The case is LTL LED LLC v. Google LLC (D. Minn.); see pp. 104 of this PDF onwards for the amended complaint. The lawsuit was filed in March in Minnesota trial court, but was just removed to federal court. The plaintiffs are the business and four of its officers, all of whom were also mentioned by name in some Google AI Overviews (assuming the exhibits attached to the Complaint are correct).
The Complaint claims that none of the sites linked to by the report actually reported that Wolf River had ever faced a Minnesota AG lawsuit, or was guilty of the other misconduct. According to the Complaint,
Google cited numerous sources in support of its false assertions; however, none of the referenced materials in fact contained the information Google claimed they did.
The Complaint also alleges specific lost business:
Banks now have to order transactions / clearing in the way most beneficial to the consumer. One of the big items that passed under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
With encrypted DNS queries becoming more popular, it is impossible to block something at the router level without decrypting the packets which bring up more privacy concerns.
1) Write a physical check (2-10 days from deposit, usually 2)
2) Use ACH (a virtual check) (2-10 days, usually 2)
3) Fedwire which costs $10-$15 to both the sender and receiver (15 minutes).
Depends on what you mean by safer. If you are hitting an F-150 you will be safer in a F-150 yourself than a smartcar. If you are a pedestrian you would rather be hit by a smartcar.
Many of these Chinese vehicles have the safety features of a 1950's era vehicle, so without airbags, good construction techniques for absorbing force, etc. I imagine they would all get horrible safety ratings by Consumer Reports.
The court can find the company (Google) liable, or direct the Jury to consider any hidden evidence would be adverse to Google. If Google loses a (civil) antitrust case to 38 attorney generals it will cost them 100's of billions.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37
(A) For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent—or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)—fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They may include the following:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims;
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or
(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
Definitions are hard. They are pulling them out of banks and investing them in mutual funds which hold T-Bills or maybe commercial paper. Money Market Mutual Funds MMMF and Bank Mutual Funds (a savings account with checks) are different things.