throbber

`
`
`
`
`United States of America, et al.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Google LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 42
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-03010-APM
`
`HON. AMIT P. MEHTA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S ANSWER AND
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) answers Plaintiffs’ Complaint, through its undersigned
`
`counsel, as set forth below. Google generally denies the legal claims asserted in Plaintiffs’
`
`Complaint. Google further states that for nearly a quarter century, Google’s mission has been to
`
`organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. To further that
`
`mission, Google has developed, continually innovated, and promoted Google Search for use by
`
`consumers all over the world. People use Google Search because they choose to, not because they
`
`are forced to or because they cannot easily find alternative ways to search for information on the
`
`Internet.
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS
`
`The section headings in the 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 it was founded in a Menlo Park garage 22 years ago and that it
`
`created an innovative way to search the internet, Google Search, but denies the remaining
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 42
`
`allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. Google admits that its parent
`
`company, Alphabet Inc., has a roughly $1 trillion market capitalization and had revenue exceeding
`
`$160 billion in 2019, but denies that these allegations apply to Google LLC, the Defendant in this
`
`case. Google denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
`
`2.
`
`Google admits that consumers often access search products and services through
`
`mobile devices, laptops, and desktops that contain web browsers and other search access points.
`
`Google denies the remaining allegations in the first, second, and third sentences of Paragraph 2 of
`
`the Complaint. As to the fourth sentence of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Google admits that over
`
`the last ten years, internet searches on mobile devices have grown and by some measures today
`
`exceed searches on laptops and desktops, but denies the remaining allegations in this sentence.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
`
`As to the second sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Google admits that it has entered into
`
`various agreements with mobile device manufacturers (such as Apple, LG, Motorola, and
`
`Samsung), carriers (such as AT&T, T-Mobile/Sprint, and Verizon), and browser developers (such
`
`as Mozilla, Opera, and UCWeb) for the promotion of Google’s products and services, including
`
`agreements that provide for Google’s search service to be the out-of-the-box default search service
`
`for certain search access points, that, in exchange, Google shares a portion of revenue received
`
`from devices enrolled, and that Google has shared revenue in cumulative amounts in the billions,
`
`but denies Plaintiffs’ characterization of those agreements and denies that Google prohibits
`
`counterparties from dealing with Google’s competitors. As to the third sentence of Paragraph 4 of
`
`the Complaint, Google admits that it has entered into agreements that provide for preinstallation of
`
`a suite of Google apps and that these agreements contain various provisions regarding placement
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 3 of 42
`
`of certain Google apps on devices’ system partitions and default home screen for the out-of-the-
`
`box settings, but denies Plaintiffs’ characterization of those agreements. Google denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint except Google
`
`admits that some dictionaries do refer to “Google” as a verb.
`
`7.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 7. As to the
`
`allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Google admits that its products
`
`and services sometimes return advertisements in response to user search queries, but denies the
`
`remainder of the allegations on the grounds that “consumer search queries” and “consumer
`
`information” are undefined, rendering those allegations vague as a matter of law. Google admits
`
`that advertisers made payments to Google to place ads on Google’s search engine results page
`
`(SERP). Google denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
`
`8.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first and fourth sentences of Paragraph 8 of the
`
`Complaint. As to the second sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Google admits that its
`
`search products and services use complex algorithms that may take into account data generated as
`
`a result of earlier queries, but lacks sufficient information regarding the use of algorithms by other
`
`search products and services, and on that basis denies the remaining allegations in this sentence.
`
`As to the third sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Google admits that in 2009,
`
`BusinessWeek published an article attributing the quoted language to Eric Schmidt, Google’s
`
`former CEO.
`
`9. Google denies the allegations in the first and fourth sentences of Paragraph 9 of the
`
`Complaint. Google lacks sufficient information as to the second sentence of Paragraph 9 of the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 4 of 42
`
`Complaint and, on that basis, denies the allegation. As to the third sentence of Paragraph 9 of the
`
`Complaint, Google admits that DuckDuckGo claims to differentiate itself from Google, but lacks
`
`sufficient information regarding DuckDuckGo’s policies and practices, and on that basis denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this sentence.
`
`10.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 10 of the
`
`Complaint. The allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint contain legal
`
`conclusions to which no answer is required, and to the extent any answer is required, Google refers
`
`to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in United States v. Microsoft for its content and denies the remaining
`
`allegations regarding Google’s conduct.
