Case 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 63 Filed 09/09/22 Page 1 of 38
`
`
`
`John E. Schmidtlein (CA State Bar No. 163520)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Maine Avenue, S.W.
`Washington, DC 20024
`Telephone:
`(202) 434-5000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 434-5029
`Email:
`jschmidtlein@wc.com
`
`Attorney for Defendant Google LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`RUMBLE, INC.,
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`
`
`DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S ANSWER
`AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO
`RUMBLE’S FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
`
` 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 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 63 Filed 09/09/22 Page 2 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google” or “Defendant”), through its undersigned counsel,
`
`answers the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 21) of Rumble, Inc. (“Rumble” or “Plaintiff”), as
`
`set forth below using the paragraph numbers of the allegations asserted in Rumble’s First Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`RESPONSE TO NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS
`
`The section headings in the First Amended Complaint do not require a response. To the
`
`extent that the section headings contain allegations requiring a response, Google denies all such
`
`allegations.
`
`1.
`
`Google admits that Rumble purports to bring an action under Section 2 of the Sherman
`
`Act (15 U.S.C. § 2), and Sections 4 and 15 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 15), but denies
`
`that Rumble is entitled to any of the relief that it seeks and denies any other allegations in this
`
`paragraph.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first, third, and seventh sentences of Paragraph 4
`
`of the First Amended Complaint. As to the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 4 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint, Google admits that it acquired the Android operating system and that
`
`Android is an operating system that Google licenses open-source with an Apache license, but Google
`
`denies the remaining allegations in this sentence. As to the allegations in the fourth sentence of
`
`Paragraph 4 of the First Amended Complaint, Google admits that certain manufacturers of smart
`
`devices have used the Android operating system for such devices without paying any licensing fee,
`
`developing their own operating system, or handing over control over their devices, but lacks
`
`sufficient information regarding the remaining allegations of this sentence to form a belief as to their
`
`truth or falsity and denies them on that basis. As to the allegations in the fifth sentence of Paragraph
`
`4 of the First Amended Complaint, Google admits that independent, third-party app developers have
`
`developed apps that are compatible with the Android operating system, but lacks sufficient
`
`information regarding the remaining allegations of this sentence and denies them on that basis. As
`
`- 1 -
`GOOGLE LLC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`
`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 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 63 Filed 09/09/22 Page 3 of 38
`
`
`
`to the allegations in the sixth sentence of Paragraph 4 of the First Amended Complaint, Google admits
`
`that Google created the Google Play app, which allows users to download other apps, but denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this sentence.
`
`5.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first and third sentences of Paragraph 5 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint. As to the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph, Google
`
`admits that it uses agreements to license its proprietary apps to manufacturers and distributors of
`
`smart devices, but denies the remaining allegations in this sentence.
`
`6.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first, third, and fourth sentences of Paragraph 6
`
`of the First Amended Complaint. As to the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph,
`
`Google admits that online searching for videos is done on smartphones, but denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this sentence.
`
`7.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 7 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint. As to the first sentence of this paragraph, Google lacks sufficient information
`
`regarding the allegations in this sentence to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them
`
`on that basis. As to the second sentence of this paragraph, Google denies that Rumble’s “search
`
`traffic has been diverted to YouTube through Google’s wrongful conduct,” but lacks sufficient
`
`information regarding the other allegations in this sentence to form a belief as to their truth or falsity
`
`and denies them on that basis.
`
`8.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 8 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint. As to the first sentence of Paragraph 8 of the First Amended Complaint,
`
`Google admits that Rumble has uploaded videos to YouTube and that those videos have generated
`
`views, Google denies that Rumble has suffered any damages proximately caused by Google’s
`
`conduct or that Google’s conduct was or is “unlawful,” and Google lacks sufficient information
`
`regarding the remaining allegations in this sentence to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and
`
`denies them on that basis.
`
`9.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 9 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint. As to the second, third, fourth, and fifth sentence of this paragraph, and excerpted image
`
`- 2 -
`GOOGLE LLC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`
`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 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 63 Filed 09/09/22 Page 4 of 38
`
`
`
`in Figure 1, Google admits that these sentences and Figure purport to describe and excerpt Google
`
`search results for the query “Baby preciously cuddles cat for nap time” but lacks sufficient
`
`information regarding the remaining allegations of these sentences and Figure to form a belief as to
`
`their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis. As to the sixth sentence of this paragraph, Google
`
`denies any allegation that Google search algorithms are “rigged” or Google “manipulate[es] the
`
`search results” “to give unfair preference to YouTube,” but lacks sufficient information regarding
`
`the remaining allegations of this sentence and denies them on that basis.
