California Makes Noise About Antitrust Probe Into Auto Emissions Deal, Stays Mum on Tech
The U.S. Department of Justice is questioning a deal between California and four automakers to increase fuel efficiency while tech companies are coming under scrutiny from other states' attorneys general.
September 06, 2019 at 06:29 PM
4 minute read
As California leaders continue to tout the state's rigorous environmental standards and booming tech economy in the face of hostility from the Trump administration, they suddenly find themselves oddly positioned in three high-profile antitrust actions.
On Friday the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it will investigate California's deal with four automakers to increase fuel efficiency standards beyond those sought by federal regulators. The voluntary pact with BMW, Ford, Honda and Volkswagen is aimed at reducing tailpipe emissions even as the Trump administration attempts to roll back Obama-era pollution standards.
In a Sept. 6 letter to California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols, general counsel from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency urged Nichols to "immediately … disassociate" her agency "from the commitments made by the four automakers."
The agency's "actions in furtherance of the framework appear to be unlawful and invalid," Steven Bradbury of the DOT and Matthew Leopold of the EPA wrote. "We recognize California's disagreement with the federal government's policy proposals in this area, but those policy agreements cannot justify CARB's pursuit of a regulatory approach that would violate federal law."
State officials immediately fired back against the collusion allegations with Gov. Gavin Newsom tweeting that he'd see President Donald Trump "in court."
"The US Department of Justice brings its weight to bear against auto companies in an attempt to frighten them out of voluntarily making cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks than EPA wants," Nichols said in a prepared statement that referenced the U.S. EPA administrator. "Consumers might ask, who is Andy Wheeler protecting?"
While state leaders' response to the federal threat is familiar—California has pursued more than 50 legal actions challenging Trump administration policies—their reaction to current and threatened lawsuits challenging the Golden State's tech industry has been far more muted.
State attorneys general from eight states and the District of Columbia on Friday announced an investigation into Facebook for possible antitrust violations following a $5 billion fine leveled against the social media company for allegedly mishandling its users' personal data.
A statement issued by New York Attorney General Letitia James said the inquiry will focus on Facebook's "dominance in the industry and the potential anticompetitive conduct stemming from that dominance."
Another, larger group of attorneys general Monday are expected to announce an antitrust investigation into Google, and possibly other tech companies, The Washington Post reported.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office would not say if he planned to join either of the legal actions.
"California remains deeply concerned and committed to fighting anticompetitive behavior," Becerra said in a statement released by his office. "Regarding this investigation or any other, to protect the integrity of potential and ongoing investigations, we cannot provide comment."
California leaders have championed Silicon Valley, a major driver of the state's economy. Tech companies, in turn, have made healthy donations to state Democrats and their party. Records filed with the secretary of state show that Facebook contributed $50,000 to Newsom's re-election campaign in June. Google gave $29,200 to the governor last year.
Becerra, who received $7,300 from Google last year, according to filings, has been more openly critical of tech companies' actions—particularly in regards to data privacy—than Newsom. He supported unsuccessful amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act that would have allowed consumers to directly sue companies such as Facebook and Google for mishandling their personal data.
"The industry is no longer a baby," Becerra said at a Washington Post forum in March. "It's time to treat the industry as an adult. So you have to act like an adult, and you have to understand there are consequences that adults face when they don't do things the right way."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPorsche's Venture Capital Arm Adds General Counsel From Clifford Chance
Federal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250