Google wins dismissal of US consumer lawsuit over mobile search
By Mike Scarcella
Aug 12 (Reuters) -A federal judge in California has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Google of unlawfully dominating web search on smartphones, but said the consumers should get another chance after a Washington, D.C. court separately ruled the tech giant spent billions to create an illegal monopoly.
U.S. District Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco on Friday dismissed the consumers' antitrust lawsuit against Google, finding they had not provided enough factual evidence showing any harm from the Alphabet unit's market dominance.
Lin said the plaintiffs could file an amended lawsuit, citing the D.C. court’s blockbuster Aug. 6 ruling that found Google's exclusive contracts with Apple and other companies helped it create an illegal monopoly over search engines.
“Although these findings were made in another litigation involving different issues, they indicate that plaintiffs may be able to plausibly allege facts about consumer harm from the alleged anticompetitive effects of Google’s default agreements,” Lin wrote in her order.
Google and attorneys for the consumers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The consumers first filed their case in 2022, accusing Google of unlawfully scheming with Apple to make Google the exclusive preloaded default search engine on the iPhone maker’s devices.
Lin dismissed an earlier version of the case based on a lack of facts. In her latest ruling, she again faulted the plaintiffs for making “conclusory” and “speculative” assertions.
“Although plaintiffs add more words to their recitation of potential harms to consumer choice, innovation, and search quality, they do not add the necessary factual allegations,” Lin wrote.
Still, the ruling could give the consumer plaintiffs some hope. Lin’s order pointed several times to aspects of U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta’s decision last week against Google in Washington.
After a weeks-long non-jury trial, Mehta concluded Google’s billions in payments to Apple and other tech companies to be the default search engine violated antitrust law.
Google has denied the allegations in both cases, and it said it would appeal Mehta’s order.
Lin set a Sept. 9 deadline for the consumers to file an amended complaint.
The case is Arcell v. Google LLC, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 22-cv-02499-RFL.
For plaintiffs: Joseph Alioto of Alioto Law Firm, and Lawrence Papale of Law Office of Lawrence Papale
For Google: John Schmidtlein and Carol Pruski of Williams & Connolly
Read more:
In landmark Google ruling, a warning to companies about preserving evidence
Google monopoly ruling could help Apple defense in antitrust case
Google has an illegal monopoly on search, US judge finds
Reporting by Mike Scarcella
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
