Google LLC and three corporate relatives have fired back at allegations lobbed by Unlockd Media Inc. Liquidation Trust, which asserted that Google’s anti-competitive conduct and total control over the Android smartphone ecosystem drove Unlockd’s young business into the ground. Google countered that Unlockd lacks antitrust standing and its cause of action falls short of stating a claim for attempted monopolization in its Monday-filed motion to dismiss.
As previously reported, Unlockd sued Google last September. The lawsuit explained that Unlockd designed a software application presenting users, in exchange for benefits or discounts from corporate partners, with full-screen advertisements each time they unlocked their mobile device that needed to be clicked on or dismissed before accessing the home screen. Unlockd’s application also provided advertisers with targeted data about consenting users, including their location every time they unlocked their phone.
Unlockd alleged that Google baselessly kicked its app out of the Google Play Store, crashing its Android sales. The complaint leveled a single Sherman Act claim against the tech titan for attempted monopolization.
From Google’s perspective, Unlockd violated Google’s terms and conditions “aimed at protecting advertisers from paying for low-quality ad traffic.” According to the motion, the traffic generated by Unlockd’s apps epitomized low quality because “users engaged with ad content not out of genuine interest, but because they were paid to do so.”
Google also alleged that though it tried to work with Unlockd to bring its business model into compliance, Unlockd refused. Instead, it purportedly waged a legal campaign against Google, filing suit in Australia, the U.K., and now the U.S.
Substantively, Google argued that Unlockd alleges harm only to itself, not to competition. Citing portions of the complaint describing how the plaintiff’s business failed after it was barred from the Google Play Store, the defendant said that “Unlockd’s real grievance is harm to its own business, not any ‘competition-reducing’ effect of Google’s alleged behavior.” Further, Google called the plaintiff’s theory of antitrust injury—that the removal of Unlockd’s apps alone harms competition— “simply implausible.”
Google also sought to poke holes in the plaintiff’s attempted monopolization cause of action, asserting that it failed to satisfy the claim’s basic elements: anticompetitive conduct, a specific intent to monopolize, and a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power. The company said Unlockd could not finnegle a refusal to deal claim, citing no facts showing that Google either terminated a profitable business relationship or lacked business justifications for booting Unlockd from its app store. “[T]here are no plausible allegations that Google acted anti-competitively or lacked any conceivable business justification for terminating its relationship with Unlockd,” the motion summarized.
The hearing is scheduled for mid-July before District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Unlockd is represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and Google by Cooley LLP.