United States et al v. Google LLC Document 161: Notice

Virginia Eastern District Court
Case No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Filed April 27, 2023

NOTICE by Google LLC re [72] MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A New York v. Meta Platforms Slip. op.)(Reilly, Craig)

BackBack to United States et al v. Google LLC

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

Jump to Document 161 or Attachment 1

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
Page 1 PageID#
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No.
1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) submits this notice to advise the Court of the
following recent supplemental authority in support of Google’s pending Motion to Dismiss, ECF
Nos. 72-73: New York v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03589, slip op. (D.C. Cir. Apr. 27,
2023).
This authority is relevant to Google’s argument that its DoubleClick and Admeld
acquisitions should not be considered part of a “‘course of conduct’” alongside later allegedly
anticompetitive acts. Compare Reply Br. at 13, with Meta Platforms, slip op. at 23 n.(rejecting “the States’ argument that the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions . . . are part of a
‘course of conduct’” for the reasons stated by the district court (citing New York v. Facebook
Inc., 549 F. Supp. 3d 6, 44-48 (D.D.C. 2021)). This authority is also relevant to Google’s
argument that its alleged restriction of Google Ads demand to Google’s products should be
analyzed as a refusal to deal. Compare Reply Br. at 16-17, with Meta Platforms, slip op. at (rejecting challenge to a policy restricting competitor access to Facebook’s own platform, noting
that it presented “nothing like” the situation in Lorain Journal) and 32-34 (“The States’ basic
Page 2 PageID#
allegation – that Facebook ‘cut off’ competitors from “access to . . . [Facebook’s] immensely
valuable network,” thus amounts to a ‘claim based upon the defendant’s refusal to cooperate with
its competitor[s].’” (citation omitted)).
This decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Dated: April 27,
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Eric Mahr
Eric Mahr (pro hac vice)
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS
DERINGER US LLP
700 13th Street NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 777-Facsimile: (202) 777-Email: eric.mahr@freshfields.com
Daniel S. Bitton (pro hac vice)
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
55 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA Telephone: (415) 490-Facsimile: (415) 490-dbitton@axinn.com
Bradley Justus (VSB # 80533)
Koren Wong-Ervin (pro hac vice)
1901 L Street NW
Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 912-Facsimile: (202) 912-Email: bjustus@axinn.com
kwongervin@axinn.com
Craig C. Reilly (VSB # 20942)
THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG C. REILLY
209 Madison Street
Alexandria, VA Telephone: (703) 549-Facsimile: (703) 549-Email: Craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com
Counsel for Google LLC
Page 3 PageID#
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 27, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing Notice of
Supplemental Authority with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send
a notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Craig C. Reilly
Craig C. Reilly (VSB # 20942)
209 Madison Street
Alexandria, VA Telephone: (703) 549-Facsimile: (703) 549-Email: Craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?