- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Google Antitrust Suit Over Ad Tech Remanded Back to Federal Court
Google Antitrust Suit Over Ad Tech Remanded Back to Federal Court
The U.S. Judicial Panel has transferred the antitrust litigation against Alphabet Inc.’s Google filed by state attorneys general back to a Federal Court in Texas, citing a law passed by Congress in December.
In its order, signed by Chair Karen Caldwell, the panel of judges wrote, “On its face, the Venue Act plainly is intended to allow state antitrust actions to proceed in the action’s original forum.”
The decision was made by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
The decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation means antitrust lawsuits against Google over its advertising technology business will now be heard in three separate Federal Courts in New York, Texas, and Virginia. The matter being remanded back to Texas could expediate the litigation, which had been moving slowly.
In August 2021, Google had requested the lawsuit to be moved to a Federal Court in New York, where other advertising technology cases were being heard.
Texas had asked for the lawsuit to be moved back after the U.S. Congress passed the Venue Act in 2022 that grants state attorneys general the right to choose where an antitrust lawsuit will be litigated.
The Texas lawsuit alleged Google of violating the law by dominating the process that advertisers use to put ads online. Website publishers complain that has resulted in lower revenues.
The case dates back to December, when Congress had passed legislation to allow state attorneys general to pick the location where their Federal antitrust suits are heard as part of a year-end spending bill. Even though the lawmakers had removed a provision that would have made the new rule explicitly retroactive, the Judicial Panel stated that the new rule still applies to all states.
The recent law “applies to pending state antitrust enforcement actions and, absent a state’s waiver of its venue rights, the Panel must grant the motion for remand,” the Judicial Panel ruled.
A group of state attorneys general led by Texas sued Google in 2020, alleging the company illegally monopolized the advertising technology market. The lawsuit was originally filed in Texas Federal Court, however, Google had successfully sought to transfer the case to New York, where class actions related to its ad tech business were pending.
In September, the New York judge had ruled that the state’s suit could move forward, but a Trial was still likely years away.
In January, the Justice Department filed its own case against Google’s dominance over the ad tech business.
The Department of Justice filed in Virginia Federal Court, which is known for its expeditious litigation process. A trial in the Justice Department’s suit is likely to begin in March 2024.
Being aggrieved with the delayed pace in New York, state attorneys general filed a petition seeking to move their suit back to the original Court in Texas.
Google vehemently opposed to the transfer, while stating that the duplicative nature of the proceedings and lawmakers’ removal of the retroactivity provision.
Google said it disagreed with the decision.
“We're confident that any court will agree that the Texas Attorney General's case is wrong on both the facts and the law,” a spokesperson added.