Search for: "United States v. Blizzard"
Results 21 - 40
of 136
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Feb 2023, 11:16 pm
The motion proposes an evidentiary hearing over this issue.This is only the latest example of United States et al. v. [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 9:33 pm
In that regard, the closest case I know (and immediately brought up when I commented on the FTC's complaint) is Pistacchio v. [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 2:13 pm
The FTC and DOJ's guiding principle these days--including this month's new United States et al. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 12:59 am
By coincidence, that was the day the United States Department of Justice and eight state AGs filed a second Unite States et al. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2023, 9:23 pm
Its in-house adjudicative proceeding does not prevent the merger from closing.This is the order on the motion to stay and the next deadlines and hearing dates:DeMartini et al. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2023, 2:20 am
First, the document:DeMartini et al. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2023, 12:22 pm
Judge Corley has just granted the latter:DeMartini et al. v. [read post]
11 Jan 2023, 1:54 pm
While FTC v. [read post]
22 Dec 2022, 11:01 pm
Its in-house adjudicative proceedings are somewhat controversial, and the Supreme Court is now working on its Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2022, 11:22 pm
Activision Blizzard is mostly in the Central--not Northern--District of California. [read post]
9 Dec 2022, 3:10 am
The claim about "more mature content for more serious gaming" is something that with my games industry background (once the first person to work for Blizzard outside the United States) and my own experience playing games I have to reject: it's just not true that mature content implies or fosters serious gaming. [read post]
17 Nov 2022, 12:12 pm
Judge James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California had entered the following order on Tuesday (November 15):"The request by plaintiffs Epic and Match to file amended complaints, [...], is granted. [read post]
8 Nov 2022, 9:18 am
First, legislative measures like the DMA, regulatory intervention such as the ongoing DG COMP investigation of the Google Play Store, and litigation (in less than a week, the Ninth Circuit will hear Epic v. [read post]
26 Oct 2022, 5:40 am
Apple judgment by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 4:28 pm
” Blizzard Ent., Inc. v. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 8:25 am
Apple trial in the current multi-jurisdictional dispute.At this stage, the jurisdiction that has received more attention than any other--oddly, even more than the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of the United States--for its review of Microsoft-ActivisionBlizzard is the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) of the United Kingdom. [read post]
19 Oct 2022, 4:28 am
"A few hours ago I saw that Activision Blizzard wants the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to seal as much as possible of Epic Games' "Project Hug" argument. [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 5:44 am
That is a fact, and it was also mentioned during last year's Epic Games v. [read post]
6 Oct 2022, 12:51 am
There are three paragraphs that stress the "central objective of CADE's efforts" ("o objetivo central da atuação do Cade"), which is that of every competition authority in the civilized world: to protect, in the interest of consumer welfare, the competitive process ("concorrência") (as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also emphasized in its FTC v. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 8:27 am
United States, No. 22-53 Lakshmi Arunachalam v. [read post]
