Case 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 41 Filed 07/14/21 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`Robert W. Dickerson, Jr. (SBN 89367)
`Robert W. Dickerson, Jr. (SBN 89367)
`E-mail: rdickerson@bwslaw.com
`E-mail: rdickerson@bwslaw.com
`BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
`BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
`444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
`444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953
`Tel: 213.236.0600
`Fax: 213.236.2700
`Tel: 211236.0600
`Fax: 213.236.2700
`
`Patricia L. Peden (SBN 206440)
`Patricia L. Peden (SBN 206440)
`E-mail: ppeden@bwslaw.com
`E-mail: ppeden@bwslaw.com
`BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
`BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
`1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900
`1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900
`Oakland, California 94612-3501
`Oakland, California 94612-3501
`Tel: 510-273-8780
`Fax: 510-839-9104
`Tel: 510-273-8780
`Fax: 510-839-9104
`
`Lenny Huang (SBN 264386)
`Lenny Huang (SBN 264386)
`E-mail: lhuang@bwslaw.com
`E-mail: lhuang@bwslaw.com
`BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
`BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
`60 South Market Street, Suite 1000
`60 South Market Street, Suite 1000
`San Jose, California 95113-2336
`San Jose, California 95113-2336
`Tel: 408-606-6300
`Fax: 408-606-6333
`Tel: 408-606-6300
`Fax: 408-606-6333
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`RUMBLE, INC.
`RUMBLE, INC.
`
`Jack G. Stern
`Jack G. Stern
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`jack.stern@cwt.com
`jack.stern@cwt.com
`Nicholas A. Gravante, Jr.
`Nicholas A. Gravante, Jr.
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`nicholas.gravante@cwt.com
`nicholas.gravante@cwt.com
`Philip J. Iovieno
`Philip J. Iovieno
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`philip.iovieno@cwt.com
`philip.iovieno@cwt.com
`CADWALADER,
`CADWALADER,
`WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP
`WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP
`200 Liberty Street
`200 Liberty Street
`New York, NY 10281
`New York, NY 10281
`Tel: (212) 504-6000
`Tel: (212) 504-6000
`Fax: (212) 504-6666
`Fax: (212) 504-6666
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`RUMBLE, INC.,
`RUMBLE, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`v.
`GOOGLE LLC and DOES 1-10,
`GOOGLE LLC and DOES 1-10,
`inclusive,
`inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`PLAINTIFF RUMBLE, INC.’S
`PLAINTIFF RUMBLE INC.'S
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
`GOOGLE LLC’S PARTIAL
`GOOGLE LLC'S PARTIAL
`MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
`MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
`AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
`MOTION TO STRIKE (DKT. 32)
`MOTION TO STRIKE (DKT. 32)
`Hearing Date: September 9, 2021
`Hearing Date: September 9, 2021
`Time:
`
`2:00 p.m.
`Time:
`2:00 p.m.
`Courtroom:
`2
`2
`Courtroom:
`
`Judge:
`Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`Judge:
`Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`
`///
`///
`
`///
`///
`
`////
`
`LA #4816-7656-8050 v1
`LA #4816-7656-8050 vl
`
`
`
`
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`DEFENDANT'S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`
`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`SORENSEN, LLP
`SORENSEN, LLP
`ATTORNE YS AT LAW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 41 Filed 07/14/21 Page 2 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`B.
`B.
`
`C.
`C.
`
`Page
`Page
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................. 1
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`1
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS.......................................................................... 4
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
`4
`ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................... 7
`ARGUMENT
`7
`I.
`RUMBLE ADEQUATELY ALLEGES A RANGE OF
`I.
