Sayre v. Google, Inc.

Background

Paul Joseph Sayre, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that he created RDevice, a messenger application designed for Android devices. He alleged that Google repeatedly removed RDevice from Google Play, refused attempts to reverse those decisions, and kept the application from appearing prominently in messenger-category search results. Sayre attributed RDevice's lack of users and market value to Google's alleged monopoly over Android and Google Play.

The court construed Sayre's federal antitrust claim as a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracies to monopolize. Sayre also brought a claim under Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, California's unfair-competition law. He sought $1.6 billion in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

Analysis

The court applied the rule that a complaint must allege enough facts to make relief plausible, rather than merely possible or consistent with the defendant's liability.

For the Sherman Act claim, the court identified three required elements: antitrust injury, monopoly power in a relevant market, and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power. First, the court held that Sayre alleged injury only to RDevice, not harm to competition or consumers generally. Because antitrust injury concerns harm to the market or competition, the court found that Sayre failed to plead this element.

Second, the court held that Sayre did not plausibly identify a relevant geographic or product market in which Google possessed monopoly power. Sayre described the competition as worldwide but did not address geographic limitations, including legal, regulatory, technological, or practical restraints. Although he referred generally to the global cell-phone market and alleged that Google controlled 81 percent of that market, the court found that he did not adequately allege that Google had a dominant share or excluded competition in a relevant market. The court therefore held that he also failed to plead the second required element.

Sayre relied on an “essential facility” theory, which concerns access to a facility controlled by one firm that allegedly has the power to eliminate competition in a downstream market. The court stated that Sayre conceded Google Play was not essential because RDevice could reach consumers through potential alternative distribution channels. The court said it did not need to reach that issue because Sayre had failed to allege the first two elements of the Sherman Act claim.

For the California unfair-competition claim, the court held that Sayre did not adequately allege that Google engaged in an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice. His complaint based that claim on the antitrust allegations, which the court found legally deficient. The court also found that Sayre focused on harm to himself rather than harm to competition or consumers.

Disposition

The court granted Google's motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claim and granted the motion to dismiss the California unfair-competition claim. In its conclusion, the court granted the motion to dismiss, found that leave to amend would be futile in light of Sayre's failure to prosecute, failures to appear, and the deficiencies described above, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court ordered that judgment be entered separately.