Aaron M. Panner

December 8, 2025 — After years of high-stakes litigation and a multi-week bench trial, on November 18, 2025, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg entered judgment for Meta on the FTC’s Section 2 claim. The Court rejected the FTC’s proposed “personal social networking” market and, based on extensive empirical evidence, found a broader social‑media market that includes TikTok and YouTube. The Court concluded that the FTC failed to prove Meta possesses monopoly power in the relevant market. The Court credited field experiments, natural experiments (including platform outages and a ban on the TikTok app in India), and app usage data showing significant and persistent diversion between Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. It found convergence across features and user behavior—particularly the shift toward AI-recommended short-form video and private messaging—undercutting the FTC’s effort to distinguish “social networking” from “entertainment.” The Court declined to infer monopoly power from evidence of Meta’s profits and further determined that the FTC had failed to show that the “quality-adjusted” price of Meta’s apps had declined; on the contrary, it found that “Meta’s apps have continuously improved.”  And in the relevant market, time‑spent and user metrics show that Meta’s share is well below monopoly thresholds and trending down. The court ordered judgment for Meta, ending the FTC’s case at the liability stage. A large Kellogg Hansen team, led by Mark C. Hansen, served as lead trial counsel for Meta.   The lawyers involved at trial included Daniel V. Dorris, Andrew E. Goldsmith, Joseph S. Hall, Jake E. Hartman, Kevin D. Horvitz, Kevin B. Huff, Geoffrey M. Klineberg, Evan T. Leo, Kevin J. Miller, Aaron M. Panner, Alex Parkinson, Ana N. Paul, Leslie V. Pope, Thomas G. Schultz, Lillian V. Smith, Silvija A. Strikis, Ariela M. Migdal, Collin R. White, Justin B. Berg, Geoffrey J.H. Block, Hannah D.C. DePalo, Nataliia Gillespie, Natalie E. Giotta, Jordan R.G. González, Zachary M. Meskell, Diego Negron-Reichard, Aaseesh P. Polavarapu, Catherine M. Redlingshafer, Andrew Skaras, Alex P. Treiger, and Hilary M. Weaver. This case has garnered significant national attention, with coverage in Global Competition Review, Litigator of the Week, Law360’s Legal Lions, and Judicial Notice. These outlets highlighted the complexity of the litigation, the breadth of the economic evidence presented at trial, and the substantial implications of the Court’s decision for antitrust enforcement in digital markets. The recognition across multiple leading publications underscores both the importance of the ruling and the exceptional work of the trial team. Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc. Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB..

July 3, 2025 — Partners Michael N. Nemelka and Derek T. Ho of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, PLLC have been recognized among Bloomberg Law’s Unrivaled Litigators for 2025 in honor of the firm’s role as lead counsel in the groundbreaking antitrust class action Loop LLC v. CDK Global, LLC, No. 24-571 (W.D. Wis.). Representing a class of automotive software vendors, Michael Nemelka was lead counsel of a Kellogg Hansen team that included Derek Ho, Daniel Dorris, and Aaron Panner.  The case alleged a years-long antitrust conspiracy between CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds & Reynolds Company – the two leading providers of dealer management system software – to restrict access to car dealership data.  As a result of the conspiracy, software vendors paid highly inflated prices for access to that data. On January 27, 2025, CDK agreed to pay $630 million to settle the claims, which is $140 million more than the class’s actual damages of $490 million.  That extraordinary result is a success story for private civil enforcement of our nation’s antitrust laws.  Without the aid of any government agency or prior action, the Kellogg Hansen team investigated the facts, discovered the alleged conspiracy, and pursued claims for the class for over seven years – from complaint through motion to dismiss, fact and expert discovery, Daubert and summary judgment, class certification, pretrial proceedings, and to the brink of trial. “This case required us to build the facts and legal theories from the ground up, and then the determination and energy to litigate the claims for over seven years from inception to the eve of trial,” said partner Michael Nemelka. “But with the team’s dedication and unrelenting efforts, we did it.  The strength of our evidence and our belief in the class’s claims carried us through.” In recognition of the remarkable result, Bloomberg Law named Michael Nemelka and Derek Ho to its inaugural list of Unrivaled Litigators featuring “trial lawyers who lead the legal profession in high-stakes and impactful trials and settlements.” To read more about the case and Bloomberg Law’s recognition of the firm, visit Bloomberg’s website. In addition to 2025 Bloomberg Unrivaled Litigators, Michael Nemelka and the team have been recognized for their work in this case from these other publications and legal journals: The American Lawyer – Litigator of the Week The American Lawyer –  Elite Trial Lawyers Judicial Notice – Original Jurisdiction Michael Nemelka specializes in complex commercial litigation, and has experience across a broad range of civil and criminal matters.  He has tried numerous cases to verdict in federal and state courts, as well as before arbitration panels.  In addition, as a result of his government service as Deputy United States Trade Representative, he helps clients navigate challenges and barriers in international trade and investment. Derek Ho litigates high-stakes commercial cases with often billions of dollars at stake.  He has helped clients obtain billions of dollars through trial or settlement.  As both an experienced trial litigator and a seasoned appellate lawyer, Derek represents plaintiffs and defendants in all phases of litigation. Aaron Panner specializes in antitrust law and U.S. Supreme Court and appellate litigation. Dan Dorris represents both plaintiffs and defendants in complex civil, antitrust, and securities litigation.  At the trial level, Dan handles every phase of litigation, from complaints to arguing dispositive motions and at trial.  At the appellate level, he has briefed and argued cases in multiple courts of appeals.    ..