`
`11. Google denies the allegations in the first and second sentences in Paragraph 11 of
`
`the Complaint. As to the allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph No. 11 of the Complaint,
`
`Google admits the existence of a document with the quoted language, but denies the remainder of
`
`Plaintiffs’ allegations characterizing the substance of that document. As to the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Google admits the existence of public reports
`
`containing the quoted language, but denies the remainder of Plaintiffs’ allegations characterizing
`
`the substance of that language.
`
`12. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
`
`13. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
`
`14.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint are legal conclusions not subject
`
`to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint are legal conclusions not subject
`
`to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google denies the allegations in
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 5 of 42
`
`Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint are legal conclusions not subject
`
`to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google does not dispute subject
`
`matter jurisdiction.
`
`17.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint are legal conclusions not subject
`
`to admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Google does not dispute—for
`
`purposes of this action only—the personal jurisdiction of this Court, but Google otherwise denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
`
`18.
`
`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., which is a subsidiary of
`
`Alphabet Inc. 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. The allegations of the third sentence in Paragraph
`
`18 of the Complaint are legal conclusions not subject to admission or denial. Google admits the
`
`allegations of the fourth sentence in Paragraph No. 18 of the Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`Google admits the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, but denies the
`
`characterization of these search products and services as “general search engines” as Plaintiffs use
`
`that term in their Complaint.
`
`20. Google admits that some search products and services, including Google Search,
`
`use software to “crawl” the internet and index webpages, but lacks sufficient information as to the
`
`precise methodology of “[m]ost modern” search products and services and, on that basis, denies
`
`the remaining allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. Google admits
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 6 of 42
`
`that its website contains the quoted language in the second and third sentence of Paragraph 20 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`21.
`
`Google admits that some search products and services use algorithms to evaluate
`
`the relevance of information on a webpage to a user’s query and that, depending on the query,
`
`some search products and services may include features designed for particular categories of
`
`queries. Google admits that some search products and services deliver results on a search engine
`
`results page, or SERP, with links to and descriptions of the webpages. Google admits that some
`
`search products and services serve ads with some of the search results. Google denies any
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
`
`22. Google admits that it spends significant resources maintaining its search products
`
`and services, but lacks sufficient information as to the cost of establishing and/or maintaining other
`
`search products and services and, on that basis, denies the allegations in the first and fourth
`
`sentences of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. Google admits the allegations in the second sentence
`
`of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. Google denies the allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph
`
`22 of the Complaint. Google denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
`
`23.
`
`Google admits that its search products and services can be used by consumers to
`
`search the internet for answers to a wide range of queries, admits that DuckDuckGo publicly states
`
`that it combines search results from different sources (including Microsoft’s Bing) depending on
`
`the search query, and admits that it has been publicly reported that Verizon’s Yahoo! does not
`
`currently crawl the internet and instead purchases search results from Microsoft’s Bing, but
`
`otherwise denies the allegations in the Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
`
`24. With respect to the first sentence of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, Google admits
`
`that consumers can find information online using search products and services other than Google
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 7 of 42
`
`Search, but denies the remainder of the sentence including on the grounds that “specialized
`
`information” is vague as a matter of law. With respect to the second sentence of Paragraph 24 of
`
`the Complaint, Google admits that consumers can use search products and services such as
`
`Amazon or eBay to shop for products, or Expedia or Priceline to compare airfares, but denies the
`
`allegations in the remainder of the sentence. Google denies the allegations in the third and fourth
`
`sentence of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
`
`25. Google admits that some search products and services, including Google Search,
`
`are available to consumers free of charge. Google admits that the website for Microsoft’s Bing
`
`states that it offers consumers rewards for using Bing. Google admits that when a consumer uses
`
`Google, the consumer can choose to provide certain information to Google. Google admits that it
`
`sometimes sells ads. Google denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Google admits the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
`
`Google admits that it adopted an auction system in the early 2000s to allocate
`
`limited advertising space on its SERP, whereby advertisers bid on keywords and the winning
`
`bidder’s ad is shown in response to certain queries; that some advertisers pay only when a user
`
`clicks on the ad; that Google sometimes displays multiple ads; and that Google takes ad quality
`
`and relevance into account to determine the placement of ads. Google denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
`
`28.
