United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2019-03-14
15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
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; claim:
Uncertainty
opinion: memorandum opinion of a single district judge; body @0..26420, its four appended footnotes @26420..27736 (same opinion, one span).
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 11
Elements 7–11 of 11
| Case | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under 15 U.S.C. § 15b; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | Law-of-the-case doctrine in consolidated/MDL antitrust proceedings | Criminal mens rea: knowing participation in the conspiracy or intent to restrain trade | Ancillary restraints doctrine (restraint subordinate and collateral to a legitimate productive integration) | Horizontal cartel / hub-and-spoke conspiracy operating through vertical or dual-distribution arrangements |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google, Inc. — 368 F. Supp. 3d 30 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2019 (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google, Inc. — 368 F. Supp. 3d 30 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: Freedom Watch, Inc. and Laura Loomer (conservative advocacy organization and activist; plaintiffs); Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple (the "Platforms"; defendants); theory: the Platforms agreed to refuse to deal with, and to suppress the content of, conservative media outlets; subject: party=Freedom Watch, Inc. and Laura Loomer (conservative advocacy organization and activist; plaintiffs); Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple (the "Platforms"; defendants); theory=the Platforms agreed to refuse to deal with, and to suppress the content of, conservative media outlets 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). | parallel loss of audience on several platforms; no communication alleged; revenue loss offered as act against self-interest | Adequately stating a Sherman Act § 1 claim "requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/368/0030-01; Unicode character offsets [11498:11645] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd4d3bb539dc2e85ba38dd93f92129e92f25fa179a14ab29a886dbb353cd8c8c.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/368/0030-01; Unicode character offsets [2412:2564] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd4d3bb539dc2e85ba38dd93f92129e92f25fa179a14ab29a886dbb353cd8c8c.The Amended Complaint asserts that the Platforms are "willing to lose revenue from conservative organizations and individuals like Freedom Watch."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/368/0030-01; Unicode character offsets [13294:13440] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd4d3bb539dc2e85ba38dd93f92129e92f25fa179a14ab29a886dbb353cd8c8c.It includes no allegations, for example, that any of the Platforms met or otherwise communicated an intent to collectively suppress conservative content.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/368/0030-01; Unicode character offsets [11344:11497] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd4d3bb539dc2e85ba38dd93f92129e92f25fa179a14ab29a886dbb353cd8c8c.But Freedom Watch admits that it "has and still does pay Google and YouTube, Facebook and the other Defendants for services."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/368/0030-01; Unicode character offsets [12327:12452] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd4d3bb539dc2e85ba38dd93f92129e92f25fa179a14ab29a886dbb353cd8c8c.In short, the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint presents no facts excluding the possibility that the alleged conspirators were acting alone.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/368/0030-01; Unicode character offsets [14249:14385] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd4d3bb539dc2e85ba38dd93f92129e92f25fa179a14ab29a886dbb353cd8c8c. |