`
`
`
`
`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