Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`on
`MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`IN RE: GOOGLE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`
`TRANSFER ORDER
`
`MDL No. 2981
`
`
`
`Before the Panel:∗ Plaintiff in one action (Paige) moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to
`
`centralize this litigation in the District of the District of Columbia. This litigation currently consists
`of ten actions pending in two districts, as listed on Schedules A and B. Nine actions are in the
`Northern District of California, and one is in the District of the District of Columbia. Since the
`filing of the motion, the Panel has been notified of nine related actions.1 Google LLC, Alphabet
`Inc., and four subsidiaries2 are the defendants in this litigation (together, “Google”).
`
`The actions allege that Google has engaged in a course of anticompetitive conduct,
`
`including monopolization, in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. The nine actions listed
`on Schedule A, which are pending in California and the District of Columbia, involve Google’s
`alleged monopolization of the market for distribution of applications (“apps”) to Android mobile
`device users through the Google Play Store.3 The action listed on Schedule B, pending in
`California, concerns Google’s alleged conduct in the market for online display advertising
`services, which involves the process of placing ads on web pages (In re Google Digital
`Advertising, or the “advertising action”).
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Plaintiffs in five potential tag-along actions support centralization of all ten actions on the
`
`motion in the District of the District of Columbia. Defendant Google and plaintiffs in six consumer
`actions support some form of an MDL limited to the Google Play Store actions in the Northern
`
`One or more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this litigation
`∗
`have renounced their participation in the classes and have participated in this decision.
`
` 1
`
`The related actions are pending in the Northern District of California, the District of the
`
`District of Columbia, the Southern District of Mississippi, the Eastern District of Missouri, and
`the Eastern District of Virginia. These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions.
`See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2.
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
`Google Ireland Limited; Google Commerce Limited; Google Asia Pacific Pte. Limited;
`
`and Google Payment Corp.
`
`The Google Play Store actions consist of six putative class actions on behalf of consumers;
`
`two putative class actions on behalf of app developers; and an individual app developer action.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 2 of 6
`
`-2-
`
`
`District of California. More specifically, defendant Google supports centralization of the Google
`Play consumer actions in the Northern District of California and does not oppose inclusion of the
`Google Play app developer actions; however, Google seeks exclusion of the advertising action
`from any MDL. 4 The consumer plaintiffs in five actions on the motion and one potential tag-along
`action support centralization only of the Google Play consumer actions in the Northern District of
`California. Plaintiffs in the app developer and advertising actions oppose centralization and, in
`the alternative, request the Northern District of California and exclusion of the advertising action.
`
`In support of centralization of all actions on the motion, movant and various potential
`
`tag-along plaintiffs argue that all actions (1) involve a course of interrelated anticompetitive
`conduct, including monopolization, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (2) focus on the
`conduct of a single firm; and (3) are off-shoots of the United States v. Google enforcement action
`brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and numerous state attorneys general.5 They further
`argue that centralization is thus necessary to prevent duplicative discovery and ensure consistent
`rulings, though acknowledging that the enforcement action is not subject to centralization under
`Section 1407(g). Defendant Google and plaintiffs supporting an MDL limited to Google Play
`Store actions argue that this subset of actions presents common factual questions involving
`Google’s alleged monopolization of the market for distribution of apps to Android mobile device
`users and thus warrants centralization. But they, along with plaintiffs opposing centralization, seek
`exclusion of the advertising action, arguing principally that the advertising action involves a
`different alleged relevant market – online display advertising services, in contrast to app
`distribution – and fundamentally different kinds of alleged anticompetitive conduct.6 They also
`contend that the core factual questions in the actions on the motion do not overlap with those in
`United States v. Google, which concerns Google’s conduct in the separate markets for general
`search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising.
`
`After careful review of the record, we have determined that centralization only of the
`
`Google Play Store actions is warranted. The complaints in the advertising action, the Google Play
`Store actions, and the governmental enforcement action purportedly linking all actions show that
`they plainly involve different relevant markets and that the alleged anticompetitive conduct differs
`substantially. Additionally, the putative class in the advertising action presents no overlap at all
`with any of the Google Play Store actions. These differences likely would prevent achieving any
`
`
`4
`Google initially opposed centralization in favor of Section 1404 transfer to address the
`overlap in the Google Play Store actions, but at all times has acknowledged that the Google Play
`Store actions present common factual issues. Google subsequently changed its position, as
`summarized above, after potential tag-along actions were filed in multiple districts.
