Intern Training Delivery

Pair of antitrust settlements reveal government priorities. Two recent settlements reached between federal antitrust authorities and antitrust defendants highlight that the federal government is open to settlements in which the defendants agree to curb allegedly anticompetitive conduct. The government publicly tallies the resolution as a win, and companies get out of tricky situations by following through on or expanding compliance initiatives already in place. But obtaining a good deal with the feds isn't the end of the story in today's market, with private plaintiffs and state regulators ready to jump in to fight solutions they deem inadequately protective. John Deere. In the latest installment of the right-to-repair wars, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and enforcers from Illinois, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin settled an antitrust case against Deere & Company alleging monopolization of the market for equipment repair. The allegations. Federal and state antitrust enforcers alleged that Deere enjoys monopoly power in the market for diagnostic tools capable of enabling all repairs on John Deere agricultural equipment (repair tools). They contend that Deere has developed such a repair tool but makes it available only to its authorized dealers. By contrast, Deere offers farmers and independent repair providers (IRPs) an inferior tool that "lacks many of the key functions necessary to enable comprehensive repair." Consequently, regulators alleged, farmers and IRPs are forced to turn to dealers "for repairs that they would do themselves or take to an IRP but for Deere's restrictions, and "thus unable to competitively constrain Deere dealers in the provision of these and other key repair services." The settlement terms. Deere agreed to pay $1 million to cover the government's costs and attorneys' fees. The company also pledged to change its practices relating to access to repair resources. Among other concessions, Deere agreed to make repair resources on par with those offered to its authorized dealers available to consumers and IRPs that request them. It also agreed to instruct its dealers to do the same without discriminating or retaliating against any such consumer or IRP. Further, to ensure that word reaches consumers, Deere agreed to post a notice on its website and deliver a copy of the final stipulated order to every consumer and IRP that has purchased Deere equipment in the last three years. This settlement comes on the heels of a separate proposed $99 million settlement between Deere and a putative class of farmers with similar claims. Certain plaintiffs continue to contest both monetary adequacy and the substantive sufficiency of the proposed injunctive relief. Although the class action court has preliminarily approved the private resolution's monetary terms, the private plaintiffs continue to litigate additional terms, providing a stark contrast to the more easily negotiated resolution with the feds. Live nation/ticketmaster. In an unusual move, early last year the Department of Justice (DOJ) settled with Live Nation and its wholly owned subsidiary, Ticketmaster (together, Live Nation) in the middle of trial. Nonetheless, state enforcers pressed on and secured a favorable jury verdict in the same case. Now, the DOJ and Live Nation have asked the court to approve the settlement. This case has been well-publicized. At bottom, the plaintiffs allege seven categories of anticompetitive conduct: * That Oak View Group is a "potential competitor-turned-partner" that acts as a "hammer" and "protect[or] for Live Nation; * That Live Nation-Ticketmaster threatened financial retaliation against a potential competitor in the U.S. concert promotions market; * That Live Nation-Ticketmaster strategically acquired several smaller and regional promoters it viewed as threats in the market; * That Live Nation's market power prevents concert venues from choosing other promoters or ticketers; * That Live Nation "locks" concert venues into long-term exclusive contracts; * That Live Nation's practices prevent new and different promotions, competitors, and business models from emerging; and * That Live Nation restricts artists' use of key venues unless those artists also agree to use their promotion services. As with the Deere federal resolution, the proposed final judgment in the Live Nation matter focuses primarily on conduct remedies (i.e., rules governing how Live Nation must behave going forward, as opposed to "structural remedies" that would force a breakup or divestiture of the company). Among other items, Live Nation is obliged to develop and provide an open distribution and ticket authentication system, offering more ticketing options to concert venues. Live Nation is further prohibited from imposing de facto restrictions on competition by contractual, pricing, technological, or other restrictive means, and must also allow a handful of identified concert venues to cancel or modify all contracts that relate to the provision of booking or promotion services and/or ownership interests in those venues. Perhaps most notably, Live Nation is prohibited from (1) retaliating against venues for choosing a different ticketing service or (2) conditioning the provision of events on use of defendants for ticketing services or event booking. Senior Justice Department officials have called the resolution "a win-win for everybody" (see Justice Department and Live Nation settle over illegal monopoly case | AP News). The settlement has yet to be approved by the court. But 21 plaintiff states have asked the court to authorize discovery under the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(f), into the settlement because of "significant concerns that the Settlement is not in the public interest." The states' discovery request principally targets the substantive design and efficacy of the settlement's proposed remedies, including the open distribution and ticket authentication system, the divestiture and venue booking terms, and the reappointment of the compliance monitor, as well as process-related concerns about potential outside influence on the settlement negotiations, including communications with the White House Counsel's Office. Key takeaways. * Federal antitrust enforcers - DOJ and FTC alike - are now willing to accept behavioral remedies as a basis for resolving antitrust cases. This marks a notable change from the prior administration, which preferred or required structural remedies, such as divestitures and injunctions dismantling the challenged conduct or structure. Under the past administration, enforcers viewed behavioral remedies as less effective and too difficult to monitor and enforce over time. * Companies facing antitrust scrutiny may find the government amenable to defense- favorable resolutions that allow the government to claim a "win," while companies still achieve underlying business goals. * The more flexible resolution approach with the government does not extend to private class actions or even state regulators, however. It is even possible that plaintiffs' firms and state regulators may take a more aggressive approach if the federal government is perceived to be too industry friendly.

