United States v. Google/Procedural History
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 in all proposed markets. Id. ¶¶ 144–167. Plaintiff States similarly sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. ¶ 233.
On January 7, 2021, upon Plaintiff States’ motion, the court consolidated the two cases for pretrial purposes, including discovery. Order, Colorado v. Google Docket, ECF No. 67. The court subsequently consolidated the cases for trial as well. See Status Conf. Tr., ECF No. 609, at 10–14. The parties also jointly asked to bifurcate the liability and remedies phases, and the court agreed to do so. See Order, ECF No. 264.
Discovery closed on February 23, 2023. Soon after, U.S. Plaintiffs moved for sanctions under Rule 37(e) for Google’s failure to preserve relevant chat messages among its employees. Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions, ECF No. 512. The court deferred ruling on the motion pending the presentation of evidence relevant to that issue at trial. Order, ECF No. 610, at 2.
Google also moved for summary judgment in both cases. See ECF Nos. 451, 452. The court granted in part and denied in part Google’s motions. It entered judgment for Google as to U.S. Plaintiffs’ claims related to Android Compatibility Commitments and Anti-Fragmentation Agreements, Google’s voice-activated assistant and other “Internet-of-Things” devices, and the Android Open-Source Project. See United States v. Google LLC, 687 F. Supp. 3d 48, 78–84, 85–87 (D.D.C. 2023). It also entered judgment in favor of Google on Plaintiff States’ theory that Google’s targeting of SVPs caused anticompetitive effects in the proposed markets. Id. at 78–83. The court permitted the remaining claims to proceed to trial.
Trial commenced on September 12, 2023. Both sides presented exhaustive evidence in support of their various claims and defenses. Dozens of witnesses, including numerous Google employees, third-party witnesses, and several experts, testified live and were subject to lengthy cross-examination. The parties entered thousands of exhibits and designated certain deposition testimony into the trial record. Trial concluded just over nine weeks later on November 16, 2023.
Following trial, each group of Plaintiffs and Google filed separate post-trial briefs, as well as affirmative and responsive proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Those submissions ran into the thousands of pages. Finally, the court held two days of closing arguments on May 2 and 3, 2024.