Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
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)
Facts
- 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
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."
- 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
It includes no allegations, for example, that any of the Platforms met or otherwise communicated an intent to collectively suppress conservative content.
- 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
Adequately stating a Sherman Act § 1 claim "requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made."
- 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
But Freedom Watch admits that it "has and still does pay Google and YouTube, Facebook and the other Defendants for services."
- 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
The Amended Complaint asserts that the Platforms are "willing to lose revenue from conservative organizations and individuals like Freedom Watch."
- 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
In short, the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint presents no facts excluding the possibility that the alleged conspirators were acting alone.