In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation

Track this case

Case Number:

3:21-md-02981

Court:

California Northern

Nature of Suit:

Anti-Trust

Multi Party Litigation:

Class Action, Multi-district Litigation

Judge:

James Donato

Firms

Companies

Government Agencies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. October 06, 2023

    Google Says Play Store Case Shouldn't Be All About Chats

    Google urged the California federal judge presiding over a multidistrict antitrust case targeting its Play Store contracts not to instruct jurors about a side dispute over missing chats among employees, saying that would make the case all about the missing messages.

  2. September 07, 2023

    Google Judge Orders Top Execs To Meet Before Antitrust Trial

    A California federal judge on Thursday ordered top decision-makers at Google, Epic Games and Match Group to meet in person to try and reach a settlement in their Play Store antitrust case ahead of a Nov. 6 trial, saying Google's recent deal with states and consumers suggests a "breakthrough opportunity."

  3. September 06, 2023

    Google Nears Deal With Play Store Users, AGs Ahead Of Trial

    Alphabet and Google have reached a tentative settlement with a group of state attorneys general and a proposed consumer class in antitrust litigation claiming Google unlawfully controls the apps offered on Android devices, leaving Epic Games and Match Group to proceed alone against the tech giant in an upcoming trial.

  4. September 01, 2023

    9th Circ. Remands Play Store Order, Likely To Decertify Class

    The Ninth Circuit on Thursday granted Google's request to remand the search giant's appeal of an order certifying 21 million Android users challenging its control of the Play Store after a California federal court order excluded the expert opinion undergirding that certification.

  5. August 30, 2023

    Google Wants 9th Circ. To Remand Android User Class Row

    Google has asked the Ninth Circuit to remand the search giant's appeal of an order certifying 21 million Android users challenging Google's control of the Play Store after a California federal court order excluded the expert opinion undergirding that certification.

  6. August 28, 2023

    Expert's Exclusion Imperils Class Of 21M Android Users

    In an abrupt turnaround that could undo the certification of 21 million Android users challenging Google's control of the Play Store, U.S. District Judge James Donato on Monday excluded key expert analysis that had underpinned the consumers' arguments.

  7. August 15, 2023

    Antitrust Watchers Are About To Have Their Hands Full

    A deluge of trials and key hearings are slated for the coming weeks in antitrust cases spread across the country, including the first expected trials for monopolization claims against Google, trials in a variety of other conduct cases from enforcers and private parties, and hearings on several merger challenges.

  8. August 11, 2023

    Google Rips Bid To Split Epic, Match Fight From Antitrust Trial

    Google has slammed a request by Epic Games, Match Group, state attorneys general and consumers to allow their antitrust case over Google's Play Store to go to trial this November without the tech giant's contract counterclaims against Epic and Match, arguing that holding separate trials would be inefficient and "disjointed."

  9. August 03, 2023

    Google Judge Rejects Multiple Trials As 'Recipe For Disaster'

    A California federal judge refused Thursday to grant Google summary judgment on multiple issues in sprawling antitrust litigation alleging it monopolizes app distribution ahead of a Nov. 6 jury trial, and warned he won't hold multiple trials on identical claims brought by different plaintiffs, saying, "That's a recipe for disaster."

  10. August 01, 2023

    Google Judge Warms To $10.5B Damages Theory In 'Hot Tub'

    A California federal judge questioning economic experts during a courtroom "hot tub" Tuesday in a case claiming Google monopolizes the market for distributing apps on Android devices said the economic theory behind the plaintiffs' $10.5 billion damages calculation appeared "slightly exotic" but also "perfectly reasonable."