Court dismisses class action lawsuit brought by Google users that Google and Apple's search agreement violates antitrust laws
Google pays Apple approximately 3 trillion yen annually to maintain its position as the default search engine for iPhones, iPads, and Macs. In response, some users complained that the search agreement between Google and Apple violated antitrust laws, but the California Federal District Court dismissed the complaint.
Arcell v Google Order on Motion to Dismiss 2-5-2024 | PDF | Complaint | Sherman Antitrust Act
Judge rules against users suing Google and Apple over “annoying” search results | Ars Technica
Judge dismisses Apple & Google antitrust class-action case
https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/02/07/judge-dismisses-class-action-antitrust-case-accusing-apple-google-of-collusion
In a trial that began in September 2023 on whether Google illegally monopolizes the search engine market, it was revealed that Google had invested 4 trillion yen in order to become the default search engine on all platforms. In addition, it has been revealed that most of it is spent setting the default search engine to Google in Apple's standard browser ``Safari''.
Apple receives 3 trillion yen annually from Google as ``payment for adopting Google search'' - GIGAZINE
In response, the plaintiffs' group, made up of 26 users, said, ``Google entered into a deal to make Safari's search engine default to Google in order to prevent Apple from competing in the general search market.'' (PDF file) Claim . 'Google's payments to Apple stifled innovation and deprived users of the quality, service, and privacy they would have enjoyed but for Google's anticompetitive conduct.'
In addition, the plaintiffs say, ``Google has created a world in which users have fewer choices and can display ads of Google's choosing, resulting in annoying and harmful distortions of search results.'' executives concluded the default search agreement through secret meetings.''
However, on February 5, 2024 local time, Judge Rita Lin of the United States District Court for the District of California dismissed this motion. According to Judge Lin, the plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to support their claims.
The defendants, Google and Apple, said, ``The agreements between Google and Apple, including how to set prices for using Google's free search engine and refraining from building their own search engine, limit innovation and privacy practices in the industry.'' The plaintiff has not disclosed how the price was lowered or what kind of damage was caused to the plaintiff.'
In response to the claim that the contract was concluded in a secret meeting between Google and Apple, Judge Lin said, ``These meetings were not an illegal conspiracy, but may just be part of a rational and legitimate business.'' There is,” he pointed out.
On the other hand, Judge Lin responded to the plaintiffs' argument that ``Google's exclusive contract under which Apple set Google as the default search engine in Safari eliminated competition in the general search service market in the United States.'' It was determined that the claim was insufficient, and a 30-day correction period was set. If plaintiffs wish to pursue further, they must amend this claim within 30 days.
For the plaintiffs to succeed, they must show clear evidence that past transactions between Google and Apple have hindered the development of competition. The plaintiff's lawsuit does not provide sufficient evidence that the agreement between Google and Apple has inhibited competition in the search service market, and the defendants have criticized it as ``a futile attempt to amend the complaint.'' .
The plaintiff's lawyer and a Google spokesperson have declined to comment on this lawsuit.
Related Posts:
in Web Service, Posted by log1r_ut