalize sellers who offer lower prices on other platforms, which discourages competition and leads to higher prices for buyers (HBSS). They also claim that Amazon’s “Buy Box” system favors sellers who comply with Amazon’s pricing expectations. Amazon denies these allegations, arguing that its practices promote trust and efficiency for customers and that the plaintiffs have not shown true anticompetitive harm. The case matters because it challenges one of Amazon’s core business models and could reshape how online marketplaces structure pricing, seller rules, and platform visibility.

Key Characteristics

This case focuses on how a dominant digital marketplace can influence prices outside its own platform. The allegations center on Amazon’s ability to pressure sellers through two different methods: internal ranking systems and platform visibility. This raises questions about how control over digital infrastructure affects market competition. This also brings up the legal scrutiny around how influential algorithms are allowed to get when it comes to decisions in commerce, especially when there are significant price effects. Since the court allowed the case to proceed past Amazon’s motion to dismiss, it signals that these theories of harm are strong enough for full litigation. We chose this case because it offers a clear look at how consumer class actions can challenge platform power.

Current Status

The court has denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss which means the case is moving forward. The parties are entering the discovery phase, where they will exchange documents, data, and expert reports about how Amazon’s marketplace systems operate. There are also scheduling orders being set for depositions and expert testimony. No trial date has been confirmed but the case is active and progressing through early litigation steps.

What to Expect

There will likely be discovery on Amazon’s pricing algorithms, internal seller-ranking metrics, and communications about price parity rules. The plaintiffs may file motions to certify the class, which would expand the scope of the case. Because the case deals with complex platform data and economic modeling, expert testimony will play a major role. These procedural expectations are general and may shift depending on filings and court deadlines.

Last Review Timestamp

Last reviewed on December 7, at 6:00 PM EST

As of January 5th, there have been motions to reset trial for November 2, 2026. However, there is no update as to an official date or time as of January 18th, 2026. The rest of the case is still in its discovery phase.

PDF of Order

As of January 28, 2026, the court has denied the Plaintiff’s motion to reset trial for November 2, 2026. After reviewing the materials regarding this request, the court concludes that there is no good cause to reset the trial date, and they are not willing to consider another proposal for reset. There are no further updates on this case as of February 8, 2026. 

PDF of Order

There are no further updates on this case as of March 10, 2026. The court and all parties are still in the process of approving a pretrial schedule. Plaintiff and Defendant are still filing suggested pretrial schedules for the court, and the next step is for the judge to grant a motion for a proposed schedule