Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 1 of 69
`
`Evan R. Chesler (Bar No. N/A)
`echesler@cravath.com
`Keith R. Hummel (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`khummel@cravath.com
`Yonatan Even (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`yeven@cravath.com
`Lauren Rosenberg (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`lrosenberg@cravath.com
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, New York 10019
`Telephone: (212) 474-1000
`Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`UNLOCKD MEDIA, INC.
`LIQUIDATION TRUST, by and
`through its duly appointed trustee,
`Peter S. Kaufman,
`
`21-cv-07250
`Case No. _____________
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`WITH JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC; GOOGLE IRELAND
`LIMITED; GOOGLE COMMERCE
`LIMITED; GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC
`PTE. LIMITED; and ALPHABET
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 2 of 69
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`PARTIES ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE .................................................................................... 9
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT ............................................................................ 10
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ...................................................................................... 10
`
`I.
`
`Background....................................................................................................... 10
`
`A. Digital Advertising and the Importance of Consumer Data ..................... 11
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Direct Advertising, Indirect Advertising, and Ad Intermediation ............ 12
`
`Smartphones and Mobile App Distribution ............................................. 14
`
`II.
`
`The Unlockd Story ............................................................................................ 15
`
`A. Unlockd Invents a New Mobile Advertising and Content Platform
`
`That Benefits Consumers, Advertisers, and Partners ............................... 15
`
`B.
`
`Unlockd Launches Its First Major Commercial Partnerships with
`
`Telecommunications Companies Sprint and Tesco Mobile, with
`
`Google’s Approval .................................................................................. 20
`
`C.
`
`Unlockd Expands Its Business ................................................................ 23
`
`D. Google Confirms Unlockd’s Compliance with Google Policy ................ 25
`
`E.
`
`Unlockd Further Grows Its Business, Increasingly Competes with
`
`Google, and Plans Its IPO ....................................................................... 27
`
`F.
`
`Google Abruptly Backtracks on Its Previous Validation of Unlockd’s
`
`Policy Compliance .................................................................................. 32
`
`G. Unlockd Successfully Appeals Google’s Policy Violation Report .......... 36
`
`H. Unlockd Nears an Initial Public Offering ................................................ 37
`
`I.
`
`Google Reverses Course Again and Wrongfully Eliminates Unlockd
`
`as a Competitor ....................................................................................... 38
`
`J.
`
`Unlockd Is Forced To Shutter Its Business and Enter Insolvency
`
`Proceedings............................................................................................. 43
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 3 of 69
`
`
`
`
`
`K. Having Eliminated Unlockd as a Competitor, Google Invests in and
`
`Partners with Another Company with a Similar Business Model ............ 46
`
`III. Google’s Market Power in the Digital Advertising Market ............................... 48
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Product Market ....................................................................................... 48
`
`Geographic Market ................................................................................. 50
`
`Google’s Dangerous Probability of Achieving Monopoly Power in
`
`the Digital Advertising Market ............................................................... 50
`
`IV. Anticompetitive Conduct .................................................................................. 54
`
`V. Anticompetitive Effects .................................................................................... 55
`
`VI. Antitrust Injury ................................................................................................. 56
`
`VII. Effects on Domestic Commerce ........................................................................ 58
`
`COUNT 1: Sherman Act § 2 ...................................................................................... 62
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF.............................................................................................. 63
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND ........................................................................................... 63
`
`GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... 64
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 4 of 69
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust (“Plaintiff”, and together
`
`with non-parties Unlockd Limited, Unlockd Media, Inc., Unlockd Operations U.S., Inc.,
`
`and their subsidiaries, “Unlockd”), by its undersigned counsel, brings this action against
`
`Defendants Google LLC, Google Ireland Ltd, Google Commerce Ltd, Google Asia
`
`Pacific Pte Ltd, and Alphabet Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” or “Google”) and allege,
`
`with knowledge with respect to their own acts and on information and belief as to other
`
`matters, as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Twenty years ago, Google touted itself as an idealistic startup that
`
`wanted to revolutionize the way people connect with information. In Google’s telling, it
`
`was on a mission to organize the world’s online information to make it universally
`
`accessible and useful to anyone with an internet connection. To generate revenue,
`
`Google would deliver relevant, cost-effective digital advertising that could be targeted
`
`based on individualized consumer data. By leveraging data to connect the right ads with
`
`the right consumers at the right time, Google claimed, it could help advertisers to finely
`
`target their audiences in ways that were not available with traditional media. In
`
`conducting business, Google committed to “make the world a better place” and adopted
`
`“don’t be evil” as its official motto.
