Google LLC v. Epic Games, Inc.

(1) Whether under the Rule of Reason, a three-step, burden-shifting framework, an antitrust plaintiff is required to prove that less restrictive alternatives could accomplish the procompetitive benefits of the challenged conduct or whether there is no such requirement; (2) whether a court may impose a duty on an antitrust defendant to deal directly with its competitors without first determining that such court-mandated dealings will remedy the consequences of conduct found to violate the antitrust laws; and (3) whether the court must assess a private plaintiff’s Article III standing with respect to each proposed remedy before awarding injunctive relief.