June 18, 2025 — Six partners at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. have been ranked in the 2025 edition of Chambers and Partners USA for their work in appellate litigation, general commercial litigation, and telecommunications law. The rankings reflect the firm’s continued strength in handling complex, high-stakes litigation at both the trial and appellate levels. General Commercial Litigation: The Elite – District of Columbia In the District of Columbia category for General Commercial Litigation, Chambers USA recognized Mark C. Hansen, David C. Frederick, and Derek T. Ho. These attorneys handle a wide range of complex civil litigation matters, including class actions, antitrust disputes, and securities cases, often in cases involving substantial financial or regulatory exposure. Appellate Law – Nationwide Three Kellogg Hansen partners — David C. Frederick, Michael K. Kellogg, and Aaron M. Panner — were ranked in the Chambers USA nationwide category for Appellate Law. The firm’s appellate practice has a longstanding reputation for representing clients in significant matters before the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals. Telecom, Broadcast & Satellite Law – District of Columbia Michael K. Kellogg and Scott H. Angstreich were ranked in the District of Columbia category for Telecom, Broadcast & Satellite Law. The firm has long represented clients in the telecommunications sector in regulatory, appellate, and trial court litigation, including disputes involving federal and state communications laws. These rankings confirm Kellogg Hansen’s ongoing role as lead counsel in major commercial, regulatory, and appellate matters in Washington, D.C. and nationwide. Chambers USA is an independent legal directory that ranks the leading lawyers and law firms in the United States based on in-depth research and client feedback. Rankings are determined through a rigorous evaluation of attorneys’ legal knowledge, client service, commercial awareness, and track record of success. Recognition in Chambers USA signals a high level of respect from peers and clients and reflects consistent excellence in legal practice. View the firm’s Chambers USA profile here...

September 19, 2024– Kellogg Hansen was honored as the Pro Bono Law Firm Partner of the Year by Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law at the 2024 Annual Awards Reception on Tuesday, September 17, 2024, in Washington, DC.  Hosted annually, Bazelon Center’s Awards Reception recognizes and celebrates leaders in law, disability rights, social justice, mental health, and entertainment. Kellogg Hansen was recognized in particular for its work on two amicus briefs. Bazelon Center was joined by the American Psychiatric Association and other mental health organizations in a brief filed in the Supreme Court in support of respondents in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. The brief was principally authored by Annamaria M. Morales-Kimball, Geoffrey J.H. Block, and Kyle C. Bailey.  Bazelon Center was joined by the American Academy of Pediatrics and several other medical and advocacy organizations in a brief filed in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in support of affirmance in United States v. Florida.  The brief was principally authored by Rachel T. Anderson, Tiberius T. Davis, and Nataliia Gillespie. Aaron Panner supervised both projects.  Kellogg Hansen has worked with Bazelon Center for many years and has been proud to support its mission of promoting the civil rights and full inclusion of people with mental disabilities. ..

January 31, 2024— In a landmark resolution reached just before closing arguments in a jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas, Dexon Computer has dismissed antitrust allegations against Cisco Systems as part of a comprehensive settlement agreement. Dexon will also pay Cisco to resolve Cisco’s counterfeit-trafficking claims pending in the Northern District of California. Dexon, an unauthorized reseller of Cisco products, also agreed to stop selling unauthorized Cisco products, revamp its business model, and apply to join Cisco\'s authorized reseller program. These steps are intended to uphold customer confidence and ensure the delivery of trusted and verified Cisco products. Cisco sued Dexon in the Northern District of California in July 2020, alleging that Dexon trafficked in counterfeit “Cisco” equipment. Dexon brought counterclaims, including under the antitrust laws, but the court dismissed them. Dexon then brought similar antitrust claims in the Eastern District of Texas in April 2022. A jury trial in the latter case began on January 22, 2024, and the presentation of evidence concluded at the end of that week. The parties were scheduled to deliver closing arguments the following Monday, but on Saturday Dexon moved to dismiss its own claims with prejudice. Cisco Systems is represented by attorneys from Kellogg Hansen: Aaron M. Panner, Andrew E. Goldsmith, Leslie V. Pope, Alex A. Parkinson, Ryan M. Folio, Caroline A. Schechinger, Geoffrey J.H Block, D. Chanslor Gallenstein, Jonathan I. Liebman, and Hilary M. Weaver. Kellogg Hansen is grateful for the critical contributions by its co-counsel in Texas, Deron R. Dacus of The Dacus Firm PC and Jennifer H. Doan and Mariah Leigh Hornok of Haltom & Doan, and its co-counsel in both cases, Richard J. Nelson, Louis P. Feuchtbaum, Zachary Alinder, and Lyndsey Heaton of Sideman & Bancroft LLP. The overall litigation effort was led by Cisco’s in-house team, including Sarita Venkat, Karen Lu, Gil Ohana, Michael Blaisdell, and Jon Schwartz. See also: Order of Dismissal (January 29, 2024) ..

