In February 2015, a federal judge in California dismissed an antitrust lawsuit against Google that alleged the tech giant violated the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and California’s Cartwright Act. The lawsuit claimed that Google’s Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADAs) unfairly required Android device manufacturers like Samsung, HTC, and LG Electronics to make Google the default search engine on their devices. The plaintiffs argued this practice restricted competition and harmed consumer choice.
However, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient antitrust injury under federal or state law. The court found no concrete evidence that Google’s MADAs prevented consumers from choosing alternative search engines or that competitors were hindered from innovating. The judge also noted that the plaintiffs’ claims about hypothetical losses in consumer choice and innovation were too speculative. Additionally, the court found no clear connection between the alleged anticompetitive agreements and harm to competition in the relevant markets of handheld and general internet search.
While the judge dismissed the federal claims, she allowed the plaintiffs to amend their state law claims to include a California-based plaintiff, as the original plaintiffs were from Iowa and Kentucky.
Separately, Google recently saw another legal victory when the state of Ohio terminated its antitrust investigation into the company’s business practices. Ohio’s decision follows similar closures by Texas and the FTC, which had previously found insufficient evidence of search result manipulation by Google. Mississippi remains the only U.S. state with an active antitrust inquiry.
Despite these U.S. legal wins, Google continues to face antitrust investigations internationally, including in Europe, Canada, South America, and Asia.
To read the full analyses with Beatrice Martinet’s contributions, click here.