`2.
`
`Decades later, Google has become a giant in digital advertising. Last
`
`year, its advertising revenue reached nearly $147 billion, comprising about 80% of the
`
`company’s total revenue. No other company comes close. Google is no longer the
`
`idealistic startup it once claimed to be. It has acquired monopoly power in multiple
`
`digital markets, in areas ranging from online search engines to mobile application
`
`(“app”)1 distribution, and it uses its monopoly power to strengthen its dominance and
`
`exclude its competitors, always keeping in mind its core profit driver: digital
`
`advertising. Google’s history affirms the adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
`
`
`1 A glossary is available at the end of this Complaint.
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 5 of 69
`
`
`
`3.
`
`This particular case is about Google’s abuse of its control over the
`
`Android smartphone ecosystem to drive an upstart competitor in the digital advertising
`
`market—Unlockd—out of business. Google’s plan worked perfectly. By first allowing
`
`Unlockd to build its business in reliance on two crucial Google platforms—Google Play
`
`Store and Google AdMob—and then banning Unlockd from those same platforms once
`
`it got big enough to challenge Google in the digital advertising market, Google
`
`successfully eliminated Unlockd. Unlockd was forced into bankruptcy as a direct result
`
`of Google’s anticompetitive acts.
`4.
`
`Until its bankruptcy, Unlockd was a global technology startup with
`
`an innovative vision. Unlockd identified an untapped “attention opportunity”
`
`immediately following the unlocking of a smartphone, a user’s most engaged moment,
`
`and created a proprietary technology to monetize that opportunity in a way that rewards
`
`users for their attention. Research showed that Android smartphone users unlock their
`
`devices 76 times per day on average, making monetization of the unlock screen an
`
`enormous opportunity. With Unlockd’s technology, users opted in to receive full-screen
`
`mobile ads or content upon unlocking their Android smartphones, and in exchange, they
`
`received virtual “points” that they could redeem for rewards such as mobile credit,
`
`subsidized streaming services, additional loyalty points, or in-app benefits like extra
`
`lives in mobile games. Unlike Google—which keeps its advertising revenue for itself—
`
`Unlockd’s business model included sharing its advertising revenue with its end-users.
`
`Unlockd expected to pay users over $500 million in rewards by 2025.
`5.
`
`By identifying the unique attention opportunity presented when a
`
`phone is being unlocked, and by identifying users who explicitly agreed to accept
`
`advertisements when unlocking their phones, Unlockd was able to offer a valuable
`
`opportunity for advertisers, at the same time that it benefited users. First, advertisers
`
`received first access to consumers at their most engaged moment, leading to significant
`
`improvements in user engagement compared to similar forms of advertising. In effect,
`
`Unlockd had the best real estate in town. Second, Unlockd was able to hyper-target its
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 6 of 69
`
`
`
`advertising based on the large amounts of data voluntarily provided by its users—about
`
`750 million daily data points, including the user’s location each time they unlocked their
`
`phone. This trove of data allowed Unlockd to match the right ads to the right consumers
`
`at the right time. Together, these two features gave Unlockd a major advantage over
`
`existing forms of advertising, such as Google’s search advertising.
`6.
