Plaintiffs drop class-action suit claiming Google Android monopoly

Posted:
in General Discussion edited April 2015
Plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against Google voluntarily dropped allegations that the company illegally created an Internet and mobile search monopoly through Android terms of use agreements.




Law firm Hagens Berman filed notice with the Northern California District Court on Friday, announcing plaintiffs have withdrawn their antitrust suit against Google without prejudice.

The original complaint dates back to May 2014, when two Android device owners sued Google over claims that its "secret" Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADA) restrictions artificially inflated smartphone costs by stifling competition. These distribution agreements were highly confidential and meant only to be viewed by attorneys.

Further, MADA terms impeded growth in the U.S. search industry by snuffing out competing technologies, plaintiffs argued. Google allegedly forced manufacturers to bundle built-in Android apps like YouTube and GooglePlay under strict "all-or-nothing" conditions.

The suit sought injunctive relief and damages under violation of both federal and state antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Law.

In February, however, Google successfully mounted arguments to dismiss an amended version of the complaint, a move that likely led to today's voluntary withdrawal. An order handed down by Judge Beth Labson Freeman at the time agreed with Google's assertion the plaintiffs' claims were deficient on multiple counts, including a distinct lack of evidence supporting the theory that MADAs restricted consumer choice and hindered innovation.

"For one, accepting Plaintiffs' argument would permit any consumer of Internet search to have standing to sue for injunctive relief, as the proposed class of Android OS device consumers is no different from the Apple device user or the computer search user when it comes to innovation and choice in the market for Internet search products," Judge Freeman wrote, adding later in her decision, "Defendant uses the MADAs to capitalize on the preference of consumers (like Plaintiffs) for the status quo, but this does not victimize them or restrict their ability to 'mak[e] free choices between market alternatives.'"

After Google's motion to dismiss was granted, plaintiffs were left to rework claims under narrow constraints addressing only the Sherman Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. Today was the prescribed due date to file a second amended complaint.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    "restrictions artificially inflated smartphone costs by stifling competition"

    Android phones cost [B]money?[/B] I thought they were given away! And that was why no one made any profit on them!
  • Reply 2 of 10
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    Hopefully the lawyers got nothing for all their efforts.
  • Reply 3 of 10
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,154member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post



    Hopefully the lawyers got nothing for all their efforts.



    Just as important, the plaintiffs received zilch!

  • Reply 4 of 10
    Haven't these plaintiffs heard? Only Apple needs competition. Google does not.
  • Reply 5 of 10
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,153member
    Haven't these plaintiffs heard? Only Apple needs competition. Google does not.

    Just be patient. . The EU will make sure they have competition even if it's artificially done to prop up Microsoft.
  • Reply 6 of 10
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member

    I remember when Apple was sued for having a monopoly on Macs. The claim was that because the Mac was a market unto itself and Apple would not allow legal clones, therefore they were a Mac monopoly that should be broken up. Stupidity knows no bounds.

     

    We read about lawsuits filed against Apple all the time. The tech media runs with it, the trolls attack, the tongues wag. Years later we often hear the lawsuit was dismissed or that Apple prevailed. That gets no press whatsoever. It’s a oneway street. 

  • Reply 7 of 10
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    Idiots. The lawyers should pay all legal fees associated with this sham.
  • Reply 8 of 10
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,153member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Just be patient. . The EU will make sure they have competition even if it's artificially done to prop up Microsoft.
    AAAND it will probably come down tomorrow with the EU claiming Google has an unfair advantage and filing an official antitrust complaint. . Microsoft is hosting an after-party to celebrate the announcement.
  • Reply 9 of 10
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,153member
    Surprisingly the EU's main objection with Google Search is Google Shopping results. The way other search results are otherwise displayed isn't an issue apparently. I can't really tell what the Android objections might be since the largest Android licensee is pre-loading competitive products from Microsoft in addition to Google products.

    http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/15/google-shopping-so-android-probe/
  • Reply 10 of 10
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Surprisingly the EU's main objection with Google Search is Google Shopping results. The way other search results are otherwise displayed isn't an issue apparently. I can't really tell what the Android objections might be since the largest Android licensee is pre-loading competitive products from Microsoft in addition to Google products.

    http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/15/google-shopping-so-android-probe/
    The EU may have traction with regards to Google favouring their own results in search requests but the Android bit, I think is a classic case of the market being faster than legislators.
Sign In or Register to comment.