555 F.Supp.3d 1372
J.P.M.L.2021Background
- 19 related antitrust actions pending in 16 districts (advertiser, publisher, and a 15‑state parens patriae action led by Texas) allege Google monopolized or suppressed competition in online display advertising.
- Centralization motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 filed by Google (seeking Northern District of California); Panel selected the Southern District of New York (SDNY) instead.
- Common core allegations: relevant‑market definition for display advertising, Google’s ad tech products and alleged interoperability barriers, acquisitions (e.g., DoubleClick), alleged tying, and an alleged 2018 Google–Facebook agreement that neutralized “header bidding.”
- Panel found substantial overlap in fact discovery (including third‑party discovery of Facebook, Amazon, and regulators) and risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings, favoring an MDL.
- The State of Texas action (state enforcement) sought to exclude itself due to sovereign interests, advanced discovery posture, and proposed withdrawal of federal damages; Panel nonetheless included it in the MDL.
- MDL No. 3010 assigned to Judge P. Kevin Castel in the SDNY; Google’s request to transfer the State of Texas action for trial under § 1407(h) was denied without prejudice pending further development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether centralization under § 1407 is warranted and where | Many plaintiffs opposed MDL or favored multiple, separate forums (or their home districts) citing factual differences and case‑management concerns | Google: single MDL needed to avoid duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings; sought NDCA | Centralization warranted; MDL established in SDNY for coordinated pretrial proceedings |
| Whether the State of Texas action should be included in the MDL | States: sovereign enforcement, more advanced discovery, dropped federal damages, and need for expeditious resolution justify exclusion | Google: State action shares the same factual core and overlapping remedies; should be centralized | Included in MDL despite states’ objections; sovereign status and posture not dispositive |
| Whether separate MDLs for advertisers and publishers are required | Some plaintiffs urged separate tracks or separate MDLs because of different issues and damages models | Google: substantial overlap in core factual issues (market definition, effects, damages apportionment) supports single MDL | Single MDL is appropriate; transferee court can manage differences with case‑management tools |
| Whether informal coordination or § 1404 transfers are sufficient alternatives | Plaintiffs suggested informal coordination or individual § 1404 transfers could avoid centralization | Google: informal coordination impracticable across 16 districts and multiple counsel; § 1404 impractical here | Informal coordination and § 1404 transfer are inadequate substitutes for a § 1407 MDL |
| Whether to transfer the State of Texas action for trial under § 1407(h) | Google sought transfer for trial under § 1407(h) based on operative pleading asserting § 4C damages | States moved to amend to drop § 4C; parties disputed posture | Denied without prejudice: record insufficient now; decision reserved for transferee court after further development |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio v. American Express Co., 138 S. Ct. 2274 (2018) (Supreme Court precedent on Section 1 and market‑definition analysis cited by parties)
- In re Valsartan Prods. Liab. Litig., 433 F. Supp. 3d 1349 (J.P.M.L. 2019) (MDL transferee court may manage differences among actions with pretrial devices)
- In re Watson Fentanyl Patch Prods. Liab. Litig., 883 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (Panel considers overall convenience of parties and witnesses in § 1407 decisions)
- In re Ford Motor Co. DPS6 PowerShift Transmission Prods. Liab. Litig., 289 F. Supp. 3d 1350 (J.P.M.L. 2018) (case‑management concerns about MDL timing are for the transferee court)
- In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litig., 923 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (degree of consolidation within an MDL rests with the transferee judge)