PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice, joined by 11 States ("U.S. Plaintiffs"), commenced United States v. Google, 20-cv-3010 (APM). See Compl., ECF No. 1. Pursuant to authority conferred by 15 U.S.C. § 4, U.S. Plaintiffs alleged that Google had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully maintaining its monopoly in three product markets by entering into exclusive agreements to secure default distribution on nearly all desktop and mobile devices in the United States. See generally Am. Compl., ECF No. 94. The alleged markets are general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising. Id. ¶¶ 88–107. U.S. Plaintiffs advanced three Section 2 claims, each corresponding to an alleged market. Id. ¶¶ 173–193. They sought a finding of liability, an injunction against the challenged conduct, and structural relief necessary to cure any resulting anticompetitive effects. Id. ¶ 194.
On December 17, 2020, 38 States ("Plaintiff States") joined together to bring State of Colorado v. Google, 20-cv-3715 (APM) [hereinafter Colorado v. Google Docket]. They filed suit pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26, in their sovereign or quasi-sovereign capacities as parens patriae on behalf of the citizens, general welfare, and economy of each of their states. The Colorado complaint adopted the allegations in the U.S. Plaintiffs' complaint but supplemented it in three ways. Compl., Colorado v. Google Docket, ECF No. 3 [hereinafter Colorado Compl.]. First, Plaintiff States alleged a third advertiser-side market for general search advertising but not one, as U.S. Plaintiffs had, for search advertising. Id. ¶¶ 56 n.3, 82–89. Second, they asserted exclusionary conduct by Google that targeted specialized vertical providers, or SVPs. Id. ¶¶ 168–189. Third, Plaintiff States claimed that Google had engaged in further exclusionary conduct by using its proprietary advertising platform, SA360, to harm competition
5
