Rumble Canada, Inc. v. Google LLC

Background

Rumble Canada, Inc. brought federal antitrust claims against Google LLC. The claims alleged that Google monopolized or suppressed competition in digital display advertising, including through practices involving its advertising exchange, publisher ad server, and an agreement that allegedly undermined header bidding. The action was listed for possible transfer to multidistrict litigation (MDL) No. 3010, a group of related cases involving Google’s alleged conduct in online display advertising.

Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc., referred to together as Google in the order, moved under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the conditional transfer order. Rumble opposed that motion and supported transfer.

The Panel’s reasoning

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded that Rumble’s action shared common factual questions with the cases already in MDL No. 3010. The Panel identified overlap in the alleged markets and business practices, including alleged unlawful tying of Google’s ad exchange to its publisher ad server and the alleged agreement to undermine header bidding. Rumble’s federal claims—monopolization, attempted monopolization, unlawful tying, and an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade—also overlapped with claims in the MDL.

The Panel rejected Google’s argument that case-specific questions predominated because Rumble focused on online video advertising. It explained that the transfer statute requires only one or more common factual questions, not that common questions outnumber individual ones. The Panel also noted that another action in the MDL involved online video advertising allegations that overlapped with Rumble’s allegations.

The Panel further concluded that the MDL’s advanced status did not prevent transfer. Expert discovery was ongoing, summary-judgment briefing had not begun, and previously produced factual discovery was likely relevant to Rumble’s claims. The Panel found that informal coordination would not be an efficient substitute for transfer under the circumstances.

Ruling

The Panel ordered that the action listed on Schedule A be transferred to the Southern District of New York and, with that court’s consent, assigned to the Honorable P. Kevin Castel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The order stated that the action could later be sent back to its original court if the transferee judge determined that keeping it in the MDL no longer served convenience or efficient case management. The Panel did not rule on the merits of Rumble’s antitrust claims.