In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-05761
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In re Google Play v. Google: Judge Donato could not decertify the consumer class after excluding an expert’s opinions, and denied plaintiffs’ requested class-pendency notice.
The consumer plaintiffs, the consumer plaintiff class, and Google. The order denied the consumer plaintiffs’ requested class-pendency notice and left the class-certification issue unresolved because the court said it lacked authority to decertify the class.
What happened
In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation concerns a consumer antitrust class against Google. The court had previously certified the class and allowed the consumer plaintiffs to rely on opinions from Dr. Hal J. Singer.
At the merits stage, the court excluded Dr. Singer’s pass-through formula and opinions based on it under Evidence Rule 702. Because that formula was essential to class certification, the court concluded that the certification order should be vacated.
Judge James Donato ruled that permission to appeal the certification order had ended the court’s authority to decertify the class. He directed the parties to discuss next steps and denied the consumer plaintiffs’ motion to authorize notice that the class action was pending.
The detailed version
- In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation · No. 3:20-cv-05761
- James Donato
- Aug. 28, 2023
Background
The court had certified a consumer class in the antitrust litigation and had denied Google’s earlier request to exclude the opinions of Dr. Hal J. Singer as they related to class certification. The court says those decisions were supported by the record available at the certification stage.
At the later merits stage, however, the court excluded Dr. Singer’s opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The excluded opinions included a pass-through formula and opinions applying that formula in this litigation. The court described the formula as an essential part of the consumer plaintiffs’ argument for certification.
Class Certification
The court concluded that, because of the expert-opinion developments, the order granting certification should be vacated. It also explained that a class-certification order is generally an interlocutory order—an order that does not finally resolve the case—that a district court may reconsider, rescind, or modify for sufficient cause.
The court then stated that permission to appeal the certification order had terminated its authority to decertify the class. As a result, this order did not decertify the class. The parties were directed to meet and confer and be prepared to discuss proposed next steps at the September 7, 2023 status conference.
Class Notice and Disposition
The consumer plaintiffs moved to authorize notice that the case was pending to the consumer plaintiff class. The court denied that motion. Judge James Donato issued the order on August 28, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.