Black v. Google LLC et al

On February 18, 2021, Nicholas Black, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Plaintiff”), represented by Anthony G. Simon and Paul J. Tahan of The Simon Law Firm, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit against Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. (collectively “Google” or “Defendants”), seeking damages among various other reliefs for alleged anti competitive conduct. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California with Judge James Donato presiding. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Plaintiff asserts to have brought this action both on behalf of himself and as a class action for all persons and entities in the United States that made payment to Google for a mobile app on the Google Play Store, subscription fees for a mobile app obtained on the Google Play Store, or app content from a mobile app downloaded from the Google App Store, from at least as early as January 1, 2016 through the present. 

In the recently filed complaint Plaintiff alleges that “Google maintains a monopoly in the Android Mobile App Market and is able to charge supracompetitive prices for mobile app and in-app purchases. Google uses anticompetitive covenants in Google’s Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (“MADA”), requiring OEMs to license the entire suite of Google applications and services in order to also license the Android OS. Google also requires OEMs to pre-install the Google Play Store on its home page. If OEMs refuse these restrictive terms and conditions, they lose access to the Android OS.”

Plaintiff alleged that “Google has behaved as alleged herein in an attempt to obtain a monopoly in the U.S. market for Android mobile apps and in-app purchases, with the effect being that competition is foreclosed, innovation is stifled, and consumer choice is gravely diminished. Additionally, Google has abused its market power by charging supra-competitive 30 percent commission on sales of paid apps and a 30 percent fee for in-app purchases. Further, Google’s actions have depressed output and stifled innovation and options for consumers as alleged herein.” and further that “As a direct and proximate cause of Google’s conduct, Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered antitrust injury. Plaintiff and the Class members paid significantly higher prices for Android mobile apps and in-app purchases than they would have but for Google’s unlawful conduct. That conduct also deprived Plaintiff and Class members of improved quality and innovation in the relevant markets.”

There are two claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The First claim for relief is for monopolization i.e violation under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. And second claim is Attempted Monopolization i.e violation under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2.

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the court to pass an order to define the class as requested and to certify this as a class action in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, declare that conduct of Defendants is in  violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff further requested the court to award damages which should be trebled in accordance with the antitrust laws, that Defendants, their subsidiaries be permanently enjoined and restrained from continuing and maintaining the combination, conspiracy, or agreement alleged herein and  award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest along with costs of action.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.