Deere's See and Spray Gen 2 makes way toward Ag in Motion. Plenty of money expected to be saved in weed-spraying inputs with refined targeted application. Glacier FarmMedia - John Deere has been developing its See and Spray technology since 2017, when it bought a California company applying computer vision and machine-learning to weed detection. In 2021 Deere rolled out its first "green-on-brown" See and Spray system - and now, its second-generation technology is set to be showcased on MY27 sprayers at Ag In Motion July 21-23 near Langham, Sask., as producers prepare for the 2027 planting/growing season in the spring. But first, media, agronomists and producers got an early look at the future of precision application for Canadian small grain growers and how it fits for small grains, at the LEAP Centre near Strathmore, Alta. WHY IT MATTERS: With farmers facing ever-increasing input costs in their operations, technology delivering efficiencies in the battle against weeds for better yields is a welcome development. Deere in 2022 would follow up on its original See and Spray with a first-of-its-kind dual-product system, See and Spray Ultimate, able to make multiple product passes at the same time, be it either a contact and a residual herbicide or different broadcast applications. At the time, the machine leveraged 36 camera and 10 vision-processing units to make AI-informed targeted-spray decisions. Improvements have followed, including halving soybean row spacing from 30 to 15 inches, and maximum operating speed jumping from 12 to 16 m.p.h. The first generation of See and Spray had a lot of its processing hardware out on the boom, which tied up its overall weight budget. Those 10 processors for the dual-product system now have been reduced to three, located at the rear, using video extenders on the boom. The weight savings have allowed John Deere to offer a full light kit for the 2027 model year, allowing See and Spray to run in fallow at night. Those early days saw the target technology go across a million acres in corn, soybeans and cotton crops, as well as no-crop or fallow conditions. That number has ballooned to more than five million as of late 2025. Green-on-grains. "Over the the last four years, one of the most common concerns we have is 'when is this technology coming to small grains?'" said Josh Ladd, go-to-market manager for application at John Deere. That time is now as wheat-, canola-, and barley-compatible uses arrive in Canada, in a system that combines See and Spray Select, Premium and Ultimate into one. Evolving from green-on-brown in fallow fields to green-on-green capabilities in the battle against weeds, See and Spray Gen 2 maximizes the ability to control spraying inputs, allowing for broadcast or more precision spraying. The canola model identifies both grassy and broadleaf weeds, while the cereal model is limited to broadleaf only. Weed pressure maps can be generated for those particular trouble areas, along with setting the sprayer to identify small, medium or large weeds as a filter. The nozzle is only activated when that threshold is met, as farmers customize the size of weed they want to spray. Ride-alongs. Chris Hansen, agronomy lead with John Deere, invited guests at the recent event to ride shotgun with him on a 412R sprayer on a field featuring wheat and canola. See and Spray calculates the herbicide application in real time. Single passes in the demonstrations showed application rates more than halved, while still aiming for 50 to 60 per cent product savings. "It's targeted application and not spot spray," said Ladd before Hansen's demos, adding the identification cameras are stitched together for joint responsibility, making sure See and Spray stays on-label for broadcast application rates. "Whenever a weed is detected, any camera that has responsibility for its its nozzle section is going to turn on the nozzles necessary to hit that weed from all sides. Usually, at a minimum, that means three nozzles." If the cameras lose confidence in weed identification - say, because of dust, mud or extreme speed - the system has an automatic fallback to broadcast application. John Deere has also addressed that issue with strategic placement of cameras, relocating them from the centre frame to the front. Input savings. Earlier presentations showcased a Northern Plains 12,000-acre farm featuring spring wheat, barley, canola and lentils, claiming to save $225,000 in annual inputs - pre-subscription costs, for example - with variable rate pre-harvest/desiccation, fungicide and nitrogen, out-of-season fallow and targeted in-crop. "We use the cameras to vary the rate of application based off of the living biomass detected, which is a tremendous value-add for some of those later-season passes when we think about fungicide, pre-harvest, or desiccation-type passages," said Ladd. "We are very excited to move into Canada in a very big way for model year '27." With dual-product and split-tank flexibility, the smaller tank would typically be allocated to non-residual/targeted product use and the larger tank for broadcast, allowing a farmer to spray two products separately at the same time, avoiding compatibility issues between chemistries where tank-mixing wouldn't be an option. The See and Spray Gen 2 can be used in various crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat/barley (broadleaf only), canola, sugar beets and edible beans. Look for all its Ag in Motion coverage here. Get more in your inbox Free - Unsubscribe anytime