DOJ Settles with Six Tech Companies in Anittrust Violations Case

The Department of Justice announced Friday that it has reached a settlement with six high technology companies – Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc. and Pixar – that prevents them from entering into no solicitation agreements for employees. The department said that the agreements eliminated a significant form of competition to attract highly skilled employees, and overall diminished competition to the detriment of affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities.

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division filed a civil antitrust complaint today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, along with a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the lawsuit.

According to the complaint, the six companies entered into agreements that restrained competition between them for highly skilled employees. The agreements between Apple and Google, Apple and Adobe, Apple and Pixar and Google and Intel prevented the companies from directly soliciting each other’s employees. An agreement between Google and Intuit prevented Google from directly soliciting Intuit employees.

“The agreements challenged here restrained competition for affected employees without any procompetitive justification and distorted the competitive process,” said Molly S. Boast, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “The proposed settlement resolves the department’s antitrust concerns with regard to these no solicitation agreements.”

In the high technology sector, there is a strong demand for employees with advanced or specialized skills, the department said. One of the principal means by which high tech companies recruit these types of employees is to solicit them directly from other companies in a process referred to as, “cold calling.” This form of competition, when unrestrained, results in better career opportunities, the department said.

According to the complaint, the companies engaged in a practice of agreeing not to cold call any employee at the other company. The complaint indicates that the agreements were formed and actively managed by senior executives of these companies.

The complaint alleges that the companies’ actions reduced their ability to compete for high tech workers and interfered with the proper functioning of the price-setting mechanism that otherwise would have prevailed in competition for employees. None of the agreements was limited by geography, job function, product group or time period. Thus, they were broader than reasonably necessary for any collaboration between the companies, the department said.

The department said in its complaint:

• Beginning no later than 2006, Apple and Google executives agreed not to cold call each other’s employees. Apple placed Google on its internal “Do Not Call List,” which instructed employees not to directly solicit employees from the listed companies. Similarly, Google listed Apple among the companies that had special agreements with Google and were part of the “Do Not Cold Call” list;
• Beginning no later than May 2005, senior Apple and Adobe executives agreed not to cold call each other’s employees. Apple placed Adobe on its internal “Do Not Call List” and similarly, Adobe included Apple in its internal list of “Companies that are off limits”;
• Beginning no later than April 2007, Apple and Pixar executives agreed not to cold call each other’s employees. Apple placed Pixar on its internal “Do Not Call List” and senior executives at Pixar instructed human resources personnel to adhere to the agreement and maintain a paper trail;
• Beginning no later than September 2007, Google and Intel executives agreed not to cold call each other’s employees. In its hiring policies and protocol manual, Google listed Intel among the companies that have special agreements with Google and are part of the “Do Not Cold Call” list. Similarly, Intel instructed its human resources staff about the existence of the agreement; and
• In June 2007, Google and Intuit executives agreed that Google would not cold call any Intuit employee. In its hiring policies and protocol manual, Google also listed Intuit among the companies that have special agreements with Google and are part of the “Do Not Cold Call” list.

The proposed settlement, which if accepted by the court will be in effect for five years, prohibits the companies from engaging in anticompetitive no solicitation agreements. Although the complaint alleges only that the companies agreed to ban cold calling, the proposed settlement more broadly prohibits the companies from entering, maintaining or enforcing any agreement that in any way prevents any person from soliciting, cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for employees. The companies will also implement compliance measures tailored to these practices.

Today’s complaint arose out of a larger investigation by the Antitrust Division into employment practices by high tech firms. The division continues to investigate other similar no solicitation agreements.

Adobe Systems Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Jose, Calif., and 2009 revenues of nearly $3 billion. Apple Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Cupertino, Calif., and 2009 revenues of more than $42 billion. Google Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Mountain View, Calif., and 2009 revenues of more than $23 billion. Intel Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Clara, Calif., and 2009 revenues of more than $35 billion. Intuit Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Mountain View, Calif., and 2009 revenues more than $3 billion. Pixar is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Emeryville, Calif.

The proposed settlement, along with the department’s competitive impact statement, will be published in The Federal Register, as required by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement within 60 days of its publication to James J. Tierney, Chief, Networks & Technology Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street N.W., Suite 7100, Washington D.C. 20530. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the court may enter the final judgment upon a finding that it serves the public interest.

Lobbyist Pleads Guilty to Role in Illegal Campaign Contribution Scheme

Paul Magliocchetti, the founder and president of PMA Group Inc., a lobbying firm, plead guilty Friday in federal court in Arlington, Va., to making hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions and making false statements to a federal agency, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride of the Eastern District of Virginia.

Magliocchetti was charged in an indictment unsealed on Aug. 5, 2010. According to the indictment, Magliocchetti orchestrated a scheme to make illegal conduit and corporate federal campaign contributions in an effort to enrich himself and PMA by increasing the firm’s influence, power and prestige among the firm’s current and potential clients as well as among the elected public officials to whom PMA and its lobbyists sought access. The federal campaigns that received these funds were unaware of Magliocchetti’s scheme.

Magliocchetti admitted that, from 2005 through 2008, he used members of his family, friends and PMA lobbyists to make unlawful campaign contributions. Aware of the strict limits on individual federal campaign contributions – and the outright ban on corporate contributions – Magliocchetti admitted that he instructed the conduits to write checks out of their personal checking accounts to specific candidates for federal office and that, for the purpose of making these contributions, Magliocchetti advanced funds to or reimbursed these individuals using personal and corporate monies. Magliocchetti also admitted that, through this scheme, he caused various federal campaign committees to unknowingly create and file false reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding the contributions they had received. These reports, which the FEC made available to the public, falsely stated that the conduits had made contributions, when in fact the contributions were made by Magliocchetti or PMA.

"For years, Mr. Magliocchetti, by using conduit contributors, hid the fact that he and his company were donating significant funds to campaigns in violation of the federal election laws. Mr. Magliocchetti, in an effort to cover his tracks, used family, friends and business associates to secretly funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to political campaigns, all in an effort to enrich himself and increase his power and prestige," said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer. "This case is an important reminder to all who seek to evade the federal campaign finance laws that they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

"Mr. Magliocchetti is answering for his brazen disregard for the law to achieve political influence and enrich himself," said U.S. Attorney MacBride. "Campaign finance laws give transparency to political contributions, and protect the public’s ability to see who’s really funding a campaign."

"Americans should be confident that elections are not being influenced by illegal campaign contributions. Those who undermine this process and use it to gain power and influence should be punished" said Shawn Henry, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. "I’m proud of the diligent efforts put forth by special agents from the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and FBI who investigated this matter."

Magliocchetti pleaded guilty to one count each of making false statements, making illegal conduit contributions and making illegal corporate contributions. The maximum penalty for making false statements to a federal agency and making illegal campaign contributions from a corporation is five years in prison, and a $250,000 fine, to be followed by a term of up to three years of supervised release. The maximum penalty for making illegal campaign contributions in the name of another is five years in prison, a fine of not less than 300 percent of the amount involved in the violation and not more than the greater of $50,000 or 1,000 percent of the amount involved in the violation, and a three year term of supervised release. Magliocchetti is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 17, 2010.

This case is being prosecuted by Deputy Chief Justin V. Shur and Trial Attorneys M. Kendall Day and Kevin O. Driscoll of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, and by Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark D. Lytle of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case is being investigated by the FBI and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.