A NY federal judge dismisses the state AGs' claim that Meta and Google colluded via Jedi Blue but rules the ad tech antitrust lawsuit against Google can proceed
An antitrust suit by state attorneys general accusing Alphabet Inc.'sGoogle of monopolizing the technology underlying online advertising …
BloombergLeah Nylen
Context & Ripple Effects
Google had already defended its 2018 Jedi Blue arrangement with Meta on the grounds that Meta could still use rival ad exchanges. The ruling preserves the broader state-led challenge to Google’s ad-tech conduct while removing the allegation that the agreement itself was unlawful.
Later coverage shows courts continuing to narrow and preserve separate claims against Google: an advertisers’ case was allowed to proceed while some claims over large-advertiser buying tools were dismissed.
First-order effects
Google must continue defending the state attorneys general’s ad-tech antitrust case, even though the Jedi Blue collusion claim against Google and Meta is dismissed.
Meta is no longer a defendant on the states’ Jedi Blue theory, while Google remains exposed to allegations concerning its ad-tech operations.
Second-order effects
The split ruling gives Google a narrower case to fight but keeps its ad-tech practices under discovery and judicial scrutiny alongside other advertiser-focused claims.
Advertisers and state enforcers retain a live route to challenge Google’s ad-tech conduct without relying on a theory that Meta and Google colluded through Jedi Blue.
Third-order effects
The pattern of courts preserving some competition claims while dismissing others points to ad-tech enforcement being decided market by market and product by product, rather than through a single case against Google’s entire advertising business.
The trend: US antitrust litigation against Google is increasingly advancing through narrower, separately tested claims across search and advertising technology.
In addition to the Jedi Blue claim, judge dismissed the claims related to reserve price optimization and dynamic allocation (features of how Google runs its ad auctions); Privacy Sandbox; and accelerated mobile pages
Decision in Google ad tech case is out. Judge ruled that the states had not plausibly alleged a violation related to the Jedi Blue agreement but lets the other claims move forward
Looks like Texas' antitrust suit against Google lives on (one count dismissed, but others keep going). https://storage.courtlistener.com/ ... https://twitter.com/...
Interesting. The Jedi Blue (Goog-FB) deal got a lot of attention when Paxton's case was filed. Now it's gone, and the case will focus on Google's ad tech products/svcs generally. https://twitter.com/...
@TXAG complaint against Google on #adtech can go to trial as MTD is rejected by judge. Even without Jedi Blue a great outcome as multiple conducts from auctions manipulation to tying to Bernanke recognised as a problem. Well done Texas team https://www.courtlistener.com/ ... http…
Prediction: Jedi Blue isn't dead forever. Facebook has a separate private antitrust lawsuit in a California federal court also moving forward, plus Justice Dept is expected to file against Google. I expect we'll see it again. /12 https://twitter.com/...
tada! google antitrust alert. Court's opinion on Google suit - just posted in SDNY. Bipartisan group of state AG's adtech case moves fwd. Only one count was dismissed (congrats to facebook on that one, too). Digging in now - over dinner. /1 https://twitter.com/...
Judge also rejected Google's claim the states waited too long to bring suit (laches) saying that needs to wait till later in the case (that is what tripped up the states in the FB case)
Just reading the Jedi Blue opinion, odd to me, too. Will be curious if NdCal comes to a different opinion in Facebook's case since they failed on consolidation. And this one point alone still irks me. https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...