Atlanta Ad Firm's Antitrust Suit Seeks to Break Up Google
The complaint filed by Atlanta ad firm Inform Inc. and lawyers at Herman Jones accuses Google of using its market power to eviscerate competition at the expense of consumers and innovation.
November 26, 2019 at 12:29 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
An Atlanta-based digital advertising company that markets streaming and pop-up videos has sued Google—already under investigation by state attorneys general for possible antitrust activities—over claims the company is using its sweeping online presence to monopolize the online ad market.
The federal complaint, filed Tuesday in the Northern District of Georgia by Inform Inc., not only seeks damages and an injunction halting Google's allegedly monopolistic practices but also asks the court to break up the company into separate corporations individually focused on its own advertising business, Android services and Chrome web browser.
The suit asks that a "corporate monitor" be appointed to help break up the company and keep the court apprised "as to further divestment or reallocation of Google assets or further corporate government changes or board membership changes."
The suit said Inform, which creates and markets advertising and other content along with online video players, was averaging $37 million a year as recently as 2016, but "since that time Google has effectively put Inform out of business" by engaging in an array of illegal conduct in violation of federal and state law.
"Google's pattern of anticompetitive practices has thwarted competition on the merits and excluded Inform and other Google competitors from the relevant markets," the complaint said. "The result has been to eviscerate competition in multiple markets, harm consumers, degrade consumer choice and consumer privacy, and stifle innovation."
Google has used its dominance to "gain and monopolize power" by, among other things, coercing consumers and advertisers to use its products and platforms, and enforcing "exclusionary agreements that preclude companies from advertising, distributing, promoting, buying, or using products of competitors or potential competitors to Google's applications," the suit said.
The complaint names Google, YouTube and its parent company, Alphabet, as defendants.
With the world's most-used search engine, Chrome browser and ownership of the Android smartphone technology and Youtube, "Google has established a monopoly in the worldwide market for licensable mobile device operating systems," according to the lawsuit.
In order to compete in that market, "a company's services must be compatible with Google's stable of services and Google's Chrome browser," the complaint said. "Importantly, this has enabled Google to set arbitrary and anti-competitive rules by which video content and video advertisements are enabled, viewable and audible in ways that favor Google and Google's stable of products and services."
On at least one occasion, Google affirmatively interfered with an Inform customer, "sending them a screenshot to give them a 'heads up' when Inform's floating video player with that client's advertisement appeared next to content that Google misleadingly characterized as objectionable,'" it said.
"Google obtained information about Inform's customer through Inform's forced usage of the Google ad server, took this information to Inform's customer and used it in an attempt to convince Inform's customer that Google offered superior services," it said.
The suit accuses Google of violating U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act provisions regarding monopolies and illegal restraint of trade, and tortious interference with Inform's business relationships.
It seeks a declaration that Google's "leveraged monopolies constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade and are illegal" under the federal statutes, and an injunction barring any further violations as detailed in the complaint.
The suit was filed by John Herman, Peter Jones, Carlton Jones and Serena Vash of Atlanta's Herman Jones.
Herman said the lawsuit was long overdue.
"The reality is that alarm bells have been ringing for years about Google's illegal monopolistic conduct," Herman said via email. "The complaint we filed today demonstrates how Google's predatory conduct effectively put Inform—and we believe multiple other digital advertising companies—out of business.
"This is the exact type of behavior the antitrust laws were designed to address and we are hopeful the court will do so," he said.
There was no immediate reply to a query sent to to Google's Mountain View headquarters on Tuesday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Tips From—and About—the New Judges on the Northern District of California Bench
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250