Curaleaf Holdings Inc
Change company Symbol lookup
Select an option...
CURLF Curaleaf Holdings Inc
T AT&T Inc
AMAOU American Acquisition Opportunity Inc
VTI Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
DSEY Diversey Holdings Ltd
LGIH LGI Homes Inc
CRZNU Corazon Capital V838 Monoceros Corp
PCG-I Pacific Gas and Electric Co
ASZ Austerlitz Acquisition II Corp
$NQEG60CAD Nasdaq Egypt Energy Price Return CAD
Go

Health Care : Pharmaceuticals | Mid Cap Growth
Based in Canada
Company profile

Curaleaf Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Lead Ventures Inc, is a Canada-based vertically integrated cannabis operator in the United States. The Company is focused on research and development capabilities to distribute cannabis products. The Company operates in 23 states with 106 dispensaries, 23 cultivation sites and 30 processing sites. It provides service, selection, and accessibility across the medical and adult-use markets, as well as the cannabidiol (CBD) category through its Curaleaf Hemp brand. It owns and operates a number of dispensaries, cultivation sites and processing sites with a focus on limited license states, including Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.

Closing Price
$12.14
Day's Change
0.6006 (5.20%)
Bid
--
Ask
--
B/A Size
--
Day's High
12.20
Day's Low
11.53
Volume
(Heavy Day)
Volume:
829,604

10-day average volume:
534,970
829,604

Apple's split decision in Epic case resolves lawmakers, regulators to push harder for antitrust law

8:00 am ET September 14, 2021 (MarketWatch)
Print

By Jon Swartz

A federal judge's edict that Apple Inc. is not a monopolist elicited claims of victory by the iPhone maker, but it has also cemented the resolve of lawmakers in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere to push even harder for new antitrust laws.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' assessment of Apple (AAPL) in her decision Friday on Epic Games Inc.'s antitrust lawsuit seemed to both undercut and energize legislators' efforts to cast Apple as a monopolistic bully.

"This shows the limitation of the powers that legislators and the judiciary system have over antitrust law," Ed Mills, a Raymond James analyst who covers federal policy, told MarketWatch. "You need some court cases that you lose [such as when a major company is not ruled a monopolist, as in Epic-Apple] to put political pressure on Congress."

There is historical precedent, as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, pointed out in her recent book, "Antitrust: Taking on Monopoly Power from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age." The Sherman Antitrust Act was born in 1890 against a backdrop of abuses of power by large corporations and railroad conglomerates. The rise of Big Tech, she argued, highlights how current antitrust law falls short in addressing the immense monopolistic powers wielded on digital platforms.

And with a similar Epic antitrust lawsuit vs. Google expected in federal court in North Carolina next year, the pressure is ratcheting up for federal lawmakers.

Gonzalez Rogers' carefully crafted decision "fashioned a legal theory that implemented a remedy," antitrust lawyer Valarie Williams told MarketWatch. "The judge said some of Apple's behavior was anticompetitive, but not supported by current antitrust law," Williams said. "She is leaving it to lawmakers."

Indeed, the decision is "further evidence that Congress must enact clear rules of the road to prevent platform monopolists from abusing their power and picking winners and losers online," tweeted Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., chairman of the House Antitrust Subcommittee.

"While the ruling addresses some of those concerns, much more must be done," Klobuchar said in a statement last week. "We need to pass federal legislation on app-store conduct to protect consumers, promote competition and foster innovation." (Klobuchar is co-sponsor of a bill that would regulate the App Store and Alphabet Inc.'s (GOOGL)(GOOGL) Google Play Store.)

Gonzalez Rogers, who oversaw the federal trial in Oakland, Calif., in May, delivered a potential gut punch in ruling that Apple cannot force app makers to use its in-app payment service. But to the relief of Apple and its investors, she rejected Epic's argument that Apple and its App Store constitute a monopoly -- the linchpin of legislation attempting to rein in Big Tech players such as Apple, Google, Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN), and Facebook Inc. (FB). (On Sunday, Epic appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.)

Though it has repeatedly claimed a "resounding victory," Apple is also likely to appeal an injunction from the decision that lets developers direct consumers to third-party payment systems outside of the App Store, thus saving developers commission fees of up to 30%. Apple is expected to introduce its latest iPhone on Tuesday.

Read more: Here's what Apple is expected to announce at its iPhone 13 launch event Tuesday

U.S. lawmakers are convinced new bills will add teeth to antiquated antitrust law, making it easier for federal and state judges to identify and punish Big Tech as monopolists. But some financial and legal scholars don't expect wholesale changes: They anticipate other countries, especially those in Europe, to follow recent moves in South Korea and Japan, where small developers have the option of directly communicating with consumers within the App Store and directing them to third-party payment systems.

"I am not super optimistic" that U.S. legislation will reshape antitrust law, Florian Ederer, associate professor of economics at the Yale School of Management, told MarketWatch. "There will be legal limits" that prohibit anti-steering on the App Store, which is "bad news for Apple," he said.

Ederer, who noted a $70 billion loss in Apple's market share following Friday's ruling, expects a "global phenomenon" in which developers in most countries are given the option of steering their consumers to payment systems outside of the App Store. This could prompt Apple to charge a new commission for developers to sell goods on the App Store, or a legal appeal by Apple over Gonzalez Rogers's decision.

Chris Cardinal, who runs a consultancy that builds custom software for startups, enterprises and the government, believes the "split decision" gives "enough daylight to Epic and lawmakers through its unique carve-out for payments.

"It's a game changer for Apple's bottom line, resulting easily in $1 billion a year in less revenue for the App Store," he said. "It is as close to an existential risk for losing a rent-seeking tax on the back of nearly every developer. Apple has to be quaking in its boots."

-Jon Swartz

	

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

September 14, 2021 08:00 ET (12:00 GMT)

Copyright (c) 2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Earnings Calendar and Events Data provided by |Terms of Use| © 2021 Wall Street Horizon, Inc.

Market data accompanied by is delayed by at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, NYSE MKT, NYSE, and options. Duration of the delay for other exchanges varies.
Market data and information provided by Morningstar.

Options are not suitable for all investors as the special risks inherent to options trading may expose investors to potentially rapid and substantial losses.
Please read Characteristics and Risks of Standard Options before investing in options.

Information and news provided by ,, , Computrade Systems, Inc., , and

Copyright © 2021. All rights reserved.