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 AllNewsom Signs Lemon Law Changes Into Law, Averting Threatened Tort War
3 minute readFederal Judge Sides With Lyft Driver in Contractual Dispute Over $1M Uninsured Motorist Coverage
5 minute readLemon Law Bill Clears Policy Committee Vote Amid Complaints From Legislators, Automakers
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Pryor Cashman have entered appearances for Diageo Americas Supply d/b/a Ciroc Distilling Co. and Sony Songs, a division of Sony Music Publishing, respectively, in a pending lawsuit. The case was filed Sept. 10 in New York Southern District Court by the Bloom Firm and IP Legal Studio on behalf of Dawn Angelique Richard. The plaintiff, who performed as a member of producer Sean 'Diddy' Combs girl group Danity Kane and later his band, Diddy - Dirty Money, claims that she was financially exploited by Combs and subjected to inhumane working conditions. Among other violations, Richard claims that Combs required group members to remain at his residences and studios, deprived them of adequate food and sleep and forced them to rehearse for 36 to 48 hours without breaks. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, is 1:24-cv-06848, Richard v. Combs et al.
Who Got The Work
Mathilda McGee-Tubb and Kevin M. McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, as well as Jesse W. Belcher-Timme of Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, have stepped in to defend Peter Pan Bus Lines in a pending consumer class action. The suit, filed Sept. 4 in Massachusetts District Court by Hackett Feinberg PC and KalielGold PLLC, accuses the defendant of charging undisclosed 'junk fees' on top of ticket prices during checkout. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni, is 3:24-cv-12277, Mulani et al v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.
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