`
`To distribute its apps to users and source advertisements to display,
`
`Unlockd relied on two critical Google services: the Google Play Store and Google
`
`AdMob. Unlockd relied on the Google Play Store, which Google describes as the
`
`“official” Android app store and accounts for over 90% of app downloads through
`
`Android app stores, for app distribution and upgrades. Unlockd distributed all of its
`
`apps to users through the Google Play Store and could not realistically distribute its
`
`apps to users in any other way. Unlockd relied on Google AdMob, which is Google’s
`
`mobile advertising network, to connect Unlockd with advertisers who wanted to buy its
`
`ad space. AdMob is by far the most dominant ad network in the world, especially in the
`
`United States and other predominantly English-speaking countries. Google boasts that
`
`“81% of the Android top 1000 use AdMob” and that “97% of the AdAge 100 world’s
`
`largest advertisers buy ads on AdMob.” Unlockd depended on AdMob to source
`
`advertisements to display to users when they unlock their phones. Although Unlockd
`
`was building its own increasingly competitive advertising business that did not use an
`
`intermediary like AdMob—and intended to eventually build its own ad network that
`
`could replace AdMob—Unlockd had not yet achieved the scale necessary to completely
`
`cut out advertising intermediaries like Google. AdMob sales therefore accounted for
`
`approximately 80% of Unlockd’s revenue.
`7.
`
`In addition to being Google’s customer, Unlockd also competed with
`
`Google in the digital advertising market. Unlockd’s innovative form of first-access,
`
`hyper-targeted advertising—which rewarded users and offered advertisers an impressive
`
`return on investment—was a threat to Google’s own digital advertising business. By
`
`rewarding users and delivering them ads only after they affirmatively opt in to receive
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 7 of 69
`
`
`
`them, Unlockd posed a threat to Google’s unrewarded, opt-out business model. And by
`
`delivering ads to users right as they unlock their phones, Unlockd could reach users at
`
`their most engaged moment, before any other publisher, and therefore could offer
`
`advertisers highly attractive real estate compared to other publishers like Google.
`
`Combined with its powerful hyper-targeting capabilities, Unlockd’s premium real estate
`
`and engaged user base provided exceptional value to advertisers.
`8.
`
`For most of its existence, Unlockd was small enough that Google did
`
`not perceive it as a threat. That changed in the fall of 2017, when rumors started
`
`circulating that Unlockd was planning an initial public offering (“IPO”) on the
`
`Australian Stock Exchange. Soon after the press started reporting on Unlockd’s
`
`upcoming IPO, Google informed Unlockd that Google would be terminating Unlockd’s
`
`apps from the Google Play Store and AdMob due to alleged violations of Google Play
`
`and AdMob policy, even though Google had previously confirmed Unlockd’s
`
`compliance with Google policy. Unlockd explained why its apps were compliant and
`
`benefited all stakeholders, but Google gave Unlockd the run-around, was steadfast in its
`
`position, and refused all attempts to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. Google
`
`then unilaterally banned Unlockd from the Google Play Store and AdMob without just
`
`cause, cutting off these critical channels for Unlockd to distribute its apps to users and
`
`source advertisements to display to users when they unlock their phones.
`9. Without access to these two critical platforms, Unlockd was doomed.
`
`Without the Google Play Store, Unlockd could not realistically distribute its apps to
`
`users or ensure that users have up-to-date versions. Without AdMob, Unlockd stood to
`
`lose its most important revenue source. Thus, rather than complete a successful IPO,
`
`Unlockd’s capital dried up, its partners severed their ties with the company, and the
`
`young company was ultimately forced into insolvency proceedings around the world,
`
`including in the United States.
`10. Although Unlockd immediately suspected anticompetitive motives
`
`on the part of Google, the full import of Google’s anticompetitive conduct was only
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 8 of 69
`
`
`
`recently revealed, after Google made a substantial strategic investment in another
`
`technology startup, “Glance”, that operates in the same manner and in the same ad tech
`
`space that Unlockd did, delivering advertisements and sponsored content to Android
`
`smartphone users before or upon unlocking their devices. Public reporting indicates that
`
`Google is now partnering with Glance to bring this business to the United States, where
`
`they will work with exactly the same types of companies that Unlockd had previously
`
`worked with, underscoring the pretextual nature of Google’s objections to Unlockd’s
`
`technology and business model. By eliminating Unlockd from the scene, Google had
`
`positioned itself to invest in and partner with a company that does nearly the exact same
`
`thing as Unlockd, without Unlockd standing in the way. So much for “don’t be evil.”
`11. Google’s anticompetitive conduct violates federal antitrust law.