`
` 5
`
`See United States v. Google LLC, C.A. No. 20-3010 (D.D.C. filed Oct. 20, 2020). The
`
`motion for centralization originally requested inclusion of United States v. Google, but movant
`later withdrew this request “in recognition of Section 1407(g),” which prohibits transfer of “any
`action in which the United States is a complainant arising under the antitrust laws.”
`
` 6
`
`They assert, inter alia, that the advertising action rests on allegations involving
`
`anticompetitive acquisitions in the online advertising space and anticompetitive conduct in the
`auction system for online advertising, none of which are involved in the Google Play Store actions.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 3 of 6
`
`-3-
`
`
`meaningful efficiencies in discovery and pretrial motions based on the involvement of the same
`company even if there is some overlap in the factual background from which the actions arise.
`
`On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,7 we find that the nine actions
`
`concerning the Google Play Store, as listed on Schedule A, involve common questions of fact, and
`that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties
`and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions present
`common factual questions concerning Google’s alleged monopolization of the market for
`distribution of apps to Android mobile device users through the Google Play Store.8 The majority
`of the actions additionally involve the market for processing payments for Android mobile app
`digital content. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
`rulings, including with respect to class certification and Daubert motions; and conserve the
`resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
`
`
`III.
`
`
`We conclude that the Northern District of California is the appropriate transferee district
`
`for this litigation. Eight actions on the motion involving the Google Play Store and four potential
`tag-along actions are pending in this district. Google has its headquarters in this district, and
`represents that the vast majority of employees who are part of the Google Play organization in the
`U.S. are located there. Thus, the primary witnesses and documentary evidence on the common
`factual issues likely will be located in this district. Judge James Donato presides over all related
`actions in this district and is familiar with the issues in this litigation. He is an experienced
`transferee judge with the willingness and ability to manage this litigation. We are confident that
`he will steer this litigation on a prudent course.
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on Schedule A and pending outside
`
`the Northern District of California is transferred to the Northern District of California and, with
`the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James Donato for coordinated or consolidated
`pretrial proceedings.
`
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MDL No. 2981 is renamed In re: Google Play Store
`
`Antitrust Litigation.
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that transfer of the action listed on Schedule B is denied.
`
`
`7
`In light of the concerns about the spread of COVID-19 virus (coronavirus), the Panel heard
`oral argument by videoconference at its hearing session of January 28, 2021. See Suppl. Notice
`of Hearing Session, MDL No. 2981 (J.P.M.L. Jan. 11, 2021), ECF No. 70.
`
`Plaintiffs in certain Google Play consumer actions make the conclusory assertion that the
`
`MDL should be limited to consumer actions and, in effect, exclude the app developer actions, even
`though both types of actions are nearly identical with respect to their central claim – Google’s
`alleged monopolization of the Android app distribution market. We see no reason to limit the
`MDL in this manner, especially given the overlap in discovery and pretrial motions that the parties
`have described in the Panel briefing.
`
` 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
` PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
` _________________________________________
`
`
` Karen K. Caldwell
`
`
` Chair
`
`
`Catherine D. Perry
`Matthew F. Kennelly
`Roger T. Benitez
`
`
`Nathaniel M. Gorton
`David C. Norton
`Dale A. Kimba
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`IN RE: GOOGLE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`SCHEDULE A
`
`MDL No. 2981
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Northern District of California
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20-05671
`IN RE GOOGLE PLAY CONSUMER ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
`
`C.A. No. 3:20-05761
`IN RE GOOGLE PLAY DEVELOPER ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
`
`C.A. No. 3:20-05792
`PEEKYA SERVICES, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20-06772
`BENTLEY, ET AL. v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20-07079
`MCNAMARA v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20-07361
`HERRERA v. GOOGLE LLC, C.A. No. 3:20-07365
`CARROLL v. GOOGLE LLC, C.A. No. 3:20-07379
`
`
`
`District of District of Columbia
`
`PAIGE v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-03158
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE: GOOGLE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`SCHEDULE B
`
`MDL No. 2981
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Northern District of California
`
`IN RE GOOGLE DIGITAL ADVERTISING ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
`
`C.A. No. 5:20-03556
`
`