United States v. Google LLC (2023)

Last updated

United States v. Google LLC
EDVAdc.png
Court United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Full case nameUnited States, Commonwealth of Virginia, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of New Jersey, State of New York, State of Rhode Island and State of Tennessee v. Google LLC
StartedJanuary 24, 2023
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Leonie M. Brinkema

United States v. Google LLC is an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on January 24, 2023. [1] The suit accuses Google of illegally monopolizing the advertising technology (adtech) market in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The suit is separate from an ongoing DOJ antitrust case launched in 2020 accusing Google of illegally monopolizing the search engine market.

Contents

Filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the suit aims to force Google to sell off significant portions of adtech business and require the company to cease certain business practices. [2] The case is set to go to trial on September 9, 2024. [3]

Background

From left to right: The Google Ad Manager advertising exchange platform, logo for the Google Ads online advertising platform, and the Google Marketing Platform analytics platform GAds Logo.png
From left to right: The Google Ad Manager advertising exchange platform, logo for the Google Ads online advertising platform, and the Google Marketing Platform analytics platform

Beginning in the 2000s, Google gradually increased its presence in the adtech market, with the company acquiring DoubleClick, Invite Media, and AdMeld. [4] The acquisition of DoubleClick received criticism from privacy groups including the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), who petitioned the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to scrutinize the deal. [5] The FTC ultimately approved the $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick in December 2007. [6]

By 2021, Google's adtech division was the company's second largest business behind Google Search, generating approximately $31.7 billion in revenue for the company. [2] Jonathan Kanter, the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, likened Google's dominance in the adtech market to a situation in which Goldman Sachs or Citibank owned the New York Stock Exchange. [7]

During the 117th United States Congress, a bipartisan coalition of U.S. Senators introduced legislation aimed at breaking up Google and other "Big Tech" companies alleged dominance in the market. [8] The legislation, known as the Advertising Middlemen Endangering Rigorous Internet Competition Accountability (AMERICA) Act, was reintroduced in the 118th Congress. [9]

Proceedings

Following the filing of the lawsuit, the DOJ claimed it has documentation that would bolster its case. This includes an alleged statement by a Google advertising executive who took issue with the company "owning the platform, the exchange and a huge network", who compared it to if Goldman Sachs or Citibank owned the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). [2]

Positions of U.S. states on the lawsuit as of April 3, 2023 .mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{} States that filed alongside the DOJ against Google on January 14, 2023 States that joined the lawsuit after January 14, 2023 State positions in U.S. v. Google (2023).svg
Positions of U.S. states on the lawsuit as of April 3, 2023
  States that filed alongside the DOJ against Google on January 14, 2023
  States that joined the lawsuit after January 14, 2023

In what has been described as an unconventional move for a federal antitrust lawsuit, the DOJ has pushed for a jury trial for the case. [10] In March 2023, judge Leonie Brinkema denied Google's request to move the lawsuit from the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to a venue in New York, which is considered a more favorable venue for Google. [11]

In March 2023, Google filed a motion to dismiss the case. [12] On April 28, Google's request for dismissal was denied by Brinkema, who stated that the DOJ's initial complaint sufficiently detailed for the case to proceed. [4] In February 2024, it was announced that the case would begin trial on September 9, 2024. [3]

State partnerships

The lawsuit was filed in conjunction with the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia on January 24, 2023. [1] Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican, stated that Tennessee is proud to be part of this bipartisan effort to hold Google accountable and protect consumers from its harmful ad tech monopoly." [13]

On April 3, 2023, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced that the state would join the lawsuit. [6] On April 18, 2023, nine additional states joined the lawsuit, bringing the total to eighteen: Arizona, Michigan, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Washington, and West Virginia. [14]

Reaction and analysis

Lawmakers from both parties, including Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), spoke positively about the lawsuit. [15] Polling by YouGov in conjunction with The Economist found that Americans approved of the lawsuit by a 41% to 19% margin, with 40% stating they were "not sure". [16]

