Court Tosses Out Ridiculous Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google

from the nice-try,-redmond dept

A year and a half ago, we wrote about a bizarre antitrust lawsuit filed in Ohio state court by a small shopping search engine company most people haven't heard of called myTriggers. The details were particularly odd. First, myTriggers set up a line of credit with Google to buy AdWords advertisements. Then... it didn't pay. The company claimed that a rejiggered algorithm made the ads much more expensive than it expected. But that doesn't explain why it racked up a $335,000 bill that it refused to pay. You can put limits on your spend. Either way, Google went to court in Ohio to try to collect on the money owed.... and bam, myTriggers suddenly used that as an excuse to launch a giant antitrust lawsuit against Google in Ohio. And, on top of that, this tiny company in Ohio that no one had heard of somehow magically hired Microsoft's chief antitrust counsel, Rick Rule, who does not come cheap. As Eric Goldman noted at the time:
Assuming myTriggers even has the money, writing a $335k check to Google (and I bet Google would have taken less!) is almost assuredly cheaper than paying three law firms to mount an antitrust assault on a $20B/year behemoth. Assuming that myTriggers wants to maximize profits, then either (1) myTriggers thinks its odds are good enough that it will win AND make enough money to pay the 7 lawyers on the counterclaim's signature page plus their teams, or (2) the law firms struck an unbelievably sweet deal on fees.
Or... you know, perhaps someone else was financing the whole thing. Google has been pretty vocal about the fact that it suspects Microsoft is behind this. But, the bigger issue is that the case itself is a joke. Google can set up its ad ranking algorithms however it likes, and while this case was purposely filed in response to Google's attempt to collect in Ohio, since whoever was behind it knew that would keep it in an Ohio state court rather than a federal court, it turns out that the court might not have been as clueless as those who filed the lawsuit expected. That's because the case has been dismissed.

You can read the full ruling below. It consists of two key issues. First, Google tried to have the case dismissed under Section 230 of the CDA, claiming that as a service provider, it's not responsible for blocking or demoting ad content. This is a slightly different part of Section 230 than we usually discuss. This is the part that is designed to encourage companies to voluntarily filter "objectionable" content, and to not face liability for doing so. Here, the court ruled that ads don't qualify as objectionable content. The caselaw it relies on here is a little murky, but for the most part, this did seem like a bit of a stretch as an argument. So that wasn't very effective.

However, the case was still dismissed on a much bigger issue: which is that myTriggers failed to properly allege an antitrust violation. You would think that with all those big, fancy and expensive lawyers, they would have done a bit better. The problem, of course, is that to show antitrust you have to show harm to competitors. But, as the court notes, all myTriggers did was show (potential, possible) harm to myTriggers. In fact, part of myTriggers' own argument was to show how other vertical search engines performed much better in Google, which undermines myTriggers' argument:
"[T]o prove antitrust injury, the key inquiry is whether competition--not necessarily a competitor--suffered as a result of the challenged business practice."

Here, the counterclaim only alleges harm to myTriggers itself. In addition, myTriggers' counterclaims contain allegations that other competitive vertical search sites were indeed favored by Google. In paragraph 12 of its counterclaim, myTriggers alleges that "Google has entered these favorable agreements with Shopping.com, shopzilla.com, PriceGrabber.com, bizrate.com, NexTag.com * * *." Such an allegation undercuts myTriggers' argument that competition as a whole within the relevant market is being injured.
The court also notes that just because myTriggers thinks its been blacklisted, that's not a real claim. It's just a random guess by myTriggers.

There are a few other claims by myTriggers, and in each and every case, the court points out that it failed to establish a legitimate claim. It's a pretty complete rejection of the lawsuit, though you have to expect it'll be appealed/amended. This marks the second of a trio of such cases that has been tossed out by courts. One wonders if grandstanding politicians using these silly claims as evidence of Google antitrust violations may start to quiet down.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Sep 1st, 2011 @ 4:47pm

    OR Google itself set up stawmen to inoculate it.

    $20B gives equal cause for such conjecture; your facts can also fit this view,

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2011 @ 5:19pm

    "One wonders if grandstanding politicians using these silly claims as evidence of Google antitrust violations may start to quiet down."

    OMG: Mike's an insane optimist........

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2011 @ 6:22pm

    Re: OR Google itself set up stawmen to inoculate it.

    So I've always wondered - what colour is the sky in your world?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    nonanymous, Sep 1st, 2011 @ 6:35pm

    Re: Re: OR Google itself set up stawmen to inoculate it.

    So I've always wondered - what colour is the sky in your world?

    Whatever it is, it's flat, to match the shape of his world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2011 @ 7:22pm

    Re: OR Google itself set up stawmen to inoculate it.

    Google hired Microsoft's anti-trust counsel to defend themselves against a fake company they themselves created to inoculate themselves against a threat that wouldn't otherwise exist?

    I sometimes wonder how you function in reality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2011 @ 7:24pm

    Re: Re: OR Google itself set up stawmen to inoculate it.

    Oops. I got lost in the conspiracy.

    Should read "hired...to attack themselves via a fake company they themselves created..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2011 @ 8:28pm

    Google Hate

    This whole case is your bog-standard Google hate, presumably instigated by the usual suspects, namely Microsoft and/or Facebook.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Sep 1st, 2011 @ 11:22pm

    Re:

    Insane? hell naw! Optimist? Maybe, but I see the glass as half-unicorn.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 10:49am

    Re: OR Google itself set up stawmen to inoculate it.

    Given that politicians are looking at cases just like this one as justification for grandstanding in favor of anti-trust investigation of Google I'd say you're either way off the mark on such conjecture or they were fantastically unsuccessful. My money's on the former in case your were wondering.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Andrew Heenan (profile), Sep 6th, 2011 @ 11:31am

    Story Not Complete

    While it's always a joy to read that these chancers and quacks have failed (whether or not supported by M$, Aliens or Swiss Cheese), the story really needs an ending.

    Who paid the lawyers bills? What's happening about Google's original invoice? I think we should be told!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This