`RUMBLE ADEQUATELY ALLEGES A RANGE OF
`EXCLUSIONARY CONDUCT IN SUPPORT OF ITS SECTION 2
`EXCLUSIONARY CONDUCT IN SUPPORT OF ITS SECTION 2
`CLAIM THAT GOOGLE MONOPOLIZED THE ONLINE VIDEO
`CLAIM THAT GOOGLE MONOPOLIZED THE ONLINE VIDEO
`PLATFORM MARKET ............................................................................... 7
`7
`PLATFORM MARKET
`A. At The Pleading Stage, All Reasonable Inferences Should Be
`A. At The Pleading Stage, All Reasonable Inferences Should Be
`Drawn In Plaintiff’s Favor So That Plausible Claims Are
`Drawn In Plaintiff's Favor So That Plausible Claims Are
`Adjudicated On The Merits ................................................................. 7
`7
`Adjudicated On The Merits
`Plaintiff Rumble Adequately Alleges That Google Has
`Plaintiff Rumble Adequately Alleges That Google Has
`Monopolized Or Attempted To Monopolize The Online Video
`Monopolized Or Attempted To Monopolize The Online Video
`Platform Market By Using Its Dominance in Search to Foreclose
`Platform Market By Using Its Dominance in Search to Foreclose
`Competition and Raise Barriers to Entry and Expansion ..................... 9
`9
`Competition and Raise Barriers to Entry and Expansion
`Plaintiff Rumble Adequately Alleges That Google Has Engaged
`Plaintiff Rumble Adequately Alleges That Google Has Engaged
`In A Range Of Exclusionary Conduct—Including Contractual
`In A Range Of Exclusionary Conduct—Including Contractual
`Arrangements, Incentives, Technological Restrictions And
`Arrangements, Incentives, Technological Restrictions And
`Other Acts—All Of Which Collectively Have Had The Effect
`Other Acts—All Of Which Collectively Have Had The Effect
`Of Monopolizing The Online Video Platform Market ....................... 11
`11
`Of Monopolizing The Online Video Platform Market
`D. Allegations Of Tying For Purposes Of A Section 2 Claim Need
`D. Allegations Of Tying For Purposes Of A Section 2 Claim Need
`Not Satisfy All The Elements Of Tying For Purposes Of A
`Not Satisfy All The Elements Of Tying For Purposes Of A
`Section 1 Tying Claim ...................................................................... 12
`12
`Section 1 Tying Claim
`E.
`Although Not Required For Section 2 Purposes, The FAC
`E. Although Not Required For Section 2 Purposes, The FAC
`Adequately Alleges Coercion In Relation To The Alleged Tying
`Adequately Alleges Coercion In Relation To The Alleged Tying
`Arrangements.................................................................................... 15
`Arrangements
`15
`F.
`Allegations Of Exclusionary Conduct Should Be Considered In
`F. Allegations Of Exclusionary Conduct Should Be Considered In
`Combination, And Not Parsed In The Way Google Has
`Combination, And Not Parsed In The Way Google Has
`Advocated ......................................................................................... 16
`16
`Advocated
`II. GOOGLE’S MOTION IS PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER AND
`GOOGLE'S MOTION IS PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER AND
`II.
`IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(g)(2) AND
`IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(g)(2) AND
`SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR THAT INDEPENDENT REASON
`SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR THAT INDEPENDENT REASON
`AS WELL ................................................................................................... 19
`AS WELL
`19
`
`
`LA #4816-7656-8050 v1
`LA #4816-7656-8050 vl
`
`
`- i-
`
`- 1-
`
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`DEFENDANT'S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`
`
`
`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`SORENSEN, LLP
`SORENSEN, LLP
`ATTORNE YS AT LAW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 41 Filed 07/14/21 Page 3 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`(continued)
`
`III. BECAUSE RUMBLE’S ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`
`III. BECAUSE RUMBLE'S ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`SECTION 2 CLAIM ARE PLEADED ADEQUATELY AND ARE
`SECTION 2 CLAIM ARE PLEADED ADEQUATELY AND ARE
`DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE SECTION 2 CLAIM, THERE IS
`DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE SECTION 2 CLAIM, THERE IS
`NO BASIS TO STRIKE THOSE ALLEGATIONS .................................... 19
`NO BASIS TO STRIKE THOSE ALLEGATIONS
`19
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 22
`22
`CONCLUSION
`
`Page
`Page
`
`LA #4816-7656-8050 v1
`LA #4816-7656-8050 vl
`
`
`- ii -
`
` 4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`
`
`
`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`SORENSEN, LLP
`SORENSEN, LLP
`ATTORNE YS AT LAW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 41 Filed 07/14/21 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Federal Cases
`In re 2TheMart.com Securities Litigation,
`In re 2TheMartcom Securities Litigation,
`114 F.Supp.2d 955 (C.D. Cal. 2000) ................................................................. 20
`20
`114 F.Supp.2d 955 (C.D. Cal. 2000)
`In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation,
`In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation,
`No. 11-CV-06714-YGR, 2013 WL 4425720 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15,
`No. 11-CV-06714-YGR, 2013 WL 4425720 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15,
`2013) .......................................................................................................... 19, 20
`19, 20
`2013)
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................ 7, 8
`556 U.S. 662 (2009)
`7, 8
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................ 8
`8
`550 U.S. 544 (2007)
`
`California Computer Products, Inc. v. International Business
`California Computer Products, Inc. v. International Business
`Machines, Corp.,
`Machines, Corp.,
`613 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1979) ............................................................................. 13
`13
`613 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1979)
`Conley v. Gibson,
`Conley v. Gibson,
`355 U.S. 41 (1957) .............................................................................................. 7
`7
`355 U.S. 41 (1957)
`Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp.,
`Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp.,
