Judge dismisses class-action antitrust case accusing Apple & Google of collusion

Posted:
in iOS edited February 7

A class-action lawsuit against Apple and Google suggested the company CEOs met in secret to collude on the suppression of the search market, but it has been dismissed by a Judge in California.

A Google search box showing the phrase 'How to antitrust'
Google and Apple accused of collusion to control search market



Lawsuits against Apple and Google are a dime a dozen, but some leave the court as fast as they arrived. Many assume that there is some secret agreement beyond what is known between Apple and Google, and some believed it enough to take it to court.

According to a court filing seen by AppleInsider, California Judge Rita Lin has dismissed all claims made by the plaintiffs but has left the opportunity for one claim to be amended for reexamination. The plaintiffs have 30 days to submit their second amended complaint.

The first allegation suggested Apple and Google entered into a secret agreement where Apple would not compete in the search business in exchange for profit sharing from Google. This claim was dismissed without leave to amend.

The second allegation claims Apple and Google's exclusive default search engine agreement eliminated the opportunity for competition to emerge. The plaintiffs didn't provide enough evidence and were allowed to amend their claim, but it was dismissed until then.

The plaintiffs couldn't demonstrate antitrust or injury from the alleged behavior. The judge dismissed these claims without leave to amend them and also dismissed the plaintiff's request for recovery.

If the judge doesn't find the resubmitted complaints sufficient, the case will be dismissed with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs won't be able to pursue these claims again. Meanwhile, the DOJ antitrust probe is still underway with no end in sight.

Arcell v Google Order on Motion to Dismiss 2-5-2024 by Mike Wuerthele on Scribd



Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 3
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,229member
    Are you trying to tell me that I can’t just make “stuff” up about someone or some entity without any evidence or proof of harm and file a nuisance lawsuit hoping for a payout??

    This is bad news for my forthcoming case claiming Tim Cook is an alien from the planet Gallifrey and in possession of at least one illegal TARDIS, which he uses to spy on rival companies in order to make better products than they do. It’s an obvious and logical conclusion, your honour!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 3
    chasm said:
    Are you trying to tell me that I can’t just make “stuff” up about someone or some entity without any evidence or proof of harm and file a nuisance lawsuit hoping for a payout??

    This is bad news for my forthcoming case claiming Tim Cook is an alien from the planet Gallifrey and in possession of at least one illegal TARDIS, which he uses to spy on rival companies in order to make better products than they do. It’s an obvious and logical conclusion, your honour!

    I thought I was the only one who knew that!  I had a dream one night where Tim came to my house and threatened me with a nuggie if I ever told anyone about this!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 3
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    chasm said:
    Are you trying to tell me that I can’t just make “stuff” up about someone or some entity without any evidence or proof of harm and file a nuisance lawsuit hoping for a payout??

    This is bad news for my forthcoming case claiming Tim Cook is an alien from the planet Gallifrey and in possession of at least one illegal TARDIS, which he uses to spy on rival companies in order to make better products than they do. It’s an obvious and logical conclusion, your honour!

    And in a nutshell, you managed to describe the EU DMA, their  BS "Gatekeeper" status and the possibility of a 10% of global revenue fine.   :)
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.