Software and Technology

Bona Law represents software and technology companies on both sides of high-stakes competition disputes: challengers blocked from competing by a dominant firm and successful businesses defending how they won their markets. We achieve results. We represented Lucasys against PowerPlan, a Roper Technologies subsidiary controlling roughly 99% of the utility-management-software market, in a monopolization case that ended with a $24 million settlement plus injunctive relief. We represent Zulily in its Section 2 case against Amazon over anti-discounting practices in online retail. And we represent PharmacyChecker.com, winning a published Ninth Circuit decision and defeating RICO and Lanham Act counterclaims.

Technology markets concentrate quickly. Network effects, switching costs, data advantages, and control over distribution reward the companies that get big first — and hand them powerful tools for keeping everyone else small. The same forces have made technology the center of modern antitrust: app stores, search, ad tech, online marketplaces, and AI are all in litigation right now, and pricing algorithms have turned competition law into a compliance question for any company that prices with software. Whether you are weighing an antitrust claim, defending one, or working to stay out of that fight altogether, we bring courtroom results and agency experience — including alumni of the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, the California Attorney General’s Office, and the European Commission — to every side of the problem.

Why Bona Law for Software and Technology

We have done it, not just written about it. A $24 million software-monopolization settlement with injunctive relief, a live Section 2 case against Amazon, a published Ninth Circuit win in a platform-exclusion case, and defense-side wins.
Both sides of the v. We prosecute antitrust claims for businesses harmed by dominant technology firms and defend technology companies against monopolization claims, class actions, and counterclaims — experience on each side that makes us better at the other.
Agency experience where technology antitrust is made. Our team includes a former DOJ Antitrust Division Telecommunications Task Force attorney who went on to spend over a decade as AT&T’s chief in-house antitrust counsel, a 15-year veteran of the European Commission’s competition directorate, and a partner who spent two decades as in-house antitrust counsel at one of the world’s largest manufacturers.

A deeper bench than most people expect from a boutique. With more than 15 antitrust attorneys, we staff technology cases with trial, appellate, and counseling depth across five offices.
Flexible fees for the right case. We handle select technology antitrust matters on contingency or hybrid arrangements, we have experience working with litigation funders, and the Clayton Act’s fee-shifting provisions can make strong claims economical to bring.
We write the playbook. Our attorneys publish continuously on platform, AI, and algorithm antitrust at The Antitrust Attorney Blog — one of the most-read antitrust blogs in the country — and in the firm’s Platforms, AI, and the Fight for Consumer Choice series.

Representative Software and Technology Experience

Software and platform litigation

Lucasys, Inc. v. PowerPlan, Inc. (N.D. Ga.) — represented a software challenger in a Section 2 monopolization case against an enterprise-software incumbent controlling ~99% of the utility-management-software market; the court sustained the monopolization claims, we defeated trade-secret counterclaims, and the case resolved with a $24 million settlement plus injunctive relief.
Zulily LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (W.D. Wash.) — represent Zulily in a Section 2 monopolization and hub-and-spoke action challenging Amazon’s anti-discounting practices in online retail; the core claims survived Amazon’s motion to dismiss and the case is proceeding toward trial.
PharmacyChecker.com v. NABP / LegitScript (S.D.N.Y. / D. Or. / 9th Cir.) — antitrust claims against a network of internet gatekeepers that excluded an online pharmacy-verification and price-comparison platform; published Ninth Circuit win, summary judgment defeated, and RICO and Lanham Act counterclaims dismissed.
Data-analytics platform antitrust action (D. Colo.) (prior representation) — represented Crownalytics in group-boycott, tying, and refusal-to-deal claims against dominant retail-data providers over access to the data needed to compete; motions to dismiss denied.
Platform exclusion — software developer (confidential) — behind-the-scenes antitrust strategy, pleading, and negotiated resolution of the client’s claims for a software developer excluded from a dominant digital platform’s distribution ecosystem, sharpening antitrust claims in a case filed by other counsel.
Antitrust counterclaims against T-Mobile (C.D. Cal.) — represented a client asserting counterclaims alleging monopsonization of a wireless-spectrum leasing market, under Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 and the Cartwright Act.

Defense of technology companies

Defense of Arux Software (Minn.) — defended a software company across multiple district-court actions, arbitration, and appeals in a complex commercial dispute over competition in school- and community-education software platforms; the arbitration panel denied the plaintiff’s most significant claims.
Electronics manufacturing MDL defense (N.D. Cal.) — defended a Japanese capacitor manufacturer in one of the decade’s largest electronics price-fixing MDLs, winning denial of class certification of indirect purchasers against our client.
Software executive defense (Del.) — defended the chief technology officer of a major software company against non-solicitation and no-hire claims, at the intersection of restrictive covenants and antitrust labor-market law.
Online retail — defended a leading online contact-lens retailer in a nationwide pricing MDL and, in a separate case, won an attorneys’ fee award against a patent troll for LensDiscounters.com.

