Google This Decision

A decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Judge Mehta) in litigation between Google and the United States and several state Attorneys General alleging violations of the Sherman Act

Before the court are Google’s motions for summary judgment as to all claims in both cases. At this stage, Google is not contesting the markets as Plaintiffs have defined them. Nor does it dispute that it possesses monopoly power in those markets. What Google challenges is the accusation that its alleged conduct has harmed competition in the relevant markets.

After having considered the parties’ briefing and the extensive record, and for the reasons explained below, the court grants Google’s motions in part and denies them in part. With respect to the complaint filed by the United States, and joined by the Attorneys General, the court denies summary judgment as to the claim that Google’s alleged exclusive dealing arrangements violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act. There remain genuine disputes of material fact that warrant a trial.

Google’s motion is granted, however, insofar as the United States’ claims rest on (1) Google’s Android Compatibility Commitments and Anti-Fragmentation Agreements; (2) Google’s agreements relating to Google Assistant and IoT devices; and (3) Google’s management of its Android Open Source Project. Plaintiffs have not offered any opposition as to those three parts of their claims.

As for the Attorneys General’s additional claims, the court grants judgment in favor of Google insofar as those claims rely on Google’s alleged weakening of [Specialized Vertical Providers]. With respect to those allegations, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the requisite anticompetitive effect in the relevant markets to make out a Section 2 prima facie case. However, there remains a genuine dispute of material fact with regard to the anticompetitive effect of Google’s disparate development of SA360’s ad-buying features. Summary judgment is therefore denied as to that part of the Attorneys General’s claims.

(Mike Frisch)