The Search Court Rejected Claims That Mirror Plaintiffs’ Claims Here
18
Plaintiffs claim “Google ignored Microsoft’s repeated pleas to integrate auction time
bidding (ATB), a feature that permits advertisers to change their bid strategies in
real time during auctions.”
“The court is unpersuaded that Google’s SA360 conduct falls outside the ‘no-duty-
to-deal’ framework.” “The concerns that animate the no-duty-to-deal principle are
equally applicable here. Primarily, adjudicating Plaintiff States’ claim would require
the court to act as a ‘central planner’ that endeavors to identify the proper ‘terms of
dealing.’
Trinko
, 540 U.S. at 408. Their claim requires grappling with a host of
questions that the court is ill-equipped to handle.” “And those thorny questions
foreshadow the challenges the court would face in administering a remedy. Any
relief presumably would require Google to ensure feature parity on SA360 now and
into the future. A favorable outcome for Plaintiff States thus would mire the court in
Google’s day-to-day operations.”
United States v. Google
, 2024 WL 3647498, at *129, *131 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2024)
