Reale v. Google LLC
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:22-cv-00562
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Reale v. Google LLC, Judge Chhabria granted dismissal of federal antitrust claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim, allowing amendment.
Daniel Reale, Google LLC, the other defendants, and the remaining state-law claim.
What happened
In Reale v. Google LLC, Daniel Reale brought federal antitrust claims against Google LLC and other defendants, along with a state-law claim.
The court dismissed the Sherman Act claims because Reale did not contest the defendants’ position that those claims were not viable. It also dismissed the Robinson-Patman Act claim because Reale did not allege a transaction involving a tangible good or commodity. The court said YouTube, advertising revenue, and channel promotion were not tangible products or assets.
Judge Vince Chhabria granted the motion to dismiss, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim, and allowed amendment. Any amended complaint had to be filed within 21 days of the order.
The detailed version
- Reale v. Google LLC · No. 3:22-cv-00562
- Vince Chhabria
- Apr. 26, 2022
Background
Daniel Reale sued Google LLC and other defendants, asserting claims under the Sherman Act, the Robinson-Patman Act, and state law. The defendants moved to dismiss.
Court’s reasoning
The court granted the motion to dismiss. It dismissed the Sherman Act claims because Reale did not contest the defendants’ position that those claims were not viable.
The court dismissed the Robinson-Patman Act claim because Reale failed to allege that the challenged transaction involved a commodity or good. The court explained that the Robinson-Patman Act applies to tangible goods rather than services. It concluded that the case was not close to the boundary between goods and services because YouTube did not provide a tangible product for sale, and advertising revenue and channel promotion were not tangible assets.
After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the remaining state-law claim. The court cited the early stage of the case and concerns about comity, fairness, convenience, and judicial economy.
Disposition
Judge Vince Chhabria granted the motion to dismiss. The order states that dismissal was with leave to amend, and required any amended complaint to be filed within 21 days of the order. The opinion does not identify the remaining state-law claim or separately state the disposition of that claim beyond declining supplemental jurisdiction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.