`
`Google admits that advertisers can have different objectives and that ads can be
`
`used to meet those objectives. Google admits that the term “purchase funnel” may be used by
`
`some. To the extent that Figure 1 purports to depict, construe, or describe marketers’ or
`
`advertisers’ understanding of the “purchase funnel,” no response is required; to the extent a
`
`response is required, Google denies that Figure 1 presents a fair and complete description of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 8 of 42
`
`matters described therein and, on that basis, denies the allegations contained in Figure 1. Google
`
`denies the remaining allegations and the accuracy of Figure 1 in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
`
`29. Google admits that some potential customers interested in purchasing a product
`
`may search for that product and that search ads can therefore be helpful in enabling advertisers to
`
`reach these interested customers. Google denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 29 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`30. Google admits that it sells some search ads that appear on a SERP in a format
`
`similar to the format of organic search results, which Google has referred to collectively as the “10
`
`blue links,” and that search ads include a notation that they are “ads” or “sponsored.” To the
`
`extent that Figure 2 purports to depict, construe, or describe Google Search text ads or organic
`
`search results, no response is required; to the extent a response is required, Google denies that
`
`Figure 2 presents a fair and complete description of the matters described therein and, on that
`
`basis, denies the allegations contained in Figure 2. Google lacks sufficient information as to the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies the remaining
`
`allegations.
`
`31.
`
`Google admits that some search products and services, including Google Search,
`
`can display different ad formats, including text ads that can be used to advertise products, hotels,
`
`local services, and certain other categories of goods and services. To the extent that Figure 3
`
`purports to depict, construe, or describe portions of Google’s SERP, no response is required; to the
`
`extent a response is required, Google denies that Figure 3 presents a fair and complete description
`
`of the matters described therein and, on that basis, denies the allegations contained in Figure 3.
`
`Google denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
`
`32.
`
`Google admits that other search products and services also sell search ads. Google
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 9 of 42
`
`admits that advertisers can buy search ads for various products on Amazon, Expedia, and Yelp.
`
`Google denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
`
`33.
`
`Google admits that some advertisers seek to reach a large group of consumers, and
`
`those advertisers may benefit from access to more consumers, but otherwise denies the allegations
`
`in the first sentence of Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. Google denies the allegations in the second
`
`sentence of Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. Google admits the existence of a document containing
`
`the quoted language in the last sentence of Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, but denies Plaintiffs’
`
`characterization of the substance of that document.
`
`34.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 34 of
`
`the Complaint. Google lacks sufficient information as to the operation of various unidentified
`
`“[a]dvertising agencies and larger companies” and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`35.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 35 of
`
`the Complaint, and in particular notes that when Google was first starting up, it was able to
`
`compete for users by developing a better product, despite having fewer user queries than larger
`
`competitors had at the time. As to the third sentence of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Google
`
`admits that a search product or service employed by more users can, depending on the
`
`circumstances, provide advertisers with access to more users than advertising on a single search
`
`service or product employed by fewer users, but otherwise denies the allegations of the third
`
`sentence. Google denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
`
`36. Google denies the allegations of Paragraph 36 except to aver that data, depending
`
`on the circumstances, can be used to improve search results.
`
`37.
`
`Google admits that a search product or service employed by more users can,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 10 of 42
`
`depending on the circumstances, provide advertisers with access to more users than advertising on
`
`a single search product or service employed by fewer users. Google denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`Google admits that consumers can access search products and services in a number
`
`of ways, including through browsers and search apps on mobile devices, desktops, laptops, and
`
`other devices, and that Google distributes its search products and services, including its search
`
`engine, to be available to consumers in those ways, but denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
`
`40. Google admits that companies that provide search products and services can enter
`
`into agreements with other companies, such as desktop, laptop, and mobile-device manufacturers,
`
`cell phone carriers, and browser developers for the distribution or promotion of search products
`
`and services, including agreements that provide for a search product or service to be the out-of-the-
`
`box default search product or service for certain search access points, although Google notes that,
`
`at least in the agreements it has entered into, consumers have the choice whether to change the
`
`default away from Google services. Google denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 40 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`41. Google admits that the Plaintiffs’ allegations in the first, second, and third sentence
`
`of Paragraph 41 “generally” describe the characteristics of certain products in the categories listed,
`
`though Google lacks sufficient information as to all such products and, on that basis, denies the
`
`allegations to the extent Plaintiffs’ allegations could be interpreted to apply to all such products.