`
`10.
`
`Google admits that this paragraph and Figure 1 purport to describe Google search
`
`results for the query “Baby preciously cuddles cat for nap time.” Google denies that the purported
`
`results for the Google search in this Figure list “dated and unrelated YouTube videos” or
`
`“miscellaneous unrelated YouTube videos that do not contain, in fact, are not even close to, the
`
`searched-for title, and are quite dated.” Google lacks sufficient information regarding the remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis.
`
`11.
`
`As to the first sentence of Paragraph 11 of the First Amended Complaint, Google
`
`admits that Rumble made sitemap submissions to Google Search Console in May 2019, but denies
`
`that it had knowledge that the referenced video “was a Rumble exclusive and original asset.” Google
`
`lacks sufficient information regarding the remaining allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph
`
`to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis. As to the second sentence
`
`in this paragraph, Google denies that “[p]ursuant to Google’s publicly stated policies, Rumble should
`
`have been elevated in the search results (actually should have been listed first),” Google admits that
`
`Figure 1, which purports to excerpt Google search results for the query “Baby preciously cuddles cat
`
`for nap time,” does not on its face refer to a Rumble website, and Google lacks sufficient information
`
`regarding the remaining allegations in this sentence to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and
`
`denies them on that basis.
`
`12.
`
`Google admits that Paragraph 12 and Figure 2 of the First Amended Complaint
`
`purport to describe and excerpt Google search results for the query “Baby preciously cuddles cat for
`
`nap time,” and that Figure 2 does not on its face refer to a Rumble website. Google denies that the
`
`- 3 -
`GOOGLE LLC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`
`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 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 63 Filed 09/09/22 Page 5 of 38
`
`
`
`purported Google search results depicted in Figure 2 list “a very different and very dated YouTube
`
`video with [a] dissimilar title” in response to the purported query. Google lacks sufficient knowledge
`
`regarding the remaining allegations in this paragraph to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and
`
`denies them on that basis.
`
`13.
`
`Google admits that Figure 2 purports to excerpt Google search results for the query
`
`“Baby preciously cuddles cat for nap time,” and that Figure 2 does not on its face refer to a Rumble
`
`website. Google denies that Figure 2 or any other allegations from Rumble “evidenc[e] Google’s
`
`self-preference of YouTube over competitors.” Google denies that as of November 24, 2020 it had
`
`knowledge that Rumble was the alleged “original source” of a video titled “Baby preciously cuddles
`
`cat for nap time.” Google lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the remaining allegations in this
`
`paragraph to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis.
`
`14.
`
`Google lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis.
`
`15.
`
`Google lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis.
`
`16.
`
`Google admits that Rumble has uploaded videos to YouTube and that, through
`
`September 2020, videos associated with the Client ID linked to Rumble generated approximately 9.2
`
`billion views on YouTube.
`
`17.
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 17 of the First Amended Complaint contains a
`
`normative statement not subject to admission or denial; to the extent this sentence contains any
`
`factual allegations requiring a response, Google denies them. As to the second and third sentences
`
`of this paragraph, Google lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the allegations in those sentences to
`
`form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis.
`
`18.
`
`Google lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis.
`
`19.
`
`Google lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis.
`
`- 4 -
`GOOGLE LLC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`
`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 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 63 Filed 09/09/22 Page 6 of 38
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Google lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis.
`
`21.
`
`Google lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis.
`
`22.
`
`Google lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis.
`
`23.
`
`Google admits that it is a party to the pending lawsuit captioned United States of
`
`America et al. v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C.). Google denies the remaining allegations
`
`in this paragraph.
`
`24.
`
`Google lacks sufficient information regarding the allegations in the first, second,
`
`fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences of Paragraph 24 of the First Amended Complaint to form a belief as
`
`to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis. As to the third sentence of this paragraph,
`
`Google admits that Rumble has uploaded videos to YouTube, but denies that Google has obtained a
`
`monopoly for its YouTube platform or that Google has obtained such a monopoly through unlawful
`
`anti-competitive conduct, and Google lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the other allegations in
`
`this sentence to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis.
