Court partially denies Google's motion to dismiss in search engine monopoly case
Northern California court allows consumer lawsuit over Google's search engine default contracts to proceed despite dismissing some claims.
In a significant legal development on January 16, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially denied Google's motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging its search engine dominance. The ruling, issued by Judge Rita F. Lin, allows key antitrust claims to proceed while dismissing others.
According to court documents, twenty-six consumers filed the lawsuit against Google LLC, alleging the company unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the U.S. general search services market through exclusive default contracts with Apple and other device manufacturers.
The court's decision marks a notable shift from its previous ruling in August 2024. While earlier claims were dismissed, the plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint successfully demonstrated potential antitrust injury based on Google's default contracts allegedly preventing the emergence of privacy-focused and ad-free search alternatives.
Court records indicate that the plaintiffs identified two significant market entrants from the past 15 years - Neeva and DuckDuckGo. According to the filing, Neeva attempted to establish a subscription-based, ad-free search model but was "driven out of the search market" due to insufficient user data resulting from Google's default contracts. Similarly, DuckDuckGo, focusing on privacy protection, "cannot compete effectively because of Google's exclusionary default search agreements," the document states.
The ruling dismissed claims against individual defendants Sundar Pichai and Eric Schmidt, finding insufficient evidence of their direct participation in unlawful conduct. The court maintained claims against XXVI Holdings Inc. and Alphabet Inc., Google's parent companies, rejecting arguments that no specific allegations were made against these entities.
In a significant procedural development, Judge Lin lifted the discovery stay that had been in place, allowing the case to proceed to the evidence-gathering phase. The court determined that the plaintiffs had "stated a valid claim upon which relief can be granted."
The case highlights complex questions about competition in digital markets. The court found that consumers plausibly alleged direct injury from their inability to access high-quality search products with enhanced privacy protections and reduced advertising content.
The legal battle emerges against a backdrop of increased scrutiny of tech industry practices. The court cited findings from a separate case, United States v. Google, which concluded in August 2024, regarding the impact of default contracts on market competition.
Judge Lin's order specifically addressed Google's laches defense, which argued the plaintiffs had waited too long to file their claims. The court found this defense premature at the dismissal stage, noting that such determinations require "a close evaluation of all the particular facts in a case."
The ruling also addressed the question of potential remedies. While maintaining the possibility of divestiture as a remedy, the court deemed it premature to dismiss such options at this stage of the proceedings, despite acknowledging that some proposed remedies might ultimately prove inappropriate.
The case, filed under docket number 22-cv-02499-RFL, represents a significant development in antitrust litigation within the technology sector. The court's decision allows the core monopolization claim to proceed while setting clear boundaries on the scope of potential liability for corporate officers and affiliated entities.
Moving forward, the lifting of the discovery stay signals the beginning of a new phase in the litigation, where plaintiffs will have the opportunity to gather evidence supporting their allegations of anticompetitive conduct in the search engine market.