you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

This requires proof for collusion, does it not?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    I would think. And if that proof exists, it will come up at the appropriate time during legal proceedings. I'm skeptical there is any.

    I guess they could call the entire existence of GARM to be collusion; companies banding together to "punish" companies who don't follow their guidelines. But X is (was?) a voluntary member of GARM, so it seems that would be a difficult argument for them to make without implicating themselves too.

  • source
  • parent