Summary
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a transfer order formally moving Rumble Canada, Inc.'s antitrust lawsuit into MDL No. 3010. The Panel concluded that the case shares common factual questions with the existing multidistrict litigation concerning Google's alleged monopolization of digital advertising markets. Rejecting Google's arguments regarding procedural advancement and market differences, the Panel determined that consolidated pretrial proceedings would promote judicial efficiency. The action was transferred to the Southern District of New York and assigned to Judge P. Kevin Castel.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Rumble's action involved one or more common questions of fact with the actions already included in MDL No. 3010.
- Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation despite Rumble's potentially case-specific online video advertising issues.
- Whether the procedural advancement of MDL No. 3010 or the possibility of informal coordination warranted vacating the conditional transfer.
Holdings
- Rumble's action involves one or more common questions of fact with the actions in MDL No. 3010 because its allegations concerning Google's conduct in online advertising substantially overlap with the allegations in the MDL.
- Section 1407 does not require common questions of fact to predominate over unique factual questions, or even to constitute a majority of the factual issues, as a prerequisite to transfer.
- The advanced status of the MDL and the availability of informal coordination did not justify vacating transfer because substantial pretrial proceedings remained and coordinated discovery would promote efficiency.
Key quotations
“Section 1407 does not require a complete identity or even a majority of common factual or legal issues as a prerequisite to transfer.” (2)
“Section 1407 does not require that common questions of fact predominate over unique factual questions.” (2)
Factual background
Rumble alleges that Google monopolized or suppressed competition in online display advertising, including markets for publisher ad servers, ad exchanges, ad networks, and ad-buying tools. It alleges that Google engaged in practices also challenged in the MDL, including tying its ad exchange to its publisher ad server and participating in an agreement with Facebook that undermined header bidding. Rumble alleges that the loss of access to header bidding substantially reduced its advertising revenue and nearly caused it to go out of business.
Procedural history
Rumble brought an antitrust action in the Northern District of California concerning Google's alleged monopolization and suppression of competition in digital display and online video advertising. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation conditionally transferred the action to MDL No. 3010, and Google moved to vacate that transfer. The Panel denied the challenge and ordered transfer to the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, with the transferee court's consent, before Judge P. Kevin Castel.
Remand instructions
The action was transferred to the Southern District of New York and, with that court's consent, assigned to Judge P. Kevin Castel for inclusion in coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Panel noted that the transferee judge may seek remand under § 1407 if continued inclusion no longer serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses or the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.