More like this
EU General Court Refuses to Suspend Commission's VMware Document Demand
Court of Justice of the European Union (General Court), Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg, 2514 LuxembourgBroadcom
CONFIRMED86% CONFIDENCE52 days agoThe order on EUR-Lex is headed "ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT 3 August 2026" and signed "Luxembourg, 3 August 2026"; EUR-Lex lists its date of document as 03/08/2026, and no time is published.[1]The General Court's President dismissed Broadcom's bid to suspend the Commission's demand for communications with in-house lawyers qualified outside the EU, finding no prima facie case and that the Commission's interest in enforcing competition rules prevails (T-280/26 R). The annulment action continues.0.60Dutch Supreme Court Sends Privacy Class Action Against Oracle Back to Appeal
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, 8, Korte Voorhout, Museumkwartier, Centrum, Den Haag, Zuid-Holland, Nederland, 2511 EK, NederlandOracle
CONFIRMED89% CONFIDENCE69 days agoECLI:NL:HR:2026:1198, Hoge Raad, 17-07-2026: the judgment was 'in het openbaar uitgesproken ... op 17 juli 2026'; Oracle's 10-Q: 'on July 17, 2026, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had applied the wrong standard'.[1]The Hoge Raad quashed the Amsterdam appeal court's admission of The Privacy Collective's GDPR mass claim over Oracle's and Salesforce's ad-tech and sent it to the Hague Court of Appeal.0.60Judge Lets Investors' Securities Suit Against Lululemon Go Ahead
40, Centre Street, Civic Center, Lower Manhattan, Manhattan, New York County, New York, 10007, United StatesLululemon
CONFIRMED91% CONFIDENCE177 days agoDocket entry 58, dated Mar 31, 2026: "ORDER granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion to Dismiss" by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.[1]A Manhattan federal judge partly denied Lululemon's motion to dismiss a shareholder class action over its 2023-24 statements, finding plausible claims of misleading statements and scienter, citing alleged insider trading.0.59Alo and Italic End Their Ad Dispute With a Stipulated Judgment
United States Courthouse, 350, West 1st Street, Civic Center, Downtown, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California, 90012, United StatesAlo Yoga
CONFIRMED88% CONFIDENCE3.6 years agoThe stipulated judgment's header reads "Case 2:22-cv-00567-SSS-RAO Document 39 Filed 02/27/23".[1]A federal judge entered a stipulated judgment dismissing Alo's false-advertising suit against Italic with prejudice under a confidential settlement, keeping the court's power to enforce it.0.59Judge Dismisses Mayor Eric Adams's Corruption Case With Prejudice
CONFIRMED90% CONFIDENCE1.5 years agoThe Opinion and Order in 24-CR-556 (DEH) is stamped "Filed 04/02/25" and signed "Dated: April 2, 2025", ordering that "the Indictment against Eric Adams ... is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE".[1]US District Judge Dale Ho dismissed the five-count federal corruption indictment against New York City Mayor Eric Adams with prejudice, so it cannot be brought again, refusing the Justice Department's request to drop it without prejudice.0.58Judge Throws Out Amended Reese's Pumpkin Suit for Lack of Standing
CONFIRMED87% CONFIDENCE8 days agoStated as firm on the order: "Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2026" and "DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida this 16th day of September, 2026."[1]Judge Melissa Damian dismissed the reworked class action over faceless Reese's Peanut Butter Pumpkins, saying the buyers' "only injury is their subjective disappointment"; their lawyer said they would appeal.0.57Judge Trims Nike Investor Suit to One Donahoe 'Innovation Pipeline' Remark
Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse, 1000, Southwest 3rd Avenue, Downtown, Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon, 97204, United StatesNike
CONFIRMED83% CONFIDENCE177 days agoThe Opinion and Order in In re Nike, Inc. Securities Litigation, 3:24-cv-00974-AN, is "DATED this 31st day of March, 2026".[1]U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson in Portland dismissed most of a securities class action over Nike's direct-to-consumer strategy on 31 March 2026, letting claims against Nike and former CEO John Donahoe go ahead over one September 2023 statement.0.57Google and DOJ Due to File a Joint Proposed Final Judgment in Ad Tech Case
Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse, 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314, United StatesGoogle
SCHEDULED86% CONFIDENCEin 8 daysThe court's 2 September 2026 order (ECF 1857) directs the parties to "file one jointly proposed Final Judgment" "within 30 days of the date of this Order", which falls on 2 October 2026, and AdExchanger[1] reports "Both parties have until October 2 to submit their proposed final judgments".Google and the Justice Department must file one jointly proposed Final Judgment in the ad tech antitrust case by 2 October 2026, writing Judge Brinkema's behavioral remedies into an order that takes effect 60 days after she enters it.0.57Supreme Court Upholds Verizon's $47M Location-Data Fine
CONFIRMED83% CONFIDENCE112 days agoThe slip opinion reads "No. 25-406. Argued April 21, 2026 - Decided June 4, 2026", decided together with No. 25-567, Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission.[1]The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the FCC can issue forfeiture orders without a jury, upholding the ruling against Verizon over its $46.9 million fine for selling access to customers' location data and reversing AT&T's win over its $57 million fine.$46.9M0.57Judge Brinkema Spares Google an AdX Breakup in Ad Tech Antitrust Case
Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse, 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314, United States
CONFIRMED89% CONFIDENCE22 days agoThe court's order (ECF 1857) reads "Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 9/2/2026" and was entered on the docket 09/02/2026.[1]Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected the DOJ's bid to make Google sell its AdX ad exchange, ordering behavioral remedies overseen by a Monitor and Technical Committee instead. Google still stands found liable for monopolizing ad tech.0.57Judge Approves the DOJ's HPE-Juniper Settlement Over States' Objections
Robert F. Peckham United States Courthouse and Federal Building, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California 95113, United States
CONFIRMED85% CONFIDENCE43 days agoThe order granting the motion for entry of final judgment (Case 5:25-cv-00951-PCP, Document 482) is 'Filed 08/12/26' and signed 'Dated: August 12, 2026' by P. Casey Pitts; no time is given, so it is an all-day date.[1]Judge P. Casey Pitts entered the consent decree clearing HPE's Juniper Networks deal in a 41-page order that found DOJ leadership overrode its own antitrust staff, but held that 12 states and DC had not shown the Instant On sale and Mist source-code licence were against the public interest.0.57Supreme Court Makes the TSMC 2nm Leak Sentences Final
CONFIRMED88% CONFIDENCE56 days agoFocus Taiwan[1] (CNA[4]), 30 July 2026: 'The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected appeals by two former ... TSMC employees ... making their sentences final'; PTS[2] quotes the court's deputy spokesman on the ruling of the 30th. No time is given, so it is an all-day date.Taiwan's Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Chen Li-ming and Chen Wei-chieh, making their 10- and 6-year sentences for leaking TSMC's 2nm and 14nm secrets final; both go straight to prison.0.56