Dreamstime.com, LLC v. Google LLC

Summary

Dreamstime.com, LLC v. Google LLC, 9th Cir. 2022, addresses Sherman Act §2 monopolization claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Dreamstime's claim that Google maintained a monopoly in the online search advertising market, holding that Dreamstime waived any claim based on the online search market by repeatedly disavowing that market below. The court further held that allegations of Google mistreating Dreamstime as a customer, demoting its organic search results, and collecting user data did not plausibly allege anticompetitive conduct harming competition in the online search advertising market, and dismissal with prejudice was proper.

Holdings

Dreamstime waived any Section 2 claim arising from the online search market because it expressly and repeatedly disavowed including that market in its definition of the relevant market before the district court.
Dreamstime failed to allege anticompetitive conduct because the alleged acts (mistreatment of Dreamstime as a customer, demotion in organic search results, data collection) did not harm competition in the online search advertising market.
The district court did not abuse its discretion because Dreamstime had multiple opportunities to amend and chose to maintain its theory.

Questions Presented

Whether Dreamstime defined the relevant market to include the online search market in addition to the online search advertising market.
Whether Dreamstime sufficiently alleged anticompetitive conduct in the online search advertising market.
Whether the district court erred in dismissing the Section 2 claim with prejudice and without leave to amend.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (20)

United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966)(relied on)
Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. L. Offs. of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004)(relied on)
Image Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997)(relied on)
Cascade Health Sols. v. PeaceHealth, 515 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2008)(relied on)
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020)(relied on)
Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977)(relied on)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)(relied on)
Cont. Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690 (1962)(relied on)
Cal. Computer Prods., Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 613 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1979)(relied on)
United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)(relied on)