Counseling, investigations, and advocacy

Critical internet infrastructure — represented a client in a Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 matter arising from the governance and control of critical internet infrastructure, in conferences with the U.S. Department of Justice and state attorneys general.
Cross-border counseling for a cryptocurrency exchange — advised a crypto exchange expanding across Latin America on potential U.S. antitrust claims after a dominant global payments network cut off access to its card-issuing and money-transfer rails.
Technology counseling — MAP and pricing programs, distribution and marketplace-seller strategy, information exchange, and antitrust compliance for software, e-commerce, and electronics clients from startups to Fortune 100s.
Amicus advocacy — FTC v. Qualcomm (9th Cir.) for leading law-and-economics scholars, and the Disney/FuboTV streaming joint venture (2d Cir.) for antitrust law professors.

Your Software and Technology Team

Jarod Bona — founder and CEO of Bona Law. Jarod has litigated antitrust and competition cases nationwide for more than two decades, for plaintiffs and defendants, and founded The Antitrust Attorney Blog, one of the most-read antitrust websites in the world.
Jon Cieslak — partner who led the firm’s monopolization case for Lucasys against PowerPlan, resolved with a $24 million settlement plus injunctive relief, and leads its Section 2 case for Zulily against Amazon.
Pat Pascarella — former DOJ Antitrust Division Telecommunications Task Force attorney who went on to spend over a decade as AT&T’s chief in-house antitrust counsel. His matters have included U.S. v. Microsoft as well as Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Pacific Bell v. linkLine. Pat most recently represented a data analytics company in an action against two well-known data aggregators and has written on platform self-preferencing and AI product-design antitrust exposure, including in the firm’s Platforms and AI series.
Luis Blanquez — an international antitrust and competition law attorney with 15 years of experience at the European Commission and major international law firms. He currently is the Vice-Chair of the Media and Technology Committee of the American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section (2026-2029). Luis writes extensively on app stores, algorithmic pricing, Big Tech enforcement, and blockchain competition issues.
Aaron Gott — partner and chief operating officer with a focus that includes software and technology-services antitrust; has spoken at an ABA Antitrust Section event on FTC v. Qualcomm and led the team winning the Ninth Circuit decision for PharmacyChecker.
Luke Hasskamp — antitrust litigator and appellate lawyer; co-author of the Platforms and AI series and of the firm’s Law360 analysis of the Nielsen pricing-and-bundling appeal; has served as special outside antitrust counsel to a state attorney general.
Steven Cernak — spent more than 20 years as in-house antitrust counsel at General Motors with global responsibility for compliance, merger reviews, and litigation; leads much of the firm’s counseling and compliance and merger-review work for technology and manufacturing clients.

These attorneys lead the practice, but the team is the entire firm: more than 15 antitrust attorneys who move between technology matters and the rest of the firm’s antitrust docket — because the doctrines that decide software cases are the ones we litigate every day.

Antitrust for Software Companies

Enterprise software and SaaS markets reward incumbency: customers get locked in, data accumulates with the market leader, and the leader’s conduct — restrictive licensing, refusals to deal, interference with rivals’ customer relationships, sham intellectual-property claims — often determines whether a challenger can compete at all. These are monopolization and exclusionary conduct problems, and they are the core of what we do. If a dominant supplier or platform has cut your company off, squeezed your margins, or weaponized litigation against you, start with our resources on refusal-to-deal liability and the elements of a monopolization claim — then contact us.

E-Commerce, Marketplaces, and Platform Disputes

Online retail runs through a handful of platforms whose rules — pricing parity, Buy Box eligibility, fulfillment requirements, self-preferencing — function as private regulation of everyone who sells online. We represent businesses harmed by that power. Our case for Zulily against Amazon challenges the anti-discounting regime at the center of the FTC’s own monopolization case against Amazon, and we also counsel marketplace sellers and brands on suspension, pricing, and distribution issues short of litigation. Platform accountability is a global story — see our analysis of Germany’s sanction of Amazon over seller-pricing control, the app-store enforcement wave in the U.S. and EU, and our comparison of the U.S. Google Play settlement with the EU’s €4.1 billion fine. For our commentary on the biggest platform cases — Apple, Google, Meta, and the fight over AI’s bottlenecks — visit our Telecommunications and Platforms page.