`
`As to the fourth sentence in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, Google admits that certain search
`
`access points at times set a certain search provider as the out-of-the-box default, though Google
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 11 of 42
`
`notes that at least in the agreements it has entered into, consumers have the choice whether to
`
`change the default away from Google services, and otherwise denies the allegations in this
`
`sentence. As to the allegations in the fifth sentence in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, Google
`
`admits that being the out-of-the-box default search product or service on certain search access
`
`points, depending on the setting, has value, but denies the remaining allegations in this sentence.
`
`42. Google admits that some sources depict the number of U.S. queries on mobile
`
`devices as greater than the number of queries on desktops and laptops today, but otherwise lacks
`
`knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 42 of
`
`the Complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`43.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint
`
`on the ground that “usage” is undefined, rendering the measurement 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. As to the second sentence of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, Google
`
`admits that Apple does not license iOS to third-party mobile-device manufacturers and admits that
`
`Apple is a “closed ecosystem” to the extent Plaintiffs define “closed ecosystem” to mean that
`
`Apple does not license iOS to third-party mobile-device manufacturers. As to the third sentence of
`
`Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, Google admits that Android is an operating system that Google
`
`licenses open-source with an Apache license, denies that it “controls” Android, and denies the
`
`remaining allegations on the ground that “usage” is undefined, rendering the measurement 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. Google admits the allegations in the fourth
`
`sentence of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint. Google lacks sufficient information concerning the
`
`allegations in the fifth sentence of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, and, on that basis, denies the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 12 of 42
`
`allegations.
`
`44. Google admits that mobile-device users can access search services and products
`
`through various means, including browsers, widgets, apps, and voice assistants. To the extent that
`
`Figure 4 purports to depict, construe, or describe how Google delivers Google Search on Android
`
`devices, no response is required; to the extent a response is required, Google denies that Figure 4
`
`presents a fair and complete description of the matters described therein and, on that basis, denies
`
`the allegations contained in Figure 4. Google denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 44 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`45.
`
`Google admits the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 45 of the
`
`Complaint. As to the second and third sentences of Paragraph 45, Google admits that companies
`
`that provide search products and services can enter into agreements with companies such as
`
`mobile-device manufacturers, cell phone carriers, and browser developers for the distribution or
`
`promotion of search products and services, including agreements that provide for a search product
`
`or service to be the out-of-the-box default search product or service for certain search access
`
`points, but denies any remaining allegations of those sentences. As to the fourth and fifth
`
`sentences of Paragraph 45, Google admits that it has an agreement with Apple, under which
`
`Google is the out-of-the-box default search provider for Apple’s Safari browser and certain other
`
`search access points, though Google notes that consumers have the choice whether to change the
`
`out-of-the-box default on Safari and which search product or service or application to use on
`
`Safari. Google denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
`
`46. Google admits that it has an agreement with Apple, under which Google is the out-
`
`of-the-box default search provider for Apple’s mobile Safari browser, and that Google is the initial
`
`default search provider for certain search access points on Chrome mobile browser, though Google
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 13 of 42
`
`notes that consumers have the choice whether to change the default on Safari and Chrome and
`
`which search product or service to use on Safari or Chrome or when using another mobile
`
`application. Google lacks information sufficient as to the truth or falsity of the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 46, and on that basis, denies them; Google further avers that certain
`
`sources may purport to report similar figures.
`
`47.
`
`Google admits that attaining a preinstalled search access point, depending on the
`
`setting, can encourage utilization of a service, but lacks sufficient information concerning the
`
`allegations in the first, second, and fourth sentences of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, and, on that
`
`basis, denies the remaining allegations. As to the third sentence of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint,
`
`Google admits the existence of a document containing the quoted language, but denies the
`
`remainder of Plaintiffs’ allegations characterizing the substance of that document and otherwise
`
`denies the remaining allegations in this sentence.
`
`48.
`
`Google admits that many consumers access certain search products and services
`
`through a browser by typing a query into the address bar or visiting those search products and
`
`services’ web pages. Google lacks sufficient information concerning the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 48 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies the allegations.