Google denied the DOJ's allegations, with a company spokesperson accusing the department of trying to unfairly "pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector." [17] The Chamber of Progress, a tech industry trade group whose membership includes Google, argued that the lawsuit is misguided amid a declining advertising market. [18]

Commentators have argued that the basis of the DOJ's case is rooted in a relatively "traditional" interpretation of antitrust law, as opposed to more "novel" theories of anti-competitive harms associated with the New Brandeis movement. [19] The editorial board of the The Washington Post praised the lawsuit as "good, old-fashioned antitrust enforcement" in a February 2023 article. [20]

William Kovacic, a former Republican member of the FTC, has argued that the suit is a serious one that "adds another important complication to Google's efforts to deal with regulators worldwide." [2] Douglas Melamed, who served in the DOJ Antitrust Division during the Clinton Administration, argued that the DOJ "would get a remedy that’s going to shake up the market" if able to prove their claim in court. However, Melamed cautioned observers from assuming that the DOJ would win the case. [21]

Request for jury trial

Commentary surrounding the DOJ's request for a jury trial in the lawsuit has often described the decision as unusually and potentially risky. A January 2023 article in Bloomberg News suggested that the "surprising request" was made due to DOJ concerns about a hostile judicial environment. [10] According to Harry First of the New York University School of Law, the DOJ's effort to "seek damages and demand a jury trial in a monopolization case is unprecedented". [22]

According to The New York Times , the lawsuit is the fifth antitrust suit filed against Google by either the federal government or states attorney general since 2020. [2] The DOJ filed a separate antitrust case in October 2020 accusing Google of unlawfully monopolizing the search market. [23] Google's dominant position in the adtech market has additionally received legal scrutiny in both the European Union and the United Kingdom. [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>United States v. Microsoft Corp.</i> 2001 American antitrust law case

United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34, was a landmark American antitrust law case at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally monopolizing the web browser market for Windows, primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States antitrust law</span> American legal system intended to promote competition among businesses

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of businesses to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

Illumina, Inc. is an American biotechnology company, headquartered in San Diego, California, and it serves more than 155 countries. Incorporated on April 1, 1998, Illumina develops, manufactures, and markets integrated systems for the analysis of genetic variation and biological function. The company provides a line of products and services that serves the sequencing, genotyping and gene expression, and proteomics markets.

<i>Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp.</i> Legal case

Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. The damages award was reversed on appeal in September 2009, and the case was returned for a separate trial on the amount of damages.

Criticism of Google includes concern for tax avoidance, misuse and manipulation of search results, its use of others' intellectual property, concerns that its compilation of data may violate people's privacy and collaboration with the US military on Google Earth to spy on users, censorship of search results and content, and the energy consumption of its servers as well as concerns over traditional business issues such as monopoly, restraint of trade, antitrust, patent infringement, indexing and presenting false information and propaganda in search results, and being an "Ideological Echo Chamber".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">W. Mark Lanier</span> American lawyer

William Mark Lanier is an American trial lawyer and founder and CEO of the Lanier Law Firm. He has led a number of high-profile product litigation suits resulting in billions of dollars in damages, including Johnson & Johnson baby powder and Merck & Co.'s Vioxx drug.

<i>Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.</i> Private antitrust lawsuit

AMD v. Intel was a private antitrust lawsuit, filed in the United States by Advanced Micro Devices ("AMD") against Intel Corporation in June 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vringo</span>

Vringo was a technology company that became involved in the worldwide patent wars. The company won a 2012 intellectual property lawsuit against Google, in which a U.S. District Court ordered Google to pay 1.36 percent of U.S. AdWords sales. Analysts estimated Vringo's judgment against Google to be worth over $1 billion. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the District Court's ruling on appeal in August 2014 in a split 2-1 decision, which Intellectual Asset Magazine called "the most troubling case of 2014." Vringo appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Vringo also pursued worldwide litigation against ZTE Corporation in twelve countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Malaysia, India, Spain, Netherlands, Romania, China, Malaysia, Brazil and the United States. The high profile nature of the intellectual property suits filed by the firm against large corporations known for anti-patent tendencies has led some commentators to refer to the firm as a patent vulture or patent troll.