`
`Google has a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in the Digital
`
`Advertising Market, as defined herein, and excluded Unlockd from that market with the
`
`specific intent to destroy competition. In banning Unlockd from the Google Play Store
`
`and AdMob, Google unilaterally terminated a voluntary and profitable course of dealing
`
`that had benefited both parties. The only conceivable purpose for that sacrifice of short-
`
`term benefits was to obtain higher profits in the long run by excluding Unlockd as a
`
`competitor in the Digital Advertising Market. Meanwhile, Google has continued to do
`
`business with similarly situated companies that pose a lesser competitive threat.
`
`Unlockd seeks damages for the injuries it suffered at Google’s hand.
`
`PARTIES
`12. Plaintiff Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust (the “Trust”) is a
`
`New York trust established pursuant to the liquidation trust agreement dated August 4,
`
`2021, entered into by and among Peter S. Kaufman and the bankruptcy estates of
`
`Unlockd Media, Inc. (“Unlockd Media”) and Unlockd Operations U.S., Inc. (“Unlockd
`
`Operations”), authorized by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
`
`District of New York’s Order Confirming the Fourth Amended Small Business Debtors’
`
`Combined Plan of Liquidation and Disclosure Statement (the “Plan”) in In re Unlockd
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 9 of 69
`
`
`
`Media, Inc., Case No. 18-13243 (JLG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). Peter S. Kaufman is the
`
`trustee of the Trust, is the President of the investment bank Gordian Group LLC, and
`
`maintains his principal place of business in New York, New York.
`13. Non-party Unlockd Media is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in New York, New York. Before filing for protection under
`
`Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, Unlockd Media was a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`Unlockd Limited and carried out Unlockd’s U.S. business, for example as the
`
`counterparty to telecommunications company Sprint/United Management Company
`
`(“Sprint”) in Unlockd’s contract with Sprint. On October 26, 2018, Unlockd Media
`
`filed a petition for bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
`
`Southern District of New York.
`14. Non-party Unlockd Operations is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in New York, New York. Before filing for protection under
`
`Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, Unlockd Operations was a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Unlockd Limited and assisted in carrying out Unlockd’s U.S. business, for
`
`example as party to the lease agreement for Unlockd’s U.S. office space and to various
`
`other operations-related agreements. On October 26, 2018, Unlockd Operations filed a
`
`petition for bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
`
`Southern District of New York.
`15. On February 23, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
`
`Southern District of New York confirmed the Plan and ordered that Unlockd Media and
`
`Unlockd Operations be substantively consolidated for all purposes. On August 5, 2021,
`
`pursuant to the Plan, Unlockd Media and Unlockd Operations irrevocably transferred,
`
`assigned, and delivered all the assets of their estates, including but not limited to any
`
`and all claims they have on behalf of themselves and/or their affiliates against Google
`
`LLC and any of its parents and/or affiliates, to the Trust.
`16. Non-party Unlockd Limited is an Australian limited company with
`
`its principal place of business in Melbourne, Australia. Before filing for protection
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 10 of 69
`
`
`
`under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States, Unlockd Media and
`
`Unlockd Operations were wholly owned subsidiaries of Unlockd Limited. Unlockd
`
`Limited was also the ultimate parent company to Unlockd’s non-U.S. subsidiaries. On
`
`June 12, 2018, Unlockd Limited entered “administration” in Australia, which is a
`
`reorganization-type insolvency proceeding similar to bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of
`
`the United States Bankruptcy Code. Unlockd Limited’s administration was
`
`subsequently converted into a liquidation, which is similar to bankruptcy under Chapter
`
`7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Unlockd Limited’s liquidators agreed to
`
`assign to the Trust all claims against Defendants arising under the laws of the United
`
`States, the District of Columbia, or any U.S. state or territory owned by Unlockd
`
`Limited and/or its estate on behalf of itself and/or its affiliates.
`17.
`
`In this Complaint, Plaintiff uses the term “Unlockd” to include
`
`Unlockd Limited, Unlockd Media, Unlockd Operations, and/or Unlockd Limited’s non-
`
`U.S. subsidiaries if the context so requires. During all relevant times, Unlockd Limited
`
`and its subsidiaries acted as a single enterprise, with Unlockd Limited exercising
`
`continuing supervision, control, and intervention over and in its subsidiaries’ affairs.
