What does Attorney Match actually do?

You describe your legal situation and pay a one-time $10 fee. The software classifies your matter, ranks the attorneys we have whose public profiles fit your case and your state, and writes a personalized outreach letter for each one that you can edit and send. The number of matches varies by state and practice area. It is a directory and matching tool — it helps you find an attorney, it does not replace one.

Is this legal advice?

No. Attorney Match is not a law firm, not a lawyer-referral service, and not a substitute for a licensed attorney. Nothing on this site or in your results is legal advice, and using the Service does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Anyone trying to find the right attorney for a specific situation — individuals, families, and small businesses who want a qualified, jurisdiction-matched shortlist instead of guessing through search results.

What does it cost, and is there a subscription?

It is a one-time $10 fee for an initial case, $5 for a re-run on an existing account, and free filtering of results you already paid for. There is no recurring billing, ever.

Where do the attorney listings come from?

The directory is built from public court records (including the Free Law Project / CourtListener) and public legal-services directories, plus attorneys who claim and enrich their own listing. Attorneys never pay to rank.

Will you contact attorneys for me or sell my information?

No. We draft outreach letters for you to send. We never blast your matter to anyone and we do not sell your information. Your case description and uploads are encrypted at rest.

How is this different from a referral service?

A referral service is paid by attorneys to send them leads. Attorney Match takes no money from attorneys and never sends them your case — it ranks public profiles by fit and hands you the shortlist and draft letters to act on yourself.

Case tracker · Big Tech antitrust

FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (antitrust)

Big Tech antitrust

Ruling issued

Ruling Nov 18, 2025

AI system / company: Meta/Instagram/WhatsApp
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Court / regulator: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judge James E. Boasberg)
Status: Ruling issued

What happened

The FTC sued Meta in December 2020 alleging it illegally maintained a monopoly in personal social networking by acquiring Instagram (2012) and WhatsApp (2014). After a six-week bench trial, in November 2025 the court ruled for Meta, finding the FTC failed to prove Meta currently holds monopoly power given competition from TikTok and YouTube; the FTC filed a notice of appeal in January 2026.

About big tech antitrust cases

Government and private suits alleging illegal monopolization of search, ad-tech, app distribution, or social networking.

Sources

Attorneys who handle big tech antitrust cases

Anand Kumar Chavakula
Maryland
Civil rights
Consumer protection / unfair practices
Draft intro email
Opens your email app with a ready-to-edit draft. Replace the bracketed prompts with your details before sending. Free — no account needed.
Benjamin Edwin Calpino
Florida
Civil rights
Consumer protection / unfair practices
Draft intro email
Opens your email app with a ready-to-edit draft. Replace the bracketed prompts with your details before sending. Free — no account needed.
Laurel LaMontagne
District of Columbia
Civil rights
Consumer protection / unfair practices
Draft intro email
Opens your email app with a ready-to-edit draft. Replace the bracketed prompts with your details before sending. Free — no account needed.
Ross Q. Panko
District of Columbia
Civil rights
Consumer protection / unfair practices
Draft intro email
Opens your email app with a ready-to-edit draft. Replace the bracketed prompts with your details before sending. Free — no account needed.
Peter Andrew Koziol
Florida
Civil rights
Consumer protection / unfair practices
Draft intro email
Opens your email app with a ready-to-edit draft. Replace the bracketed prompts with your details before sending. Free — no account needed.
Timothy B. Hyland
Virginia
Civil rights
Consumer protection / unfair practices
Draft intro email
Opens your email app with a ready-to-edit draft. Replace the bracketed prompts with your details before sending. Free — no account needed.

More big tech antitrust cases →

Related cases

United States v. Google LLC (ad-tech antitrust) (Ruling issued)
United States v. Google LLC (search antitrust) (Ruling issued)
Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC (Ruling issued)

Informational summary compiled from the cited public sources. Not legal advice, not a complete case record, and not affiliated with any party. Attorney Match does not receive referral fees. Verify current status with primary sources before relying on this entry.