`370 U.S. 690 (1962) .......................................................................................... 17
`17
`370 U.S. 690 (1962)
`Cost Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Wash. Nat. Gas Co.,
`Cost Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Wash. Nat. Gas Co.,
`99 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................. 9
`9
`99 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 1996)
`Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc.,
`Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc.,
`504 U.S. 451 (1992) .......................................................................................... 15
`15
`504 U.S. 451 (1992)
`
`Foman v. Davis,
`Foman v. Davis,
`371 U.S. 178 (1962) ............................................................................................ 7
`7
`371 U.S. 178 (1962)
`LeDuc v. Ky. Cent. Life Ins. Co.,
`LeDuc v. Ky. Cent. Life Ins. Co.,
`814 F. Supp. 820 (N.D. Cal. 1992) .................................................................... 20
`814 F. Supp. 820 (N.D. Cal. 1992)
`20
`LePage’s Inc. v. 3M,
`LePage's Inc. v. 3M,
`324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ 14, 17
`14, 17
`324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003)
`
`
`LA #4816-7656-8050 v1
`LA #4816-7656-8050 vl
`
`
`- iii-
`
`- 111-
`
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`DEFENDANT'S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`
`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`SORENSEN, LLP
`SORENSEN, LLP
`ATTORNE YS AT LAW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 41 Filed 07/14/21 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`Momento, Inc. v. Seccion Amarilla USA,
`Momento, Inc. v. Seccion Amarilla USA,
`C 09-1223 SBA, 2009 WL 10696217 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2009 ..................... 8, 9
`8, 9
`C 09-1223 SBA, 2009 WL 10696217 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2009
`Moore v. Jas. H. Matthews & Co,
`Moore v. Jas. H. Matthews & Co,
`550 F.2d 1207 (9th Cir. 1977) ..................................................................... 15, 16
`15, 16
`550 F.2d 1207 (9th Cir. 1977)
`N.Y.C. Emples. Ret. Sys. v. Berry,
`N.Y.C. Emples. Ret. Sys. v. Berry,
`667 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ............................................................. 21
`21
`667 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2009)
`Neilson v. Union Bank of California, N.A.,
`Neilson v. Union Bank of California, NA.,
`290 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (C.D. Cal. 2003) ............................................................. 20
`20
`290 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (C.D. Cal. 2003)
`Northstar Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Investments,
`Northstar Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Investments,
`135 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ......................................................... 8, 19
`8, 19
`135 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2015)
`
`Smith v. Ebay Corp.,
`Smith v. Ebay Corp.,
`No. C 10-03825 JSW, 2012 WL 1951971 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012) ................ 20
`20
`No. C 10-03825 JSW, 2012 WL 1951971 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012)
`Tele Atlas NV v. NAVTEQ Corp.,
`Tele Atlas NV v. NAVTEQ Corp.,
`2008 WL 4809441 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Division) ................................ 12, 13, 17
`12, 13, 17
`2008 WL 4809441 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Division)
`U.S. v. Microsoft,
`U.S. v. Microsoft,
`253 F. 3d 34, 84-85 (D.C. Cir. 2001) .............................................................. 13, 17
`13, 17
`253 F. 3d 34, 84-85 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
`Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP,
`Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP,
`540 U.S. 398 (2004) .......................................................................................... 10
`10
`540 U.S. 398 (2004)
`Wailua Assocs. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.,
`Wailua Assocs. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.,
`183 F.R.D. 550 (D. Haw. 1998) ........................................................................ 20
`20
`183 F.R.D. 550 (D. Haw. 1998)
`Federal Statutes
`Federal Statutes
`Sherman Act, Section 2 ................................................................................... passim
`Sherman Act, Section 2
`passim
`Other Authorities
`Other Authorities
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`1 .......................................................................................................................... 7
`1
`7
`12(b) .............................................................................................................. 1,19
`12(b)
`1,19
`12(b)(6) ..................................................................................................... 1, 9, 19
`12(b)(6)
`1, 9, 19
`12(f) .......................................................................................................... 1, 9, 19
`12(f)
`1, 9, 19
`12(g)(2) ......................................................................................................... 3, 19
`12(g)(2)
`3, 19
`12(h)(2) ............................................................................................................. 19
`12(h)(2)
`19
`
`
`LA #4816-7656-8050 v1
`LA #4816-7656-8050 vl
`
`
`- iv -
`- iv -
`
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`DEFENDANT'S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`
`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`SORENSEN, LLP
`SORENSEN, LLP
`ATTORNE YS AT LAW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 41 Filed 07/14/21 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`SORENSEN, LLP
`SORENSEN, LLP
`ATTORNE YS AT LAW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`LOS ANGELES
`
`Plaintiff Rumble respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to
`Plaintiff Rumble respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to
`Google’s motion (Dkt. 32) to partially dismiss and strike allegations in the First
`Google's motion (Dkt. 32) to partially dismiss and strike allegations in the First
`Amended Complaint. (“FAC”, Dkt. 21).