`18. Defendant Google LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
`
`its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Defendant Google LLC is
`
`a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of XXVI Holding Inc., which is a wholly
`
`owned and controlled subsidiary of Defendant Alphabet. Google LLC is the alter ego
`
`and agent of Defendant Alphabet, and the companies regularly combine and comingle
`
`their operations. Google LLC was party to agreements governing distribution of the
`
`Boost Dealz app in the Google Play Store in the United States and governing Unlockd’s
`
`use of AdMob in the United States.
`19. Defendant Google Ireland Ltd (“Google Ireland”) is an Ireland
`
`limited company with its principal place of business in Dublin, Ireland. Defendant
`
`Google Ireland is a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of Defendant Google LLC.
`
`Google Ireland is the alter ego and agent of Defendants Google LLC and Alphabet, and
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 11 of 69
`
`
`
`the companies regularly combine and comingle their operations. Google Ireland was
`
`party to an agreement governing Unlockd’s use of AdMob in the United Kingdom.
`20. Google Commerce Ltd (“Google Commerce”) is an Ireland limited
`
`company with its principal place of business in Dublin, Ireland. Defendant Google
`
`Commerce is a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of Defendant Google LLC.
`
`Google Commerce is the alter ego and agent of Defendants Google LLC and Alphabet,
`
`and the companies regularly combine and comingle their operations. Google
`
`Commerce was party to an agreement governing Unlockd’s use of the Google Play
`
`Store in the United Kingdom.
`21. Defendant Google Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (“Google Asia Pacific”) is a
`
`Singapore private limited company with its principal place of business in Singapore.
`
`Defendant Google Asia Pacific is a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of
`
`Defendant Google LLC. Google Asia Pacific is the alter ego and agent of Defendants
`
`Google LLC and Alphabet, and the companies regularly combine and comingle their
`
`operations. Google Asia Pacific was party to agreements governing Unlockd’s use of
`
`the Google Play Store and AdMob in Australia.
`22. Defendant Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Defendant Alphabet
`
`wholly owns and controls Defendant Google LLC. Defendant Alphabet is the alter ego
`
`of Defendant Google LLC. Google LLC directs all profit to, and reports revenue
`
`through, Alphabet. Defendant Alphabet is one of the top ten largest companies in the
`
`United States, with more than $162 billion in annual revenue. Alphabet, ranking 15th in
`
`the list of Fortune 500 companies, is traded on the NASDAQ under the symbol
`
`“GOOGL”.
`
`23. All Defendants are engaged in substantial interstate and/or foreign
`
`commerce. Each Defendant deals with and earns revenue from publishers, advertisers,
`
`and/or mobile app developers throughout the United States and/or foreign nations.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 12 of 69
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`24. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Unlockd’s federal
`
`antitrust claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.
`25. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each and every Defendant.
`
`Google LLC and Alphabet are headquartered in this District. All Defendants have
`
`engaged in sufficient minimum contacts with the United States and have purposefully
`
`availed themselves of the benefits and protections of United States and California law,
`
`such that the exercise of jurisdiction over them would comport with due process
`
`requirements. Moreover, Google LLC, Google Ireland, Google Commerce, and Google
`
`Asia Pacific have consented to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by this Court in the
`
`Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement (the “DDA”), the Google AdSense
`
`Online Terms of Service (the “AdSense TOS”), or both.
`26. Google LLC, Google Ireland, Google Commerce, and Google Asia
`
`Pacific are parties to the DDA. Section 16.8 of the DDA provides that the parties
`
`“agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal or state courts located within
`
`the county of Santa Clara, California to resolve any legal matter arising from or relating
`
`to this Agreement or Your relationship with Google under this Agreement”.
`
`Section 16.8 further provides that “[a]ll claims arising out of or relating to this
`
`Agreement or Your relationship with Google under this Agreement will be governed by
`
`the laws of the State of California, excluding California’s conflict of laws provisions.”
`
`The claims addressed in this Complaint relate to the DDA or to Unlockd and its
`
`partners’ relationship with Google under the DDA, or in the alternative such claims
`
`arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as other claims as to which the Court
`
`may exercise personal jurisdiction over each Defendant, so that the exercise of pendent
`
`personal jurisdiction would be proper.
