SPX Total Body Fitness LLC v. Google LLC

Background

This opinion is a transfer order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in MDL No. 3010. Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., and YouTube, LLC moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize 19 related antitrust actions pending in 16 federal districts. The actions alleged that Google monopolized or suppressed competition in online display advertising, including through the design and operation of its advertising technology and an alleged 2018 agreement with Facebook concerning “header bidding.” Plaintiffs sought declaratory and equitable relief under federal or state antitrust laws and damages.

SPX Total Body Fitness was one of three advertiser actions. It supported centralization of all the actions in the Northern District of California. Other plaintiffs opposed centralization, sought different transferee districts, or asked that particular actions—including the State of Texas action—not be included.

Reasons for Centralization

The Panel found common factual questions concerning the definition of the online display advertising market, the competitors and their market shares, Google’s advertising products and services, alleged barriers to interoperability, the effects of Google’s conduct, and Google’s response to header bidding. The Panel also identified common issues involving Google’s acquisitions of digital advertising companies, alleged tying arrangements, and the alleged Google-Facebook agreement.

The Panel concluded that centralization would avoid duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings, including on discovery disputes, expert-evidence issues, and dispositive motions. It also found that informal coordination and transfers under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 would not be practical because the actions involved many districts, plaintiff groups, and third-party discovery.

The Panel included the State of Texas action despite the states’ arguments that their enforcement case should proceed separately. It reasoned that the state case shared the same factual core and sought relief that overlapped with the private actions. Concerns about possible delay were treated as case-management issues for the transferee court.

Ruling

The Panel ordered that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Southern District of New York be transferred to that district, with the receiving court’s consent, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge P. Kevin Castel. It renamed MDL No. 3010 “In re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation.”

The Panel separately denied without prejudice Google’s request under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(h) to transfer the State of Texas action for trial. It stated that the record did not yet provide enough information to decide whether a trial transfer would promote convenience and efficient conduct of the litigation. The order addressed case management and venue, not whether Google violated antitrust law. The supplied metadata identifies Judge Haywood Gilliam, while the opinion states that the Panel assigned the centralized litigation to Judge P. Kevin Castel.