US court is about to dismiss the Google Play class suit
Without Google's apparent monopoly, consumers stated they would have paid less for applications and experienced more variety.
A U.S. judge intends to exclude Google from having to defend itself against a class action filed by 21 million users who alleged the company overcharged them in its Google Play app store, violating federal antitrust law.
The judgement rendered on Monday by U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco may considerably lessen any damages that Google, a division of Alphabet, may be liable for over the distribution of Android mobile applications.
Without Google's apparent monopoly, consumers stated they would have paid less for applications and experienced more variety. Google has disputed the accusations.
Donato said that the decision to not allow an economist to testify as an expert witness for the consumers—another decision made Monday—eliminated a "essential element" of their case for certification and that, as a result, his Nov. 2022 class certification ruling should be overturned.
The court said that because Google had been contesting his November decision, he couldn't decertify the class right away. Before a hearing on September 7th, he instructed attorneys for Google and the customers to try and settle that dispute.
Consumers from 12 states and 5 territories in the United States who were not parties to a related lawsuit against Google launched by various state solicitors general were included in the class action.
Class actions enable plaintiffs to file claims together and, in certain cases, at a cheaper cost than if they were to file claims individually.
Requests for response from the consumers' attorneys were not immediately answered. Similar demands were not immediately answered by Google or its lawyers.
The case is a component of a complex antitrust lawsuit involving 38 states, the District of Columbia, and organisations including Epic Games and Match Group.
In re a Google Play Store Infringement Litigation, Northern District of California U.S. District Court, Case No. 21-md-02981.