`Amended Complaint. ("FAC", Dkt. 21).
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Even though Google’s motion purports to be brought pursuant to both Rule
`Even though Google's motion purports to be brought pursuant to both Rule
`12(b)(6) (“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”) and Rule 12(f)
`12(b)(6) ("failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted") and Rule 12(f)
`(“motion to strike”), Google’s motion does not seek to dismiss the single claim for
`("motion to strike"), Google's motion does not seek to dismiss the single claim for
`relief asserted in the FAC.
`relief asserted in the FAC.
`The FAC alleges a Section 2 monopolization claim in relation to the online
`The FAC alleges a Section 2 monopolization claim in relation to the online
`video platform market and supports that claim by alleging interrelated exclusionary
`video platform market and supports that claim by alleging interrelated exclusionary
`conduct, all of which should be considered collectively under established Supreme
`conduct, all of which should be considered collectively under established Supreme
`Court precedent. The FAC does not assert a claim for relief under Section 1. See
`Court precedent. The FAC does not assert a claim for relief under Section 1. See
`“Summary of Allegations” section, below at page 4.
`"Summary of Allegations" section, below at page 4.
`The FAC defines the online video platform market as the market for
`The FAC defines the online video platform market as the market for
`specialized (or vertical) search platforms that allow users to share and monetize
`specialized (or vertical) search platforms that allow users to share and monetize
`their video creations and to search for that video content. Significantly, Google
`their video creations and to search for that video content. Significantly, Google
`does not dispute that Rumble has antitrust standing in relation to the online video
`does not dispute that Rumble has antitrust standing in relation to the online video
`platform market.
`platform market.
`While Google offers a general search platform, Google and its affiliates (such
`While Google offers a general search platform, Google and its affiliates (such
`as YouTube and other Google platforms such as Google Maps) compete with
`as YouTube and other Google platforms such as Google Maps) compete with
`specialized (or vertical) search platforms that focus on a particular type of online
`specialized (or vertical) search platforms that focus on a particular type of online
`search (such as video sharing and searching or navigational/map searches or travel
`search (such as video sharing and searching or navigational/map searches or travel
`and hotel related searches).
`and hotel related searches).
`
`The FAC alleges that Google excludes competition in the online video
`The FAC alleges that Google excludes competition in the online video
`platform market by self-preferencing YouTube over competing platforms in
`platform market by self-preferencing YouTube over competing platforms in
`Google’s general search results rankings. Google exacerbates that self-preferencing
`Google's general search results rankings. Google exacerbates that self-preferencing
`and monopolization in additional and interrelated ways. Google attempts to use
`and monopolization in additional and interrelated ways. Google attempts to use
`and uses its monopoly power in the general search platform market in its attempt to
`and uses its monopoly power in the general search platform market in its attempt to
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
`LA #4816-7656-8050 v1
`LA #4816-7656-8050 vl
`DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`DEFENDANT'S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`
`
`- 1-
`- 1-
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 41 Filed 07/14/21 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`SORENSEN, LLP
`SORENSEN, LLP
`ATTORNE YS AT LAW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`LOS ANGELES
`
`monopolize and its monopolization of specialized (or vertical) search platform
`monopolize and its monopolization of specialized (or vertical) search platform
`markets—specifically, in this case, the online video platform market. That
`markets—specifically, in this case, the online video platform market. That
`monopoly leveraging increases Google’s capacity for self-preferencing
`monopoly leveraging increases Google's capacity for self-preferencing
`exclusionary conduct and is implemented largely through both self-preferencing
`exclusionary conduct and is implemented largely through both self-preferencing
`and by creating an environment in which specialized (or vertical) search platforms
`and by creating an environment in which specialized (or vertical) search platforms
`have no realistic choice but to enter into syndication, licensing and other
`have no realistic choice but to enter into syndication, licensing and other
`agreements with Google that further enhance Google’s monopoly power.
