Posts tagged Sarah Heineke
Googling Google’s Monopoly: A Landmark Antitrust Suit

Google has become so popular that it is now a verb, holding a place in colloquial conversation no other search engine has. In 2017, Google controlled about eighty percent of the search engine market, and by 2020, it controlled ninety percent. (Forbes Agency Council, Forbes); (Daisuke Wakabayashi, The New York Times). Bing is second, controlling only six percent of the market. United States v. Google, LLC, 747 F. Supp. 3d 1, 38 (D.D.C. 2024). This colossal market control invoked questions of monopolistic behavior and antitrust law violations, ultimately leading to a lawsuit filed in 2020 by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and several states, including Colorado. (DOJ, Office of Public Affairs). In analyzing whether Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing key digital advertising technologies, a district court concluded in the affirmative on August 5, 2024, in a 188-page opinion, stating that Google was monopolistic and violated the Sherman Act. (DOJ, Office of Public Affairs); Google, 747 F. Supp. 3d at 32. While the court held that Google violated the Act, it failed to impose harsh remedies, such as isolating Google’s search engine from its advertising business. (Reuters); (Edward Longe, The James Madison Institute). The DOJ is currently appealing the court’s decision. (Reuters). This post explores how Google’s competitive strategy led to the case prior to appeal and further, focuses on how the emergence of new technology impacts Google’s future.

Read More
Once Upon a Time in Trade Secrets

The Wu-Tang Clan’s secretive album, Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, is the unicorn of recorded albums—everyone has heard of it, but only few have listened. Recently, this elusive album was at the center of a novel decision in New York federal court. PleasrDAO v. Shkreli, No. 24-CV-4126 (PKC) (MMH), 2025 WL 2733345, (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2025). On September 25, 2025, in evaluating the legal sufficiency of PleasrDAO’s argument, and whether a jury could reasonably find a trade secret violation, the court concluded that the album could qualify as a trade secret protected under the trade secret doctrine. Id.; (Aislinn Keely, Law360). This holding wades into uncharted territory and opens the door to further trade secret protections of traditionally unprotected art forms. (Aislinn Keely, Law360); (Jennifer Klausner, Davis+Gilbert). This post explores the case surrounding the uniqueness of the Wu-Tang Clan album and the implications the decision can have for other creatives.

Read More