Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Twenty-two consumers sued Google and related entities, alleging that agreements making Google the default search engine unlawfully maintained monopoly power under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. After discovery, the court required the plaintiffs to show that Google’s conduct caused them a concrete injury.
The consumers relied in part on findings from other government antitrust litigation and sought additional discovery under Rule 56(d).
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the claims for lack of Article III standing because the consumers did not produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Google’s default agreements caused their asserted injuries. Findings in other litigation did not establish injury to these plaintiffs through collateral estoppel or the Clayton Act.
The court also rejected additional discovery because discovery had closed, the required supporting declaration was absent, and the proposed information did not cure the causation problem. Pending summary-judgment motions were denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Antitrust plaintiffs must connect challenged conduct to their own concrete injury.
- Proof of monopoly conduct in another case does not automatically establish Article III standing.
- Rule 56(d) relief requires diligence, a proper declaration, and identified relevant evidence.
- A standing defect deprives the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision is a reminder that merits evidence about market power cannot substitute for plaintiff-specific proof of injury and causation. Businesses defending follow-on antitrust suits should test standing independently of broader government enforcement findings.