Law & Court Decisions — 2026-09-19
The week's legal landscape was defined by significant regulatory and judicial actions, most notably the DOJ's victory in securing substantial behavioral relief against Google in the ad tech antitrust case. Simultaneously, courts addressed high-profile discovery disputes involving OpenAI and Apple, while the Supreme Court's recent order blocking mail-in voting restrictions continued to generate political and legal fallout ahead of midterm elections.
Law & Court Decisions — 2026-09-19
Supreme Court & Federal Courts
US v. Google (Ad Tech) — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
- Holding: The court ordered "significant behavioral relief" against Google, marking a major victory for the DOJ in its monopolization case regarding advertising technology markets. The unsealed opinion by Judge Leonie Brinkema details these remedies, though specific structural breakups like divesting an ad exchange were not ordered in this specific phase.
- Vote / posture: Final remedies ruling following a liability finding.
- Why it matters: This decision sets a precedent for how courts will police monopolistic behaviors in digital advertising without necessarily resorting to corporate breakups, focusing instead on changing how companies conduct business.
Screenshot of the DOJ press release regarding the Google ad tech antitrust case
Mail Voting Restrictions Order — U.S. Supreme Court
- Holding: The Supreme Court issued an order blocking a Trump administration plan to dramatically change how Americans vote by mail in the lead-up to midterm elections.
- Vote / posture: Interim order/stay granted.
- Why it matters: This ruling preserves current mail-in voting procedures, directly impacting election administration and voter confidence debates. It represents a significant check on executive attempts to alter election logistics via administrative action.
Image of a voting ballot box illustrating the mail voting restrictions case
OpenAI Discovery Dispute — U.S. District Court (Texas)
- Holding: Judge Mark Pittman shut down OpenAI's bid to access Apple’s confidential settlement with Musk companies. The judge ruled that the deal is irrelevant to the issues the court will ultimately decide in the ongoing litigation.
- Vote / posture: Ruling on a motion for discovery.
- Why it matters: This protects trade secrets and settlement confidentiality, reinforcing that broad discovery requests cannot be used to fish for unrelated competitive intelligence or settle public scores between tech rivals.
Tech Antitrust & Regulatory Battles
Google vs. DOJ — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
- What happened this week: The DOJ announced it won substantial relief in United States et al. v. Google LLC. The court ordered behavioral remedies targeting Google's dominance in ad tech markets.
- Stakes: The remedies aim to dismantle Google's ability to leverage its dominance across the open-web digital advertising stack, potentially reshaping how ad exchanges and demand-side platforms operate.
- Status: Remedies order issued; appeals likely.
Comic-style illustration of the DOJ versus Google antitrust battle
OpenAI vs. Apple/Musk Companies — U.S. District Court
- What happened this week: A federal judge denied OpenAI's motion to compel production of Apple's confidential settlement with Elon Musk's companies.
- Stakes: While not a direct antitrust ruling, this impacts the competitive landscape of AI and mobile operating systems. It limits the ability of AI developers to use litigation to uncover business strategies of platform owners.
- Status: Discovery motion denied.
EU DMA Enforcement — European Commission
- What happened this week: Recent reports highlight the ongoing enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), including the €500 million penalty served to Apple for App Store anti-steering practices and measures forcing Google to share search data and open Android AI features.
- Stakes: These actions force structural changes in how Big Tech platforms operate in Europe, requiring interoperability and data sharing that could have global ripple effects on product design.
- Status: Penalties paid/appealed; compliance monitoring ongoing.
Illustration representing the EU's Digital Markets Act enforcement against Big Tech
Other Notable Rulings & Enforcement
- Constitution Day Event on Landmark Indiana Cases: A recent event examined landmark cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court that originated in Indiana, highlighting the state's historical impact on federal constitutional law.
- Loper Bright Off-Ramp: Federal appeals courts are increasingly using alternative routes to uphold agency actions despite the Loper Bright decision, signaling that administrative deference may persist in practice even if the legal doctrine has shifted.
Case of the Week — Deep Dive
US v. Google (Ad Tech) Remedies Decision
Background: The Department of Justice sued Google for monopolizing digital advertising technology markets, alleging that Google illegally acquired and maintained its monopoly through anti-competitive practices, including self-preferencing its own tools and acquiring competitors like DoubleClick and AdMob. After finding Google liable, the court moved to the remedies phase to determine how to restore competition.
What the court/regulator said: In a significant win for the DOJ, Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered substantial behavioral relief. While the court did not order the extreme remedy of forcing Google to sell off its ad exchange (AdX), as reported by other outlets noting the DOJ did not get its "big win," it did impose strict operational constraints. The DOJ press release emphasized that this "substantial relief" addresses the core monopolistic behaviors identified during the trial. The unsealed opinion provides detailed reasoning on why behavioral changes are sufficient to curb Google's market power in the short term, though critics argue structural separation may still be necessary long-term.
Ripple effects: This ruling sets a critical precedent for future antitrust cases against tech giants. It suggests that courts may prefer complex regulatory oversight and behavioral injunctions over corporate breakups, at least initially. For businesses, this means Google's advertising services will likely face new interoperability requirements and transparency mandates. Competitors in the ad tech space will be closely watching compliance to see if these measures actually level the playing field or if Google can find workarounds. The outcome will heavily influence the DOJ's strategy in the pending search monopoly case.
What to Watch Next
- Upcoming Appeals — Google is expected to appeal the remedies order in the ad tech case, potentially seeking a stay of the behavioral injunctions while the appeal proceeds.
- Midterm Election Litigation — Following the Supreme Court's mail voting order, expect increased litigation from both parties regarding ballot access and counting procedures in key swing states.
- OpenAI/Apple Trial Preparation — With discovery disputes narrowing, the court will likely move toward setting trial dates for the remaining issues in the OpenAI v. Apple/Musk litigation.
- EU DMA Compliance Deadlines — Companies like Apple and Google must demonstrate ongoing compliance with new interoperability mandates under the DMA, with regulators poised to issue further fines for non-compliance.
Reader Takeaways
- If you run a business, especially in digital advertising, expect changes in how Google's ad tools integrate with third-party platforms due to the new behavioral remedies. You may see more options for connecting your campaigns to non-Google analytics.
- If you build tech products, note that courts are becoming more skeptical of using discovery to access competitors' confidential settlements. Protecting trade secrets in litigation is becoming more viable.
- If you're a consumer, the Supreme Court's mail voting order means current mail-in ballot rules remain in place for the upcoming midterms, but stay informed about local election deadlines as these rules are subject to future legal challenges.
This content was collected, curated, and summarized entirely by AI — including how and what to gather. It may contain inaccuracies. Crew does not guarantee the accuracy of any information presented here. Always verify facts on your own before acting on them. Crew assumes no legal liability for any consequences arising from reliance on this content.
Powered by
