Something Extra Publishing, Inc. v. Google, LLC et al

On October 26, 2021, Something Extra Publishing, Inc. (hereinafter “Something Extra” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Tiffany Ray of Taylor Martino, P.C. filed an antitrust lawsuit against GOOGLE LLC (“Google”) and Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) (collectively “Defendants”) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief along with treble and punitive damages for alleged violations of Antitrust laws by Defendants. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Alabama with Judges William H. Steele and Katherine P. Nelson presiding.

In its complaint, Plaintiff alleged that “Plaintiff and other newspapers across the country compete for revenue in the digital advertising market. Google monopolizes the market to such extent that it threatens the extinction of local newspapers across the country. There is no longer a competitive market in which newspapers can fairly compete for online advertising revenue. Google has vertically integrated itself, through hundreds of mergers and acquisitions, to enable dominion over all sellers, buyers, and middlemen in the marketplace. It has absorbed the market internally and consumed most of the revenue. Google’s unlawful anticompetitive conduct is directly stripping newspapers across the country, including Plaintiff, of their primary revenue source.”

Plaintiff further alleged that “Google and Facebook, archrivals in the digital advertising market, conspired to further their worldwide dominance of the digital advertising market in a secret agreement codenamed “Jedi Blue.” The two archrivals, who are sometimes referenced as operating a duopoly in the market, unlawfully conspired to manipulate online auctions which generate digital advertising revenue. Facebook and Google agreed to avoid competing with another in September 2018. The quid pro quo was as follows—Facebook would largely forego its foray into header bidding and would instead bid through Google’s ad server. In exchange, Google agreed to give Facebook preferential treatment in its auctions.”

Plaintiff also alleged that “There is a direct causal connection between these antitrust violations and the harm to Plaintiff. The harm was intentional and intended. The harm is of a type that Congress sought to redress in providing a private remedy for violations of the antitrust laws. The loss of revenue streams can be directly tied to the antitrust conduct of Defendants. Plaintiff is a direct victim of the alleged antitrust injury as a competitor in the digital advertising market. Damages can be quantified and apportioned among those directly and indirectly harmed.”

Plaintiff has laid down three claims for relief. The first claim is for Section 2 of the Sherman Act: 15 U.S.C. § 2 Google’s monopolization of the digital advertising market. The second claim is for Section 1 of the Sherman Act: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Google and Facebook conspired in restraint of trade. The last claim is that Google has been unjustly enriched. 

In its prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court to declare that the conduct of Defendants was in violation of Antitrust laws as alleged; award Plaintiff damages, treble damages, punitive damages, and/or restitution; permanently enjoin Defendants from continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct alleged herein together with pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs of litigation. 

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.