Demos v. Google
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-04433
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Demos v. Google, Judge Gilliam dismissed John Robert Demos’s antitrust case with prejudice because his alleged losses were not competition-related injuries.
John Robert Demos’s antitrust action against Google and the other named technology and oil-company defendants was dismissed with prejudice, and judgment was entered for the defendants.
What happened
John Robert Demos, an incarcerated person representing himself, sued Google and numerous technology and oil companies, alleging that they violated antitrust laws through monopolies, price fixing, collusion, and other conduct. He sought $25 million in damages.
The court found that Demos lacked antitrust standing because the harms he described—national-security vulnerabilities and being forced to use digital currency—did not result from harm to competition. The court also found that his allegations about coordination among the companies were speculative and conclusory.
The court dismissed the action with prejudice and directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. concluded that the complaint could not be fixed by adding other facts.
The detailed version
- Demos v. Google · No. 4:19-cv-04433
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 27, 2019
Background
John Robert Demos, an inmate at Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla, Washington, filed this action without a lawyer against Google, Apple, Oracle, Facebook, Yahoo, YouTube, Instagram, Amazon, Intel, AT&T, and several oil companies. He alleged that the technology and oil industries had a relationship that violated federal antitrust laws through monopolies, tying arrangements, price fixing, collusion, predatory pricing, mergers and acquisitions, restraints on trade, intellectual-property misuse, and other conduct. He also alleged risks involving national security and digital currency. He sought $25 million in antitrust damages.
The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a statute requiring preliminary screening of certain cases filed by prisoners. The court explained that it had to identify legally valid claims and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. It also noted that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read generously, but still must contain enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Demos lacked antitrust standing. Antitrust standing requires a private plaintiff to show an antitrust injury—an injury that results from an anticompetitive aspect or effect of the defendant’s conduct. The court said antitrust laws are intended to protect competition for consumers, not to provide a remedy for every injury allegedly caused by unlawful economic conduct.
The court identified Demos’s alleged losses as national-security breaches or vulnerabilities and the possibility that digital currency would mark him as a slave of the state. It concluded that these alleged losses did not harm competition and therefore were not antitrust injuries. The court also described the allegations that the numerous technology and oil companies coordinated antitrust violations as speculative and conclusory.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice because it concluded that the pleading could not possibly be cured by alleging additional facts. It dismissed the action with prejudice and directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and against Demos.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.