Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Match Group, LLC et al v. Google LLC et al
Case Number:
3:22-cv-02746
See also:
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- Fox Rothschild
- Hueston Hennigan
- Mayer Brown
- Morgan Lewis
- Munger Tolles
- O'Melveny & Myers
- Paul Hastings
- Quinn Emanuel
- Wilson Sonsini
- Winston & Strawn
Companies
- Activision Blizzard Inc.
- Google LLC
- Match Group LLC
- Nintendo Co. Ltd.
- Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
- Valve Corp.
Sectors & Industries:
-
May 19, 2023
States, Others Oppose Google Bid To Trim Play Store Case
State-level enforcers, consumers and developers urged a California federal court not to trim their allegations that Google monopolizes the distribution of apps on Android devices, so a jury will get to see the full extent of the tech giant's unlawful conduct.
-
May 16, 2023
Disagreement Persists Over Google Play Store Trial Structure
Google LLC continues to push a California district court to hold separate trials on monopolization claims from state enforcers and developers Epic Games and Match Group over its Play Store policies, after a class of consumers agreed to wait for a Ninth Circuit ruling on Google's appeal of the class certification.
-
April 24, 2023
Consumers, States Want $3M From Google For Chat Deletion
Consumers, state enforcers and Match Group, who allege Google monopolizes the market for distributing apps on Android devices, asked a California federal judge Friday to order the tech giant to pay $3 million to cover their costs associated with bringing a sanctions motion over Google's automatic deletion of internal chats.
-
April 21, 2023
Google Wants Play Store Antitrust Case Trimmed Before Trial
Google asked a California federal judge to trim claims off sprawling litigation over allegations the tech giant monopolizes the market for distributing apps on Android devices, scoffing at the claim it violated antitrust law by refusing to distribute rival app stores within the Google Play Store.
-
April 20, 2023
Antitrust Judge Won't Delay Nov. Google Play Store Trial
A California federal judge denied on Thursday Google's request to delay a jury trial to await the outcome of its appeal of an order certifying a 21 million consumer class in sprawling antitrust litigation over allegations Google monopolizes its Android Play Store, saying repeatedly that the November jury trial "is happening."
-
March 28, 2023
Google Sanctioned For Chat Deletion In App Store Suit
A California federal judge sanctioned Google on Tuesday for failing to preserve evidence in multidistrict litigation from state attorneys general and private plaintiffs suing over its control of the Android phone app-distribution market, faulting the search giant for a default policy to delete internal chats after 24 hours.
-
March 17, 2023
Google Wants Play Store Trial To Wait For Class Cert. Appeal
Google asked a California federal court to put off trial in the pending cases accusing the company of monopolizing the distribution of apps on Android devices until after a ruling on its appeal of an order certifying a consumer class.
-
February 03, 2023
Google's Antitrust Trouble Is Piling Up
The U.S. Department of Justice's Jan. 24 suit seeking to break up Google's advertising business adds to a mountain of antitrust litigation already targeting the tech giant. In addition to federal enforcement, Google is also facing cases from dozens of state-level enforcers, as well as from developers, advertisers and consumers, all accusing it of monopolizing various digital markets.
-
January 31, 2023
'Why Did You Sit On This?' Judge Slams Google Over Chats
A California federal judge appeared open Tuesday to sanctioning Google for failing to preserve employees' online chats in high-stakes litigation alleging the tech giant monopolizes the Android app distribution market, saying Google should have disclosed the practice and asking its lawyers, "Why didn't you tell anyone? Why did you sit on this?"
-
January 25, 2023
Google Says Its Doc Retention Sours Play Store Sanctions Bid
Google has hit back against a motion for sanctions claiming that it failed to preserve significant evidence from its employees' online chats in a case accusing it of unlawfully monopolizing the Android app distribution and in-app payment market, stating that it has taken "multiple steps" to preserve "potentially relevant information."
- ← Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next →