omitted). “This test asks whether a hypothetical monopolist who has control over a set of substitutable products could profitably raise prices on those products. If so, the products may comprise the relevant product market.” Id. None of Plaintiffs’ economics experts performed a quantitative hypothetical monopolist test. That is entirely understandable for the proposed general search services market because search is a zero-priced good to the end user. The absence of a price is a feature of the user-side market. See Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th 946, 978 (9th Cir. 2023) (observing that “there may be markets where companies offer a product to one side of the market for free but profit in other ways, such as by collecting consumer data or generating ad revenue”).
Pricing, however, is central to the advertiser-side markets. Yet none of Plaintiffs’ experts performed a hypothetical monopolist test. The court found this surprising, but its absence is not fatal. There is no legal requirement that a plaintiff supply quantitative proof to define a relevant market. See McWane, Inc. v. FTC, 783 F.3d 814, 829–30 (11th Cir. 2015). Authorities cited by Google do not establish otherwise. See GTB at 21. For instance, Google accurately quotes an Eleventh Circuit decision, stating that “the broader economic significance of a submarket must be supported by demonstrable empirical evidence.” Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1338 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting U.S. Anchor Mfg., Inc. v. Rule Indus., Inc., 7 F.3d 986, 998 (11th Cir. 1993)) (internal quotation marks omitted). But the Circuit’s later decision in McWane made clear that this is not a hard-and-fast rule. There, the expert’s opinion “did not involve an econometric analysis, such as a cross-elasticity of demand study.” 783 F.3d at 829. Still, the expert’s reliance on qualitative economic evidence was sufficient to define the market, because “there appears to be no support in the caselaw for [the] claim that such a technical analysis is always required.” Id.
139
