Jeffrey M. Davidson

Jeffrey M. Davidson is a partner at Covington & Burling LLP and represents some of the world’s largest companies. He has been involved in high-profile cases that have shaped the application of antitrust law.

He currently leads the defense of SK, a major Korean conglomerate, in an antitrust enforcement action relating to gasoline trading initiated by the California Attorney General’s office. California v. Vitol Inc., SK Energy Americas, Inc., et al., CGC-20-584456 (S.F. Sup. Ct., filed May 11, 2020).

This case, which was personally announced by then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra, has seen considerable success for the defendants and recently settled.

The progress of this case is closely watched, as it is one of the first major litigated cases by the California attorney general based on an independent investigation.

“The vigorous defense mounted in that case will have an important impact on how the AG and defendants approach the investigation, litigation and resolution of similar matters,” Davidson said.

Litigating against government enforcers can pose a major challenge in high-stakes litigation, he noted. These cases demand a fact-based and legally sound defense while also requiring a readiness to challenge enforcer overreach when necessary.

Becerra’s filing led to a related class action being filed in the Northern District. In re: California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation, 3:20-cv-03131 (N.D. Ca., filed May 6, 2020).

Additionally, Davidson is serving as co-counsel for Amazon in an antitrust litigation also brought by the California AG, which challenges Amazon’s retail pricing practices.

He also successfully represented Samsung in a pivotal case on the foreign application of U.S. antitrust law. The case helped clarify the reach of U.S. antitrust law in international contexts. Davidson’s efforts led to the elimination of a $3.5 billion claim against Samsung shortly before trial.

“The Motorola v. AU Optronics case is one of the foundational cases relating to the extraterritorial reach of U.S. antitrust law, establishing that U.S. antitrust law does not reach transactions in which products are purchased, manufactured, and delivered overseas,” Davidson said. “The case was critical to establishing that U.S. law does not govern the entirety of the global supply chain.”

Davidson also highlighted the evolving landscape of antitrust law. “The entire field is watching the cases brought against large technology firms like Google,” he said. “Those cases are seeking to apply antitrust law to cutting-edge industries and enforcers are seeking to significantly change the economy and the field of law.”