Reading the linked judgement seems to imply there was more nuance. It seems 1800 contacts actively colluded with competitors to not cross bid on common terms, n

Reading the linked judgement seems to imply there was more nuance. It seems 1800 contacts actively colluded with competitors to not cross bid on common terms, negative terms, etc. It would be interesting if this was only about “exact phrase” matches and trademarks, but it seems a bit more complicated than that at an initial scan. Please correct me if I misinterpreted the findings though.