This case was last updated from PACER on 04/24/2021 at 07:57:08 (UTC).

Ratliff v. Google LLC et al

Case Summary

On February 23, 2021, Christopher Bryan Ratliff, II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Plaintiff”), represented by John W. Barrett of Bailey Glasser, LLP and Katherine Barrett Riley of Barrett Law Group, PA, filed a class action lawsuit against Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. represented by Chelsea C. Lewis, Daniel J. Mulholland and Fred Krutz, III of Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, (collectively, “Google” or “Defendants”), seeking injunctive relief, 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 asserted 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 its complaint, Plaintiff alleged that “Google solidified market dominance of Android OS through a series of contracts with distributors designed to minimize competition. Google requires OEMs such as LG, Motorola, and Samsung to enter “anti-forking agreements.” These agreements specifically forbid OEMs from developing or distributing versions of Android that do not comply with onerous Google-controlled technical standards. The signatories may not distribute devices with Android forks, or use their powerful brands to market forks on behalf of third parties. As a result of Google’s anticompetitive practices, Android OS represents over 95 percent of licensable mobile operating systems for smartphones and tablets in the United States.”

 

Plaintiff further alleged that “Similarly, Google uses its Developer Distribution Agreement (“DDA”) to contractually restrict competition in the Android Mobile App Market. Amongst other terms, the DDA mandated that developers comply with Google’s Developer Program Policies, including using Google’s proprietary in-app billing for in-app game payments, as well as certain other digital in-app purchases. The DDA also requires that developers “may not use Google Play to distribute or make available any Product that has a purpose that facilitates the distribution of software applications and games for use on Android devices outside of Google Play.” Google has the right to remove any Android app it believes has violated any portion of the DDA.”

 

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 the  second claim is for 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, that the conduct of Defendants be adjudged 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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    3:21-CV-01284

  • Filing Date:

    02/23/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Antitrust

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

James Donato

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Christopher Bryan Ratliff, II

Defendants

Alphabet Inc.

Google LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

John W. Barrett

Attorney at Bailey Glasser, LLP

209 Capitol Street

Charleston, WV 25301

Katherine Barrett Riley

Attorney at BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA - Lexington

P. O. Box 927, 404 Court Square

Lexington, MS 39095

Defendant Attorneys

Daniel J. Mulholland

Attorney at FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ, LLP - Jackson

P.O. Box 22608, 210 E. Capitol St., Suite 2200 (39201-2375)

Jackson, MS 39225-2608

Fred Krutz, III

Attorney at FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ, LLP - Jackson

P.O. Box 22608, 210 E. Capitol St., Suite 2200 (39201-2375)

Jackson, MS 39225-2608

Chelsea C. Lewis

Attorney at FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ, LLP - Jackson

P.O. Box 22608, 210 E. Capitol St., Suite 2200 (39201-2375)

Jackson, MS 39225-2608

 

Court Documents

#1

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

11 #1

*Restricted*

3 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketMEMBER CASE OPENED MDL 2981: Southern District of Mississippi (Northern (Jackson)), 3:20-cv-00833-DPJ-FKB, Ratliff v. Google LLC et al, Opened in California Northern District as 3:21-cv-01284-JD pursuant to Conditional Transfer Order 1 cc: JPMDL (elyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2021) (Entered: 02/23/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#11) Case transferred in from District of Mississippi Southern; Case Number 3:20-cv-00833. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. (Entered: 02/23/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#10) CERTIFIED COPY OF CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER: transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (PG) (Entered: 02/18/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) COPY OF CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER: Transferring case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (PG) (Entered: 02/17/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketTEXT-ONLY ORDER granting #6 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants' deadline to serve responses to the Complaint #1 will be held in abeyance until the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issues an Order regarding the centralization of similar claims. At such time as that Order issues, Defendants will then have 21 days to serve responses. Defendants will be responsible for notifying all parties when such an Order has issued from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, and if an Order has not issued by 2/18/2021, Defendants shall so notify this Court via electronic mail. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 1/22/2021. (dcw) (Entered: 01/22/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket***ERROR***DISREGARD***ERROR***TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting #6 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Alphabet Inc. answer due 2/18/2021; Google LLC answer due 2/18/2021. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 1/22/2021. (dcw) Modified on 1/22/2021 (dcw). (Entered: 01/22/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) NOTICE of Appearance by Chelsea C. Lewis on behalf of Alphabet Inc., Google LLC (Lewis, Chelsea) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel J. Mulholland on behalf of Alphabet Inc., Google LLC (Mulholland, Daniel) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint by Alphabet Inc., Google LLC (Krutz, Fred) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) NOTICE of Appearance by John W. Barrett on behalf of Christopher Bryan Ratliff, II (Barrett, John) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) SUMMONS Returned Executed by Christopher Bryan Ratliff, II. (Riley, Katherine) (Entered: 12/30/2020)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDOCKET ANNOTATION as to #3 : A return on summons should not be filed without the first page, as issued, preceding the return. Attorney is directed to refile. (cwl) (Entered: 12/30/2020)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) ***ERROR***DISREGARD THIS ENTRY. SUMMONS Returned Executed by Christopher Bryan Ratliff, II. Alphabet Inc. served on 12/30/2020, answer due 1/20/2021; Google LLC served on 12/30/2020, answer due 1/20/2021. (Riley, Katherine) Modified on 12/30/2020 (cwl). (Entered: 12/30/2020)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Summons Issued as to Alphabet Inc., Google LLC. (PG) (Entered: 12/30/2020)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Alphabet Inc., Google LLC ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0538-4448106), filed by Christopher Bryan Ratliff, II. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(PG) (Entered: 12/30/2020)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Google LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Alphabet, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Katherine Barrett Riley

Latest cases represented by Lawyer John W. Barrett