April 27, 2023— A D.C. Circuit panel refused to revive a case from brought on by 46 States, the District of Columbia, and Guam which accused Facebook parent company Meta Platforms of monopolizing social networking through “buying or burying” would-be competitors. The States’ Complaint alleged that Facebook adopted policies that prevented competing social platforms from accessing Facebook\'s suite of software tools called \"Facebook Platform.\" The Complaint claimed that these policies resulted in a sudden loss of functionality for competing apps, leaving them \"broken or buggy,\" but Facebook removed these policies in 2018. The Complaint was filed in December 2020 by both the States and the Federal Trade Commission. As such, the panel affirmed the States waited too long by filing a case targeting acquisitions that occurred several years before. Meta has been integrating the services and changing its own products in accordance with the deals and acquisitions. This is a significant refusal-to-deal case and an authoritative opinion from the D.C. Circuit in regard to laches and state sovereigns. It is also an important case in looking to the future of tech, as the panel stated in the Opinion, “the industry [,] . . . even on the States’ allegations, has had rapid growth and innovation with no end in sight.”  Meta Platforms is represented by attorneys from Kellogg Hansen: Aaron Panner, Mark Hansen, Leslie Pope, and Alex Parkinson. Read the full article here. ..

March 30, 2023— A U.S. judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc, formerly known as Facebook, which alleged that its social media business drove a photo software startup, Phhhoto Inc, out of business in violation of federal antitrust law. The lawsuit, filed by Phhhoto Inc in 2021, claimed that Meta\'s Facebook aimed to \"crush\" the photo-sharing application, asserting itself as an \"innovative nascent competitor.\" Phhhoto accused Meta of degrading the quality of its content and app performance and misleading consumers by utilizing its control over critical infrastructure. U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto in Brooklyn, New York, dismissed the lawsuit, stating that Phhhoto failed to bring its claims within the relevant statute of limitations. Matsumoto emphasized that despite Phhhoto\'s extensive complaint, it did not provide sufficient facts to cure the untimeliness of its federal claims. The court also declined Phhhoto\'s request to refine its case and file another complaint. Meta spokesperson termed the lawsuit as \"meritless\" in a statement. Facebook denied engaging in any anticompetitive behavior. The dismissal of the lawsuit marks a legal victory for Meta Platforms Inc in its ongoing battle against antitrust allegations. While Phhhoto\'s claims were dismissed on procedural grounds, the broader debate around competition in the tech industry continues to evolve, with regulatory scrutiny intensifying on major players like Meta. For Meta: Aaron Panner of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick Read the full article here. ..

May 13, 2019— The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kellogg Hansen’s clients in one of the most significant victories for private antitrust plaintiffs in the Court’s recent history, Apple Inc. v. Pepper, et al. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that iPhone owners may sue Apple as direct purchasers under § 4 of the Clayton Act and Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), for monopolizing the market for iPhone apps.  The Court noted that “[t]he plaintiffs seek to hold retailers to account if the retailers engage in unlawful anticompetitive conduct that harms consumers who purchase from those retailers.  That is why we have antitrust law.”  The ruling affirmed the January 2017 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that “Plaintiffs are direct purchasers from Apple within the meaning of Illinois Brick and therefore have standing.” The Kellogg Hansen team included partners David Frederick, Aaron Panner, and Gregory Rapawy, and associate Benjamin Softness. Mr. Frederick argued on behalf of the consumers before the Supreme Court, and issued the following statement about the opinion: “We’re gratified the Supreme Court today recognized the right of consumers to sue Apple for the damages they sustain from Apple’s monopoly control over the distribution of applications on iPhones. The decision is important for upholding consumer protections against the dangers of monopoly retailers like Apple.  Apple’s monopoly control has distorted the prices for apps and it’s time for that abuse of monopoly power to end.”   The case is Apple Inc. v. Pepper, et al., No. 17-204 (U.S.). ..