`agreements with Google that further enhance Google's monopoly power.
`Google also engages in a variety of exclusionary conduct and tactics—
`Google also engages in a variety of exclusionary conduct and tactics—
`including various contractual arrangements, various inducements and payments,
`including various contractual arrangements, various inducements and payments,
`and various forms of technological bundling—that cement Google’s dominant
`and various forms of technological bundling—that cement Google's dominant
`position in the mobile search environment and thereby also monopolize the online
`position in the mobile search environment and thereby also monopolize the online
`video platform market.
`video platform market.
`
`Google’s motion fails to address the full scope and actual content of the
`Google's motion fails to address the full scope and actual content of the
`allegations that the FAC sets forth in support of Rumble’s Section 2
`allegations that the FAC sets forth in support of Rumble's Section 2
`monopolization claim. Google’s motion relies on a narrow and incomplete reading
`monopolization claim. Google's motion relies on a narrow and incomplete reading
`of the actual allegations in the FAC. For example, Google asserts that Rumble
`of the actual allegations in the FAC. For example, Google asserts that Rumble
`lacks standing to make a claim of monopolization of the general search platform
`lacks standing to make a claim of monopolization of the general search platform
`market. That assertion ignores the actual allegations in the FAC, which plainly
`market. That assertion ignores the actual allegations in the FAC, which plainly
`describe Google’s leveraging of monopoly power in the general search platform
`describe Google's leveraging of monopoly power in the general search platform
`market in order to monopolize the online video platform market (the relevant
`market in order to monopolize the online video platform market (the relevant
`market in this case). See Argument Sections I.B and I.C below at pages 9 to 12.
`market in this case). See Argument Sections I.B and I.0 below at pages 9 to 12.
`
`Additionally, in seeking to partially dismiss and strike certain allegations that
`Additionally, in seeking to partially dismiss and strike certain allegations that
`refer to tying arrangements, Google incorrectly assumes that such allegations in the
`refer to tying arrangements, Google incorrectly assumes that such allegations in the
`FAC must independently satisfy the elements of a Section 1 tying claim—a claim
`FAC must independently satisfy the elements of a Section 1 tying claim—a claim
`that Rumble does not make in the FAC. As a matter of law, allegations of tying
`that Rumble does not make in the FAC. As a matter of law, allegations of tying
`arrangements made in support of a Section 2 monopolization claim need not set
`arrangements made in support of a Section 2 monopolization claim need not set
`forth all the technical requirements necessary to establish a Section 1 tying claim.
`forth all the technical requirements necessary to establish a Section 1 tying claim.
`See Argument Sections I.D and I.E below at pages 12 to 16. Further, as a matter of
`See Argument Sections I.D and I.E below at pages 12 to 16. Further, as a matter of
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
`LA #4816-7656-8050 v1
`LA #4816-7656-8050 vl
`DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`DEFENDANT'S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`
`
`- 2 -
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 41 Filed 07/14/21 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`SORENSEN, LLP
`SORENSEN, LLP
`ATTORNE YS AT LAW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`LOS ANGELES
`
`law, allegations of exclusionary conduct in support of a Section 2 monopolization
`law, allegations of exclusionary conduct in support of a Section 2 monopolization
`claim are to be considered in combination, not separated and parsed as Google
`claim are to be considered in combination, not separated and parsed as Google
`advocates. See Argument Section I.F below at pages 16 to 18.
`advocates. See Argument Section I.F below at pages 16 to 18.
`
`Google’s motion should also be denied on independent procedural grounds.
`Google's motion should also be denied on independent procedural grounds.
`The motion is impermissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2)
`The motion is impermissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2)
`because the motion addresses the substance of allegations that were made in
`because the motion addresses the substance of allegations that were made in
`support of the Section 2 claim in Rumble’s Original Complaint (Dkt. 1), which
`support of the Section 2 claim in Rumble's Original Complaint (Dkt. 1), which
`Google did not seek to dismiss in its motion (Dkt. 16) to partially dismiss the
`Google did not seek to dismiss in its motion (Dkt. 16) to partially dismiss the
`Original Complaint. See Argument Section II below at pages 19-20.