`
`25.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 25 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint. As to the second sentence of this paragraph, Google admits that it purchased
`
`YouTube in 2006 but denies the remaining allegations of this sentence.
`
`26.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the First Amended Complaint, and
`
`incorporates by reference its Answer to the DOJ Complaint.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`Google admits that Paragraph 28 of the First Amended Complaint contains an excerpt
`
`from the July 14, 2020 Wall Street Journal Article entitled “Searching for Videos? Google Pushes
`
`YouTube Over Rivals,” but denies the allegations characterizing the substance of that article and
`
`denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`29.
`
`Google admits that Paragraph 29 of the First Amended Complaint contains an excerpt
`
`- 5 -
`GOOGLE LLC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`
`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 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 63 Filed 09/09/22 Page 7 of 38
`
`
`
`from an October 6, 2020 Report issued by the House of Representatives entitled “Investigation of
`
`Competition in Digital Market, Majority Staff Report and Recommendation,” but denies the
`
`allegations characterizing the substance of that report and denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`paragraph.
`
`30.
`
`Google admits that Paragraph 30 of the First Amended Complaint contains an excerpt
`
`from an October 6, 2020 Report issued by the House of Representatives entitled “Investigation of
`
`Competition in Digital Market, Majority Staff Report and Recommendation,” but denies the
`
`allegations characterizing the substance of that report and denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`paragraph.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`Google admits that Paragraph 33 of the First Amended Complaint contains an excerpt
`
`from an October 6, 2020 Report issued by the House of Representatives entitled “Investigation of
`
`Competition in Digital Market, Majority Staff Report and Recommendation,” but denies the
`
`allegations characterizing the substance of that report and denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`paragraph.
`
`34.
`
`Google admits that Paragraph 34 of the First Amended Complaint contains an excerpt
`
`from a September 26, 2014 Gizmodo article entitled “Why Android Phones Now Come With So Many
`
`More Google Apps,” but denies the allegations characterizing the substance of that article and denies
`
`the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`35.
`
`Google admits that Paragraph 35 of the First Amended Complaint contains an excerpt
`
`from the DOJ Complaint filed in United States of America et al. v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010
`
`(D.D.C.). Google incorporates by reference its Answer to the DOJ Complaint, and in particular its
`
`answer to these excerpted paragraphs, and denies the other allegations in Paragraph 35 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint, including the allegations characterizing the DOJ Complaint.
`
`36.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 36 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint. Google lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the allegations in the third
`
`- 6 -
`GOOGLE LLC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`
`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 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 63 Filed 09/09/22 Page 8 of 38
`
`
`
`sentence of this paragraph to form a belief as to their truth or falsity, and denies them on that basis.
`
`37.
`
`As to the first sentence of Paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint, Google lacks
`
`sufficient knowledge regarding the allegations in this sentence to form a belief as to their truth or
`
`falsity and denies them on that basis. As to the second sentence of this paragraph, Google admits
`
`that Rumble has uploaded videos to YouTube, but Google denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`sentence. As to the third sentence of this paragraph, Google admits that Google pays Rumble a
`
`portion of the advertising revenue generated from videos that Rumble uploads to YouTube, but
`
`Google denies the remaining allegations of this sentence.
`
`38.
`
`As to the first sentence of Paragraph 38 of the First Amended Complaint, Google lacks
`
`sufficient knowledge regarding the allegations in this sentence to form a belief as to their truth or
`
`falsity and denies them on that basis. As to the second sentence of this paragraph, Google denies that
`
`it “diverts traffic to the YouTube platform instead of Rumble’s,” and Google lacks sufficient
`
`information regarding the other allegations in this sentence to form a belief as to their truth or falsity
`
`and denies them on that basis. As to the third sentence of this paragraph, Google denies the
`
`allegations that any of Google’s actions have caused or are causing “direct injury to competition
`
`(many video platforms who were active online before Google purchased YouTube no longer exist),
`
`to competitors (such as Rumble), and to consumers,” and Google lacks sufficient knowledge
`
`regarding the remaining allegations in this sentence to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and
`
`denies them on that basis.
`
`39.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first, third, and fourth sentences of Paragraph 39
`
`of the First Amended Complaint. As to the second sentence of this paragraph, Google lacks sufficient
`
`knowledge regarding the allegations in that sentence to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and
`
`denies them on that basis.
