Google Argues Android Antitrust Class Action is Misguided

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

The company behind one of the most popular smartphone operating systems denied the validity of a Google Android antitrust class action lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs have no case because they weren’t harmed.

In the original complaint, consumers alleged that their smartphones and tablets were less valuable because the Silicon Valley firm required that when phone makers included a suite of apps such as YouTube and Gmail, they also had to set Google Search as the default. By doing so, it engaged in anti-competitive practices by limiting buyers’ options.

Google’s defense team alleged that it had found numerous problems with the claims made by the class action attorneys representing the Android smartphone buyers. For one, they argue that the agreements they have with companies like Samsung are not examples of collusion. For instance, the contract “does not prevent or restrict OEMs from preloading competitors’ apps or devices covered by the [agreement], including rival search engine apps.”

Secondly, the company alleges that there is no violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act because of the adaptability that Android offers. With the Google Play app store and the settings, users can not only download competing search programs but also set them as their default app for such purposes. It “does not prevent a consumer from ultimately determining how to conduct searches on the device.”

Perhaps more importantly, in their motion they argue that the plaintiffs have failed to allege any damages pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act. Even if Google Search is a standard feature on phones that come with the bundle of apps, users do not bear any costs while using it. The tech giant does make money off of searches, but they come from the companies that advertise rather than consumers.

More specifically, “because plaintiffs’ alleged injury (purported overpayment for Android devices) did not occur in the market they claim was foreclosed (free internet search), and their attenuated theory of harm is remote and speculative, plaintiffs fail to establish the threshold showing of antitrust standing. This failure is an independent ground for dismissal,” the company wrote.

The plaintiffs are represented by class action attorneys Jeff D. Friedman, Steve W. Berman, George W. Sampson and Robert F. Lopez of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

The Google Android Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit is Feitelson, et al. v. Google Inc., Case No. 14-cv-02007, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.