Data, APIs, and Interoperability

In technology markets, access is the battleground: APIs, data feeds, verification and certification, interoperability. When a dominant firm cuts off access that rivals need to compete, antitrust may supply the remedy: Phhhoto v. Meta revived the nascent-competitor theory for companies harmed by platform API cutoffs. We have litigated these access cases: for PharmacyChecker, whose exclusion from internet verification and advertising channels was engineered by a rival and its allies; for a data-analytics firm (a prior representation) whose group-boycott, tying, and refusal-to-deal claims over access to retail data survived motions to dismiss in federal court; and, working behind the scenes, for a software developer excluded from a dominant digital platform’s distribution ecosystem. The doctrinal lines run from Trinko and linkLine through the House Big Tech report — and where they land determines whether your company can build on someone else’s platform.

AI and Algorithmic Pricing

Algorithmic pricing is now an enforcement priority: the Department of Justice settled with RealPage, named algorithmic collusion a 2026 focus, and states are legislating against algorithms trained on competitor data. Any company that prices with software has a new compliance question, and AI raises the same issues at higher stakes, from model-partnership structures designed around HSR review to AI’s emerging role as the next antitrust bottleneck. Our antitrust counseling and compliance team advises technology companies and algorithm users on both sides of this line, and our attorneys track the case law as it develops — see our two-part series on the first appellate decision, settlements, and new legislation, our early warning that the FTC had algorithmic price-fixing in its crosshairs, and the algorithmic-pricing analysis on our Real Estate and Housing page.

Startups and Emerging Technology Companies

Antitrust is a growth-stage issue twice over: startups are common victims of exclusionary conduct by incumbents, and they inherit compliance obligations — hiring, information exchange, distribution — the moment they scale. We wrote the free eBook Getting Started: Antitrust for Tech Start-Ups and a companion on antitrust for hiring and compensation at start-ups, and we maintain a startup antitrust resource hub. If your company touches digital assets, our Blockchain and Bitcoin industry page covers crypto-specific competition issues — including our counseling of a cryptocurrency exchange cut off by a dominant global payments network. And if you think antitrust only matters in Silicon Valley, think again.

Technology Transactions and Merger Review

Technology deals draw more antitrust attention than any other category — including AI acquisitions and quasi-mergers structured to avoid notification. Our mergers and acquisitions team handles Hart-Scott-Rodino strategy, second requests, and cross-border filings, and our investigations practice defends technology clients before the DOJ and FTC — combining U.S. enforcement experience with a partner who served for years inside the European Commission, where much of global tech-merger policy is made. We have also taken merger-policy positions as advocates, filing amicus briefs in FTC v. Qualcomm and in support of the Disney/FuboTV sports-streaming joint venture.

Where These Matters Arise: Related Practices and Industries

Software and technology disputes draw on the full range of the firm’s antitrust work: antitrust litigation, monopolization and exclusionary conduct, class-action defense, appellate litigation, complex commercial litigation, counseling and compliance, mergers and acquisitions, labor antitrust, and Lanham Act and false advertising (online-review and counterclaim disputes travel with platform cases). Related industries: Telecommunications and Platforms, Blockchain and Bitcoin, Real Estate and Housing (algorithmic pricing), and Healthcare, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Device (online health platforms).

Frequently Asked Questions

Can we sue a software company or platform for monopolization?

If a dominant firm’s conduct — exclusive dealing, refusals to deal, self-preferencing, sham litigation, coercive licensing — is what keeps you from competing, potentially yes. The claim turns on monopoly power in a properly defined market plus exclusionary conduct and antitrust injury; see the elements of a monopolization claim. Cases like our Lucasys matter show these claims can produce real remedies — money and injunctions — without waiting for the government.

A platform cut off our API or data access. Do we have an antitrust claim?

Sometimes. Unilateral refusals to deal are hard — but not impossible — after Trinko, and theories built on nascent-competitor harm, conditional dealing, group boycotts, and tying have been gaining ground, as Phhhoto v. Meta shows.

Is it legal to use AI or algorithms to set prices?

Using software to price is legal; using software to share or act on competitors’ nonpublic data may not be. After the RealPage settlement and the DOJ’s algorithmic-collusion enforcement priority — plus new state statutes — companies should audit what data their pricing tools ingest and how vendors pool it. We counsel on that issue.

We sell through a dominant marketplace. What are our options?

More than most sellers assume: contractual and account advocacy, distribution and pricing restructuring, complaints to enforcers who are actively investigating platform conduct, and — for substantial injuries — private antitrust claims like the ones we brought for Zulily. The right path depends on your claims, leverage, and damages.

What does it cost to bring a technology antitrust case?

Antitrust litigation is a real investment, but the Clayton Act awards treble damages and attorneys’ fees to prevailing plaintiffs, and for the right case we offer contingency and hybrid arrangements and have experience working with litigation funders.