`
`40.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 40 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint. As to the second sentence of this paragraph, Google lacks sufficient knowledge
`
`regarding Rumble’s beliefs and therefore denies these allegations. For the avoidance of doubt,
`
`Google further states that Rumble is not entitled to any of the relief that it seeks, including the relief
`
`- 7 -
`GOOGLE LLC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`
`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 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 63 Filed 09/09/22 Page 9 of 38
`
`
`
`discussed in this paragraph.
`
`41.
`
`Google lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint to form a belief as to their truth or falsity, and denies them on that basis.
`
`42.
`
`Google admits that it is a limited liability company organized and existing under the
`
`laws of the State of Delaware and that it maintains a Mountain View, California business address.
`
`Google further admits that it is a subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation that
`
`maintains a Mountain View, California business address, and that XXVI Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary
`
`of Alphabet Inc. Google further admits that it wholly owns YouTube LLC, a limited liability
`
`company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Google further admits that
`
`Alphabet Inc. is a publicly traded company that is incorporated and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware and that maintains its principal executive offices in Mountain View, California.
`
`Google denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`43.
`
`The allegations in the first and third sentences of Paragraph 43 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint are legal conclusions not subject to admission or denial. Google admits that it provides a
`
`range of products and services that are marketed, distributed, and offered to consumers throughout
`
`the United States, across state lines, and internationally.
`
`44.
`
`The allegations of Paragraph 44 of the First Amended Complaint are legal conclusions
`
`not subject to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google does not dispute—
`
`for the purposes of this action only—the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Google denies any
`
`remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`45.
`
`Google admits that Rumble purports to bring an action under Section 2 of the Sherman
`
`Act (15 U.S.C. § 2), and Sections 4 and 15 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 15), but denies
`
`that Rumble is entitled to any of the relief that it seeks and denies any other allegations in this
`
`paragraph.
`
`46.
`
`The allegations of Paragraph 46 of the First Amended Complaint are legal conclusions
`
`not subject to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google does not dispute
`
`subject matter jurisdiction in this action.
`
`- 8 -
`GOOGLE LLC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`
`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 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 63 Filed 09/09/22 Page 10 of 38
`
`
`
`47.
`
`The allegations of Paragraph 47 of the First Amended Complaint are legal conclusions
`
`not subject to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google does not dispute—
`
`for the purposes of this action only—venue in this Court. Google denies any remaining allegations
`
`of this paragraph.
`
`48.
`
`As to the first sentence of Paragraph 48 of the First Amended Complaint, Google
`
`admits that there have been changes to the corporate structure of Google and its affiliates, but Google
`
`lacks sufficient information regarding the remaining allegations in this sentence to form a belief as
`
`to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis. The allegations in the second sentence of this
`
`paragraph are legal conclusions or purported reservations of rights not subject to admission or denial.
`
`49.
`
`Google admits that YouTube was founded by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed
`
`Kari, but Google lacks sufficient information regarding the remaining allegations in Paragraph 49 of
`
`the First Amended Complaint to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis.
`
`50.
`
`Google admits the allegations in the first, second, and third sentences of Paragraph 50
`
`of the First Amended Complaint. Google lacks sufficient information regarding the allegations in
`
`the fourth sentence of this paragraph to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on
`
`that basis. As to the fifth sentence of this paragraph, Google lacks sufficient information regarding
`
`whether the number of online video platforms has changed since November of 2006 to form a belief
`
`as to its truth or falsity and denies it on that basis. Google also denies any remaining allegations in
`
`this sentence.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`Google denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Google admits that it paid approximately $1.65 billion for YouTube and that, when
`
`Google acquired YouTube, YouTube had been active for less than two years and had not yet turned
`
`a profit. Google denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`53.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 53 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint. As to the first sentence of this paragraph, Google admits that it has at some
`
`point realized that its online search platform could be used to search for videos, but denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this sentence. As to the second sentence of this paragraph, Google admits
`
`- 9 -
`GOOGLE LLC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`
`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 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 63 Filed 09/09/22 Page 11 of 38
`
`
`
`that the location of a link on the Google search page is a factor that, in some circumstances, might
`
`affect whether a user clicks on that link, but denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`54.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 54 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint. As to the second and third sentences of this paragraph, Google admits that the
`
`cited references contain reporting on various revenue figures for YouTube, but denies the allegations
`
`characterizing those references and denies any remaining allegations in those sentences.
`
`55.