`27. Google LLC is party to the AdSense TOS. Section 15 of the
`
`AdSense TOS provides that “[a]ll claims arising out of or relating to this Agreement or
`
`the Services . . . will be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 13 of 69
`
`
`
`County, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts.” Section 1
`
`defines “Services” as Google’s “search and advertising services”. Section 15 further
`
`provides that “[a]ll claims arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Services
`
`will be governed by California law, excluding California’s conflict of laws rules.” The
`
`claims addressed in this Complaint relate to the AdSense TOS or to the Services, or in
`
`the alternative such claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as other
`
`claims as to which the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over each Defendant, so
`
`that the exercise of pendent personal jurisdiction would be proper.
`28. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
`
`because Google LLC and Alphabet maintain their principal places of business in the
`
`State of California and in this District, because a substantial part of the events or
`
`omissions giving rise to Unlockd’s claims occurred in this District, and because,
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), any Defendants not resident in the United States
`
`may be sued in any judicial district and their joinder with others shall be disregarded in
`
`determining proper venue. In the alternative, personal jurisdiction and venue also may
`
`be deemed proper under Section 12 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22,
`
`because Defendants may be found in or transact business in this District.
`29. Defendants’ acts were within the flow of, were intended to have, and
`
`did, in fact, have a substantial effect on the interstate commerce of the United States.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`30. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(c), this antitrust case shall not be
`
`assigned to a particular Division of this District, but shall be assigned on a District-wide
`
`basis.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Background
`31. Before being bankrupted by Google, Unlockd had operated in the
`
`Digital Advertising Market, as defined herein, delivering digital advertisements to
`
`Android smartphone users in exchange for payments from advertisers. To operate in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 14 of 69
`
`
`
`this market, Unlockd relied on Google as a supplier of distribution and intermediation
`
`services to distribute Unlockd’s apps to users and source advertisements to serve to
`
`users when they unlocked their smartphones. Unlockd had a novel and exciting
`
`business model, was growing, and had a bright future. Then Google’s anticompetitive
`
`behavior ended it all.
`32. To explain the Unlockd story, some background on digital
`
`advertising and the distribution of mobile apps is necessary.
`A. Digital Advertising and the Importance of Consumer Data
`33. Before the internet, companies who wanted to advertise did so
`
`largely through print, radio, and television. Advertisers who used such traditional media
`
`could do relatively little to target their audiences based on their traits and interests,
`
`however, as every reader, listener, or viewer of a particular publication was treated the
`
`same. At best, an advertiser could target its audience by choosing to advertise in certain
`
`publications based on generalized expectations about the publication’s likely audience.
`
`Advertisers could not identify the particular consumer viewing the advertisement and
`
`tailor its advertising to that particular consumer.
`34. The internet changed all that. Today, billions of people around the
`
`world use the internet to do everything from shopping for clothes to watching movies to
`
`playing games to staying in touch with friends. Meanwhile, companies like Google can
`
`obtain data about specific consumers’ behavior and use the information they collect to
`
`help advertisers target the right ads to the right consumers at the right time.
`35. Digital advertising is advertising delivered to consumers via the
`
`internet through their computers, smartphones, or other digital devices. Digital
`
`advertising formats enable advertisers to target their audiences by using information
`
`from the search term entered, by using consumer data to identify the likely
`
`characteristics of a viewer, or both—a key factor that distinguishes digital advertising
`
`from print and other traditional media advertising. The ability to hyper-target
`
`consumers gives digital advertising a unique role in the broader advertising landscape.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07250 Document 1 Filed 09/17/21 Page 15 of 69
`
`
`
`36.
`
`In digital advertising markets, “publishers” (e.g., website and mobile
`
`application owners) sell their advertising “inventory” (e.g., space on websites or in
`
`apps) to advertisers. Advertisers pay publishers for performance, usually based on the
`
`number of times a user views or clicks on the ad.
`37. For either performance metric, consumer data is critical to both the
`
`advertiser’s ability to target its audiences and the publisher’s ability to maximize its
`
`profits. For inventory sold on a per-view basis, a view is more valuable to t