Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The breakup of the Bell System resulted in the creation of seven independent companies that were formed from the original twenty-two AT&T-controlled members of the System. [5] On January 1, 1984, these companies were NYNEX, Pacific Telesis, Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, Southwestern Bell Corporation, BellSouth, and US West. NYNEX, merged with Bell ...
Laws applied. Sherman Antitrust Act. United States v. AT&T, 552 F.Supp. 131 (1982), was a ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, [ 1 ] that led to the 1984 Bell System divestiture, and the breakup of the old AT&T natural monopoly into seven regional Bell operating companies and a much smaller new version of AT&T.
AT&T. Total settlement: $60 million. Deadline to file claim: May 18, 2023. ... this settlement came about as the result of a class action lawsuit in which laptop purchasers said they bought a ...
United States v. AT&T may refer to several court cases: United States v. AT&T (1982), a lawsuit enforcing the divestiture of the Bell System. United States v. AT&T (2019), a lawsuit attempting to block a merger with Time Warner.
AT&T has agreed to pay $13 million to settle a federal investigation into whether the mobile phone service provider failed to protect customer information in connection with a data breach last ...
AT&T, T-Mobile, and Deutsche Telekom was a lawsuit brought by the US Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice seeking to block the merger of AT&T Mobility and T-Mobile USA. [11] Had the purchase been completed, AT&T would have had a customer base of approximately 130 million users, making AT&T the largest wireless carrier in the United ...
The settlement aims to clear nearly 100,000 lawsuits filed by consumers ranging from homeowners to farmers who say they developed cancer because of the product. Some 25,000 cases still remain.
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), is a legal dispute that was decided by the United States Supreme Court. [1] [2] On April 27, 2011, the Court ruled, by a 5–4 margin, that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration, such as the law previously upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case of ...