Daniel M. Petrocelli is a partner at O’Melveny & Myers LLP and the Chair of the firm’s Trial Practice Committee. Petrocelli is known in part for his work in a 1997 wrongful death civil suit against O. J. Simpson, for representing Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, and for his leading role in defeating the US Department of Justice’s attempt to block the merger of AT&T and Time Warner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP</span> Law firm

Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP is a litigation boutique located in San Francisco, California, founded in 1978. The firm's areas of practice include intellectual property, professional liability, class actions, wrongful termination defense, general contract and commercial litigation, antitrust, white collar crime, and appellate.

High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation is a 2010 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action and a 2013 civil class action against several Silicon Valley companies for alleged "no cold call" agreements which restrained the recruitment of high-tech employees.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

<i>Epic Games v. Apple</i> 2020 U.S. lawsuit

Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. was a lawsuit brought by Epic Games against Apple in August 2020 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, related to Apple's practices in the iOS App Store. Epic Games specifically had challenged Apple's restrictions on apps from having other in-app purchasing methods outside of the one offered by the App Store. Epic Games' founder Tim Sweeney had previously challenged the 30% revenue cut that Apple takes on each purchase made in the App Store, and with their game Fortnite, wanted to either bypass Apple or have Apple take less of a cut. Epic implemented changes in Fortnite intentionally on August 13, 2020, to bypass the App Store payment system, prompting Apple to block the game from the App Store and leading to Epic filing its lawsuit. Apple filed a countersuit, asserting Epic purposely breached its terms of contract with Apple to goad it into action, and defended itself from Epic's suit.

<i>Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc.</i> United States ongoing antitrust court case

Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc. is an ongoing antitrust court case brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Facebook parent company Meta Platforms. The lawsuit alleges that Meta has accumulated monopoly power via anti-competitive mergers, with the suit centering on the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

Federated Learning of Cohorts (FLoC) is a type of web tracking. It groups people into "cohorts" based on their browsing history for the purpose of interest-based advertising. FLoC was being developed as a part of Google's Privacy Sandbox initiative, which includes several other advertising-related technologies with bird-themed names. Despite "federated learning" in the name, FLoC does not utilize any federated learning.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jonathan Kanter</span> American lawyer (born 1973)

Jonathan Seth Kanter is an American antitrust attorney who has served as assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division since November 16, 2021. Prior to this, Kanter worked as an antitrust attorney at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and in private practice.

<i>United States v. Google LLC</i> (2020) Antitrust case alleging Google illegally dominates internet search

United States v. Google LLC is an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on October 20, 2020. The suit alleges that Google has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by illegally monopolizing the search engine and search advertising markets, most notably on Android devices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">AMERICA Act</span> U.S. bipartisan antitrust proposal

The Advertising Middlemen Endangering Rigorous Internet Competition Accountability (AMERICA) Act (S.1073) is a proposed bipartisan antitrust bill in the United States Congress. The legislation was introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) in the 118th Congress on March 30, 2023.

<i>United States v. Apple</i> (2024) 2024 American court case

United States, et al. v. Apple is a lawsuit brought against multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. in 2024. The United States Department of Justice alleges that Apple violated antitrust statutes. The lawsuit contrasts the practices of Apple with those of Microsoft in United States v. Microsoft Corp., and alleges that Apple is engaging in similar tactics and committing even more egregious violations. This lawsuit comes in the wake of Epic Games v. Apple and the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act in the European Union.

References

  1. 1 2 "Justice Department Sues Google for Monopolizing Digital Advertising Technologies". United States Department of Justice . January 24, 2023. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 McCabe, David; Grant, Nico (January 24, 2023). "U.S. Accuses Google of Abusing Monopoly in Ad Technology". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved March 31, 2023.
  3. 1 2 Fung, Brian (February 5, 2024). "DOJ antitrust case targeting Google's ad-tech business will go to trial in September, federal judge rules | CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved February 20, 2024.
  4. 1 2 Montoya, Karina (March 9, 2023). "How Three Mergers Buttressed Google's Ad Tech Monopoly, Per DOJ". Tech Policy Press. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
  5. ↑ "Privacy Groups Challenge Google-DoubleClick Deal". CNBC. April 27, 2007. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
  6. 1 2 Bartz, Diane (December 20, 2007). "Google wins antitrust OK to buy DoubleClick". Reuters. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
  7. ↑ Sisco, Josh (January 24, 2023). "Google accused of monopolizing $250B U.S. digital ad market". POLITICO. Retrieved April 5, 2023.
  8. ↑ Fung, Brian (May 19, 2022). "US senators target Big Tech's digital advertising machine with new legislation | CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
  9. ↑ "Bipartisan US lawmakers introduce bill aimed at Google, Facebook ad clout". Reuters. March 30, 2023. Retrieved April 5, 2023.
  10. 1 2 Birnbaum, Emily; Nylen, Leah (January 27, 2023). "Google Faces Rare Jury Trial in DOJ Bet on Public's Tech Unease". Bloomberg. Retrieved April 5, 2023.
  11. ↑ "Judge allows Google antitrust case to move ahead in Virginia". Associated Press. March 10, 2023. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
  12. ↑ Zakrzewski, Cat (March 27, 2023). "Google seeks dismissal of Justice Dept. lawsuit alleging an ad monopoly". Washington Post . Retrieved March 30, 2023.
  13. ↑ "Tennessee Attorney General joins suit against Google". The Daily Times. January 28, 2023. Retrieved April 21, 2023.
  14. ↑ Singh, Kanishka (April 17, 2023). "Nine more US states join federal lawsuit against Google over ad tech". Reuters. Retrieved April 21, 2023.
  15. ↑ Tarinelli, Ryan; Macagnone, Michael (January 24, 2023). "Justice Department sues Google over digital advertising tech". Roll Call. Retrieved April 5, 2023.
  16. ↑ Orth, Taylor (February 7, 2023). "Most Americans see a lack of competition among tech companies as a serious problem | YouGov". YouGov. Retrieved April 21, 2023.
  17. ↑ Kruppa, Miles; Schechner, Sam; Michaels, Dave (January 24, 2023). "DOJ Sues Google, Seeking to Break Up Online Advertising Business". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
  18. ↑ Morrison, Sara (January 24, 2023). "Google's bad year is getting worse". Vox. Retrieved April 4, 2023. "The Chamber of Progress, a Google-funded Big Tech advocacy group, said in a statement that the case was "disconnected from economic reality" and that Google's digital ad market share (estimated to be about 29 percent in 2022, giving it the largest share of any one company) was "at an all-time low."
  19. ↑ Mehra, Salil (March 9, 2023). "The DOJ's AdTech Suit Against Google Is Anything but Unconventional". ProMarket. Retrieved April 5, 2023.
  20. ↑ "Opinion | Why this Google antitrust lawsuit has promise". Washington Post. February 11, 2023. Retrieved April 4, 2023.
  21. ↑ Feiner, Lauren (January 27, 2023). "The DOJ's antitrust case against Google is ambitious but risky". CNBC. Retrieved April 5, 2023.
  22. ↑ First, Harry (February 23, 2023). "Why "The Jury's Out" on the Government's Case Against Google's Ad Tech Monopoly". ProMarket. Retrieved April 5, 2023.
  23. ↑ Feiner, Lauren (October 20, 2020). "Google sued by DOJ in antitrust case over search dominance". CNBC. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  24. ↑ Lomas, Natasha (September 13, 2022). "Google's adtech practices targeted in UK, EU antitrust damages suits". TechCrunch. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.