`
`49. Google lacks sufficient information concerning the allegations in the first four
`
`sentences of Paragraph 49 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies the allegations. Google
`
`denies the allegations in the fifth sentence of Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
`
`50. Google denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 50 of the Complaint
`
`on the grounds that “important” is not defined, rendering those allegations vague as a matter of
`
`law. Google lacks sufficient information concerning the remaining allegations in Paragraph 50 of
`
`the Complaint and, on that basis, denies the allegations.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 14 of 42
`
`51. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint and specifically
`
`notes that the most effective way for a search product or service to reach users and be competitive
`
`is to have a quality product or service that consumers decide to use.
`
`52. With respect to the first sentence in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, Google admits
`
`that it has entered into agreements, including distribution and/or licensing agreements, with certain
`
`manufacturers and carriers that distribute mobile devices with search access points. Google denies
`
`the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`53. With respect to the second sentence of Paragraph 53 in the Complaint, Google
`
`admits that it distributes Google Search in part through properties it owns or operates. Google
`
`denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint.
`
`54.
`
`Google admits that it has three basic types of agreements with mobile device
`
`manufacturers, and that one of these types of agreements relates to the ability of device
`
`manufacturers that preinstall Google’s proprietary apps to modify Android devices in a way that
`
`hinders interoperability. Google denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 54 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`55.
`
`Google admits that it offers Google application program interfaces (APIs) and
`
`proprietary Google apps free of charge to Android device manufacturers that agree to preinstall a
`
`suite of Google apps, and that these agreements contain various provisions regarding placement of
`
`certain Google apps on devices’ system partitions and default home screen for the out-of-the-box
`
`settings. Google denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.
`
`56.
`
`Google admits that it has entered agreements with certain Android device
`
`manufacturers, mobile phone carriers, browser providers, and Apple for the distribution and
`
`promotion of Google’s products and services. Google further admits that certain agreements
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 15 of 42
`
`provide for Google Search to be the out-of-the-box default search service for certain search access
`
`points on desktops, laptops, and mobile devices and that, in exchange, Google shares a portion of
`
`revenue received from enrolled devices. Google denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 56
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 58 of the
`
`Complaint. As to the second sentence of Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Google admits that in the
`
`late 1990s and early 2000s, most internet searches were performed on desktop and laptop
`
`browsers, but denies the remaining allegations in this sentence. As to the third sentence of
`
`Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Google admits that its 2007 Form 10-K contains the quoted
`
`language, but denies Plaintiffs’ allegations characterizing the substance of that document.
`
`59.
`
`Google admits that it has worked with mobile device manufacturers (such as LG,
`
`Motorola, and Samsung) and carriers (such as AT&T, T-Mobile/Sprint, and Verizon) for the
`
`distribution and promotion of Google’s search products and services, but otherwise denies the
`
`allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 59 of the Complaint. As to the second sentence of
`
`Paragraph 59 of the Complaint, Google admits the existence of a document containing the quoted
`
`language, but denies the remainder of Plaintiffs’ allegations characterizing the substance of that
`
`document.
`
`60. Google admits that Google Inc. purchased the Android mobile operating system in
`
`2005, but denies Plaintiffs’ characterization of that transaction. Google admits that it began
`
`offering Android open-source with an Apache license in or around 2007. Google denies the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph No. 60 of the Complaint.
`
`61. Google admits that Android attracted consumers, app developers, manufacturers,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 16 of 42
`
`and carriers but otherwise denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 61 of the
`
`Complaint. As to the second sentence of Paragraph 61 of the Complaint, Google admits the
`
`existence of a document containing the quoted language, but denies the remainder of Plaintiffs’
`
`allegations characterizing the substance of that document. Google lacks sufficient information
`
`concerning the allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 61 of the Complaint, and, on that
`
`basis, denies the allegations.
`
`62.
`
`Google admits that Android attracted consumers, app developers, manufacturers,
`
`and carriers, but otherwise denies the allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 62
`
`of the Complaint. Google denies the allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 62 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`63.
`
`Google denies the allegations in the first and third sentences of Paragraph 63 of the
`
`Complaint. As to the second sentence of Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, Google admits the
`
`existence of a document containing the quoted language, but denies the remainder of Plaintiffs’
`
`allegations characterizing the substance of that document.
`
`64.
`
`As to the first and second sentences of Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, Google
`
`admits the existence of a document containing the quoted language, but denies the remainder of
`
`Pla

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket