温州皮下出血紫癜怎么治南京那里过敏性紫癜医院好,衢州过敏紫癜有哪些治疗,蚌埠过敏性紫癜的最佳治疗方案,扬州那里医院治疗过敏性紫癜好,蚌埠过敏性紫癜怎么医治,泰州治紫癜医院,泰州好的紫癜医院

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google on Tuesday, alleging the tech company has been abusing its dominance in online search to stifle competition and harm consumers.In the lawsuit filed by the DOJ and attorneys general from 11 conservative-leaning states, officials say Google has accounted for nearly 90% of all search queries in the U.S. and has used anticompetitive tactics to extend its monopolies in search and search advertising.Specifically, the complaint claims Google unlawfully maintained monopolies by doing the following:Entering into exclusivity agreements that forbid preinstallation of any competing search serviceEntering into tying and other arrangements that force preinstallation of its search applications in prime locations on mobile devices and make them undeletable, regardless of consumer preferenceEntering into long-term agreements with Apple that require Google to be the default – and de facto exclusive – general search engine on Apple’s popular Safari browser and other Apple search toolsGenerally using monopoly profits to buy preferential treatment for its search engine on devices, web browsers, and other search access points, creating a continuous and self-reinforcing cycle of monopolizationGoogle has long denied the claims of unfair competition. The company argues that although its businesses are large, they are useful and beneficial to consumers.“Today, millions of Americans rely on the Internet and online platforms for their daily lives. Competition in this industry is vitally important, which is why today’s challenge against Google — the gatekeeper of the Internet — for violating antitrust laws is a monumental case both for the Department of Justice and for the American people,” said Attorney General William Barr. “Since my confirmation, I have prioritized the Department’s review of online market-leading platforms to ensure that our technology industries remain competitive. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of Google’s grip over the internet for millions of American consumers, advertisers, small businesses and entrepreneurs beholden to an unlawful monopolist.”The litigation marks the government’s most significant act to protect competition since its groundbreaking case against Microsoft more than 20 years ago.“As with its historic antitrust actions against AT&T in 1974 and Microsoft in 1998, the Department is again enforcing the Sherman Act to restore the role of competition and open the door to the next wave of innovation—this time in vital digital markets,” said Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen.The suit could be an opening salvo ahead of other major government antitrust actions, given ongoing investigations of major tech companies including Apple, Amazon and Facebook at both the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.The nation’s antitrust laws are in place to regulate the conduct and organization of corporations. They’re generally meant to keep the market free, open and competitive to benefit consumers.The DOJ says these antitrust laws empower the department to bring cases like this one to remedy violations and restore competition, as it has done for over a century in notable cases involving companies like Standard Oil and the AT&T telephone company. 3315

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration's bid to throw out a California immigrant-sanctuary law that limits local police cooperation with federal immigration authorities.The justices' order Monday leaves in place lower court rulings that upheld the law.The administration said the 2017 state immigrant-sanctuary measure conflicts with federal immigration law and makes it harder to deport people who are in the country illegally.California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, released a statement that said in part: "We’re protecting Californians’ right to decide how we do public safety in our state. The Trump Administration does not have the authority to commandeer state resources. We’re heartened by today’s Supreme Court decision."The San Diego County Sheriff's Department sent ABC 10News the following statement:"The Supreme Court decision not to hear a legal challenge to California's sanctuary law does not change or impact the operations of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. Our agency is already in full compliance with SB54.We do not enforce immigration laws. We prioritize community relationships and want all residents to feel safe when reporting crimes or coming forward as a witness to criminal acts."The Sheriff's Department also sent the following documents related to the law:https://www.sdsheriff.net/documents/sb54.pdf [sdsheriff.net]https://www.sdsheriff.net/documents/SDSD%20Values%20Act%20Information%20Page.pdf [sdsheriff.net] 1502

WASHINGTON, D.C. – What police reform proposals will get the endorsement of President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans?While House Democrats have already announced what legislation they are seeking, Republicans in the Senate, as well as the White House, have been more mum.That is expected to change this week.Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) is working with the White House on what ideas the president could support. Scott is the only African American senator in the Republican caucus.White House officials hinted the president would likely provide more guidance on what he supports and what he doesn't when he travels to Dallas, Texas, on Thursday.CNN reported Wednesday that the president is considering an executive order on police reform, which would not require Congress' approval.“We’re still wrestling with America’s original sin,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, referring to slavery, when he spoke with reporters Tuesday.“We try to get better but every now and then it’s perfectly clear we’re a long way from the finish line,” said McConnell. 1065

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A deadline set Tuesday under federal law essentially locks in President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, even though President Donald Trump is still falsely claiming he won reelection.Outlined in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, the safe harbor deadline falls six days before the Electoral College meets to formally cast votes for the president based on the popular vote in each state. This cycle, that vote will take place on Dec. 14.Other than Wisconsin, every state appears to have met the safe harbor deadline, which means Congress has to accept the electoral votes that will be cast next week and sent to the Capitol for counting on Jan. 6.By the end of the day Tuesday, every state is expected to make its election results official, with 306 electoral votes being awarded to Biden and 232 going to Trump. A total of 270 votes are needed to claim the White House.Those votes will elect Biden as the country’s next president.It’s called a safe harbor provision because it’s a kind of insurance policy by which a state can insulate its electoral votes against challenges in Congress by finishing up certification of the results and any state court legal challenges by the deadline. 1205

WELLINGTON, Florida — Imagine going to the hospital to have back surgery, only to wake up and learn one of your major organs was mistakenly removed.That nightmare was a reality for one West Palm Beach, Florida woman at Wellington Regional Medical Center.“It was an ordinary day," described Maureen Pacheco, who was 51 when it happened back in April 2016.Pacheco was suffering from back pains from a car accident and after a lengthy process and diagnosis from her doctors, she was checked into Wellington Regional to have back surgery to help with the pains.“There was no red flags or anything," she said of the day she went into the operating room.But she ended leaving the hospital without one of her healthy kidneys. One of the surgeons, Dr. Ramon Vazquez, mistook it for a cancerous tumor and removed it from her body without her consent.“He just took my life and just dismissed it," said Pacheco.Pacheco recently settled in a lawsuit against her doctors  -- Dr. John Britt and Dr. Jeffrey Kugler -- and Dr. Vazquez.However, a complaint by the Florida Department of Health is still ongoing. Adding to the frustration, Pacheco says Dr. Vazquez wasn't even her doctor -- his job was just to cut her open so her physicians could perform the back surgery.“If he would have looked at the MRIs that were given to him, he would’ve realized it," she said. According to the state's?health department website, Dr. Vazquez has an active medical license. The site shows him practicing at with Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, St. Mary's Medical Center and Good Samaritan Hospital in West Palm Beach, and Bethesda Memorial Hospital in Boynton Beach.“Physicians do get second chances," said Pacheco's attorney, Donald Ward III of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA in West Palm Beach.“It’s unlikely that he would lose his license over something like this. What is most likely is that he would face a fine and possibly be required to do some continuing medical education so that he could learn not to make the same mistake in the future," he added.Ward said Dr. Vazquez would have to pay that fine out of pocket because he didn’t have malpractice insurance.“What is not common is for you to meet that general surgeon the morning of and be told that if something were to happen to you, that general surgeon doesn’t carry any health insurance whatsoever," he said.Dr. Vazquez's attorney, Mike Mittelmark, said his client settled the matter for a nominal amount due to the uncertainty of litigation. He added that in no way did Dr. Vazquez admit liability by agreeing to the settlement.“I wish no ill will against him. Everyone is entitled to their livelihood but you should have consequences when gross mistakes and negligence are made," said Pacheco. “I just wish that he learns a lesson from the consequences."Pacheco said no amount of money will fix the complications she faces for the rest of her life.“It’s always in the back of my mind -- lifelong kidney transplant or dialysis," she said. “Now, I’m always fearful.”Wellington Regional Medical Center issued this statement in response to WPTV's request for comment: 3147