`Original Complaint. See Argument Section II below at pages 19-20.
`
`Google asserts that Rumble’s first-filed complaint (the “Original Complaint”)
`Google asserts that Rumble's first-filed complaint (the "Original Complaint")
`(Dkt. 1) did not allege the same monopoly leveraging and exclusionary conduct in
`(Dkt. 1) did not allege the same monopoly leveraging and exclusionary conduct in
`support of the original Section 2 monopolization claim and that Plaintiff Rumble
`support of the original Section 2 monopolization claim and that Plaintiff Rumble
`makes those allegations “for the first time in its FAC” and that those allegations are
`makes those allegations "for the first time in its FAC" and that those allegations are
`“newly introduced” and “newly added.” See Google Memorandum in Support of
`"newly introduced" and "newly added." See Google Memorandum in Support of
`Partial Motion to Dismiss and Strike, Dkt. 32 (“Google Br.”) at 1-2. That assertion
`Partial Motion to Dismiss and Strike, Dkt. 32 ("Google Br.") at 1-2. That assertion
`is simply not accurate. See Original Complaint, Dkt. 1, at ¶ 4 (agreements that
`is simply not accurate. See Original Complaint, Dkt. 1, at ¶ 4 (agreements that
`effectively force Android phone manufacturers to preinstall YouTube); ¶ 21
`effectively force Android phone manufacturers to preinstall YouTube); ¶ 21
`(referencing DOJ allegations concerning exclusionary conduct and monopolization
`(referencing DOJ allegations concerning exclusionary conduct and monopolization
`of general search and leveraging of that monopoly power in the online video
`of general search and leveraging of that monopoly power in the online video
`platform market); ¶¶ 24-25 (leveraging monopoly power in general search to
`platform market); Iiiii 24-25 (leveraging monopoly power in general search to
`monopolize the online video platform market and use of exclusionary
`monopolize the online video platform market and use of exclusionary
`preinstallation and other agreements to achieve that objective); ¶ 27 (referencing
`preinstallation and other agreements to achieve that objective); ¶ 27 (referencing
`Congressional investigation report concerning exclusionary conduct in addition to
`Congressional investigation report concerning exclusionary conduct in addition to
`self-preferencing); ¶¶ 30-34 (referencing DOJ allegations and Congressional
`self-preferencing); Irlf 30-34 (referencing DOJ allegations and Congressional
`investigation report on Google’s exclusionary conduct and exclusionary agreements
`investigation report on Google's exclusionary conduct and exclusionary agreements
`that cement Google’s dominance in Android mobile phone applications), ¶ 87
`that cement Google's dominance in Android mobile phone applications), ¶ 87
`(incorporating all allegations of exclusionary conduct in support of Section 2
`(incorporating all allegations of exclusionary conduct in support of Section 2
`monopolization claim), ¶¶ 89-90 (referencing monopoly leveraging, self-
`monopolization claim), rlf 89-90 (referencing monopoly leveraging, self-
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`4:21-CV-00229-HSG
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
`LA #4816-7656-8050 v1
`LA #4816-7656-8050 vl
`DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`DEFENDANT'S PARTIAL MTD/MTS
`
`
`- 3 -
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 41 Filed 07/14/21 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`BURKE, WILLIAMS &
`SORENSEN, LLP
`SORENSEN, LLP
`ATTORNE YS AT LAW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`LOS ANGELES
`
`preferencing and exclusionary conduct and exclusionary agreements all in support
`preferencing and exclusionary conduct and exclusionary agreements all in support
`of original Section 2 monopolization claim that Google did not seek to dismiss).
`of original Section 2 monopolization claim that Google did not seek to dismiss).
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
`
`As the FAC alleges, Google dominates the general search platform market in
`As the FAC alleges, Google dominates the general search platform market in
`the United States and has used its monopoly power in that market and a range of
`the United States and has used its monopoly power in that market and a range of
`exclusionary conduct to also achieve monopoly power in a specialized (or vertical)
`exclusionary conduct to also achieve monopoly power in a specialized (or vertical)
`search platform. See, for example, FAC ¶¶ 1-6, 26-27, 191-200. The exclusionary
`search platform. See, for example, FAC Irlf 1-6, 26-27, 191-200. The exclusionary
`conduct has included several integration measures, revenue sharing and other
`conduct has included several integration measures, revenue sharing and other
`contractual arrangements designed to cement for Google and YouTube dominant
`contractual arrangements designed to cement for Go