Source: cases/15usc1/f-supp-3d-368-30-freedom-watch-v-google.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_368/0030_01/index.html
Adequately stating a Sherman Act § 1 claim "requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made."
In short, the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint presents no facts excluding the possibility that the alleged conspirators were acting alone.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash1 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f-supp-3d/368/0030-01 name Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google, Inc. cite 368 F. Supp. 3d 30 (2019) # IR court field says: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia court United States District Court for the District of Columbia date 2019-03-14 url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_368/0030_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl sha1=5e8a78fbe14c0c83f1778271b721ba3e0be3d618 chars=27736 opinion op : order by McFadden @0..27736 controlling ? opinion: memorandum opinion of a single district judge; body @0..26420, its four appended footnotes @26420..27736 (same opinion, one span). party plaintiffs : Freedom Watch, Inc. and Laura Loomer (conservative advocacy organization and activist; plaintiffs) party platforms : Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple (the "Platforms"; defendants) theory suppress : the Platforms agreed to refuse to deal with, and to suppress the content of, conservative media outlets law 15usc1 role applied posture civil; conservative organization and activist sued four technology platforms under Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2, the D.C. Human Rights Act and the First Amendment; Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion; Article III standing found, all claims dismissed for failure to state a claim (§ 1: no agreement plausibly alleged) result claimant-lost element agreement : not-satisfied [pleaded] party plaintiffs platforms theory suppress route inference-from-conduct pattern parallel loss of audience on several platforms; no communication alleged; revenue loss offered as act against self-interest rule @11498..11645 | Adequately stating a Sherman Act § 1 claim "requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made." fact @2412..2564 [supports] | This purported agreement is "evidenced by the fact that Freedom Watch began losing users on each of Defendants['] platforms at or around the same time." fact @13294..13440 [supports] | The Amended Complaint asserts that the Platforms are "willing to lose revenue from conservative organizations and individuals like Freedom Watch." fact @11344..11497 [cuts-against absent] | It includes no allegations, for example, that any of the Platforms met or otherwise communicated an intent to collectively suppress conservative content. fact @12327..12452 [cuts-against] | But Freedom Watch admits that it "has and still does pay Google and YouTube, Facebook and the other Defendants for services." held @14249..14385 | In short, the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint presents no facts excluding the possibility that the alleged conspirators were acting alone. gloss The court treats the alleged willingness to lose revenue as no plus factor: losing revenue from some customers is not necessarily against a platform's economic interest. The § 2 conspiracy claim falls with this ruling (@17352).