Carl Hittinger Comments on White House Delay in Filling Key FTC Positions

News / July 10, 2017


In The Blogs

Previous Next
Antitrust Advocate
CLE Webinar Series: Antitrust and White-Collar Investigations – What You Should Know
By C. Shawn Cleveland, Steven M. Dettelbach, Danyll W. Foix, John R. Fornaciari, Carl W. Hittinger, Jeffrey D. Martino, Carole S. Rendon, Marc G. Schildkraut, George A. Stamboulidis
September 18, 2019
We invite you to join us for one, two or all three of our upcoming high-level webinars offering vital insights into antitrust issues and white-collar investigations. These CLE webinars will be led by our knowledgeable and experienced...
Class Action Lawsuit Defense
Third Circuit Smacks Down Class Action Settlement in Google Cookie Placement Litigation
By David M. McMillan, Sammantha J. Tillotson
August 29, 2019
In a refreshingly plain-spoken opinion issued Aug. 6, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals criticized a multimillion-dollar class action settlement in litigation over Google’s unauthorized use of internet tracking...
Antitrust Advocate
Is Big Chicken Cooked? DOJ Intervenes in Price-Fixing Investigation
August 5, 2019
Pork is the other white meat, beef is what’s for dinner, and chicken is now under investigation by the Department of Justice for possible antitrust violations. Looks like the DOJ is back in the criminal cartel investigation business. In...
Antitrust Advocate
Carl Hittinger, Jeanne-Michele Mariani Article Takes a Look at Antitrust Division’s Renewed Focus on Bid Rigging
June 19, 2019
Partner Carl Hittinger and Associate Jeanne-Michele Mariani authored an article published May 8, 2019, by The Legal Intelligencer. The article, “Antitrust Division’s Renewed Focus on Bid Rigging Promises to be Perilous,” focuses on the...
Class Action Lawsuit Defense
Standing in Uncertainty: Spokeo Three Years Later
By Brittany N. Lockyer, Kenneth G. Prabucki
May 21, 2019
In 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, holding that even when Congress has granted parties a statutory right, a procedural violation of that right will not by itself satisfy the “concrete harm” requirement...