Search

The digital advertisement market has brought many changes to the approach through which companies engaged in multifarious sectors endeavour to increase the outreach of their products and services. In light of the benefits provided by digital advertisement as opposed to traditional advertisement, companies have been shifting towards digital advertisement, which also has simultaneously increased the competition concerns in this segment. Since these markets prima facie seem to be characterised by technological complexities and lack of transparency, it has been difficult for antitrust regulators throughout the world to scrutinise the activities in this market. However, the recent probes launched by the European Commission into the alleged anti-competitive activities carried out by Google and Meta in this market have the potential of carving some landmark changes in the approach of antitrust authorities to pay increasing attention to the activities carried out by these market players. In furtherance, we have provided an analysis of the approach adopted by various antitrust authorities, and the competition concerns that emanate from this market. Further, we have also elucidated India's position to regulate competition in digital advertisement markets and have also analysed some policy recommendations which can be implemented by the antitrust authorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 28 August 2019, the Full Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in four test cases selected by the Court as representative of over 50 cases brought on behalf of asylum seekers on Nauru and Papua New Guinea against the Minister for Home Affairs (the test cases). The test cases confirmed that the Federal Court does have the jurisdiction to hear negligence claims brought by immigration transferees offshore, but that the jurisdiction of the Federal Court has limits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 1789, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction has been a staple of the American judicial system. After presenting a general theory of jurisdictional change and reviewing diversity jurisdiction's development, the author undertakes a quantitative analysis of congressional activity vis-à-vis diversity jurisdiction. That analysis provides evidence that both administrative concerns and attention to federal judicial outcomes have impacted legislative decisions concerning the scope of diversity jurisdiction. These findings also suggest that members of Congress are selective in dealing with the jurisdiction of federal courts and that approaches to jurisdictional oversight vary in response to the salience of the legal issues at hand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]