`
`The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 55 of the First Amended Complaint
`
`are legal conclusions not subject to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google
`
`denies the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. As to the second sentence of this
`
`paragraph, Google admits that there are online video platforms that allow content creators and other
`
`consumers to upload, view, share, and download video content, but otherwise denies the allegations
`
`in this sentence.
`
`56.
`
`The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 56 of the First Amended Complaint
`
`are legal conclusions not subject to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google
`
`denies the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. As to the second sentence of this
`
`paragraph, Google admits that consumers use online video platforms for, inter alia, uploading,
`
`viewing, sharing, and downloading video content, and enjoy the use of such platforms, but Google
`
`denies any remaining allegations of this sentence.
`
`57.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 57 of the First Amended Complaint are legal conclusions
`
`not subject to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google admits that it
`
`purchased YouTube for approximately $1.65 billion within two years of YouTube having launched,
`
`but Google denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`58.
`
`The allegations in the first, second, fourth, and eighth sentences of Paragraph 58 of
`
`the First Amended Complaint are legal conclusions not subject to admission or denial. To the extent
`
`a response is required, Google denies the allegations in the first, second, fourth, and eighth sentences
`
`of this paragraph. As to the allegations in the third and sixth sentences of this paragraph, Google
`
`lacks sufficient knowledge regarding these allegations to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and
`
`- 10 -
`GOOGLE LLC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`
`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 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 63 Filed 09/09/22 Page 12 of 38
`
`
`
`denies them on that basis. As to the fifth sentence of this paragraph, the allegation that TikTok,
`
`Instagram and Facebook “do not provide the same type of video sharing and viewing services” is a
`
`legal conclusion not subject to admission or denial, but Google denies this allegation to the extent a
`
`response is required, and Google lacks sufficient information regarding the remaining allegations in
`
`this sentence to form a belief as to their truth or falsity and denies them on that basis. As to the
`
`seventh sentence of this paragraph, Google admits that there are third-party reports of a 2018
`
`agreement between Google and Facebook, but Google denies the allegations characterizing those
`
`reports and denies the remaining allegations of this sentence.
`
`59.
`
`The allegations in the first and third sentence of Paragraph 59 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint are legal conclusions not subject to admission or denial. To the extent a response is
`
`required, Google denies the allegations in the first and third sentences of this paragraph. As to the
`
`second sentence of this paragraph, Google admits that certain users can customize Google’s search
`
`engine to preference results from certain countries and regions, but Google denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this sentence.
`
`60.
`
`The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 60 of the First Amended Complaint
`
`are legal conclusions not subject to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google
`
`denies the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. Google denies the remaining allegations
`
`of this paragraph on the grounds that “significant,” “highly complex,” “effective,” “adequate,” and
`
`“vital” are undefined, rendering those allegations vague as a matter of law and that, to the extent not
`
`vague, Google lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth or falsity.
`
`61.
`
`The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 61 of the First Amended Complaint
`
`are legal conclusions not subject to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google
`
`denies the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. As to the second sentence of this
`
`paragraph, Google admits that the cited websites generally refer to online video platforms in
`
`connection with market analysis, but Google otherwise denies the remaining allegations of this
`
`sentence.
`
`62.
`
`The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 62 of the First Amended Complaint
`
`- 11 -
`GOOGLE LLC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00229-HSG
`
`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 4:21-cv-00229-HSG Document 63 Filed 09/09/22 Page 13 of 38
`
`
`
`are legal conclusions not subject to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google
`
`denies the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. Google denies the remaining allegations
`
`of this paragraph.
`
`63.
`
`As to the first and second sentences of Paragraph 63 of the First Amended Complaint,
`
`Google admits that the Wall Street Journal has reported on various market share measures associated
`
`with Google, but otherwise denies the allegations in these sentences. The allegations in the third
`
`sentence of this paragraph are premised on Rumble’s proposed market definition, a legal conclusion
`
`not subject to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google denies the allegations
`
`in the third sentence of this paragraph.
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`Google denies the allegations of Paragraph 66 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`Paragraph 68 of the First Amended Complaint merely incorporates by reference
`
`Paragraphs 2 to 13 of the First Amended Complaint, and thus no additional response is required. To
`
`the extent a response is required, Google incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 2 to
`
`13 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`69.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 69 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint. As to the first sentence of this paragraph and Figure 3, Google admits that this
`
`sentence and Figure purport to describe and excerpt the results of a Google video search wi