Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Google The Internet Apple

Judge Rules Against Users Suing Google and Apple Over 'Annoying' Search Results (arstechnica.com) 22

Posted by BeauHD from the no-proof-provided dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: While the world awaits closing arguments later this year in the US government's antitrust case over Google's search dominance, a California judge has dismissed a lawsuit from 26 Google users who claimed that Google's default search agreement with Apple violates antitrust law and has ruined everyone's search results. Users had argued (PDF) that Google struck a deal making its search engine the default on Apple's Safari web browser specifically to keep Apple from competing in the general search market. These payments to Apple, users alleged, have "stunted innovation" and "deprived" users of "quality, service, and privacy that they otherwise would have enjoyed but for Google's anticompetitive conduct." They also allege that it created a world where users have fewer choices, enabling Google to prefer its own advertisers, which users said caused an "annoying and damaging distortion" of search results.

In an order (PDF) granting the tech companies' motion to dismiss, US District Judge Rita Lin said that users did not present enough evidence to support claims for relief. Lin dismissed some claims with prejudice but gave leave to amend others, allowing users another chance to keep their case -- now twice-dismissed -- at least partially alive. Under Lin's order, users will not be able to amend claims that Google and Apple executives allegedly sealed the default search deal on the condition that Apple would not create its own general search engine through "private, secret, and clandestine personal meetings." Because plaintiffs showed no evidence pinpointing exactly when Apple allegedly agreed to stay out of the general search market, these meetings, Lin reasoned, could just as easily indicate "rational, legal business behavior," rather than an "illegal conspiracy."

Users attempted to argue that Google and Apple intentionally hid these facts from the public, but Lin wrote that their "conclusory and vague allegations that defendants 'secretly conducted meetings' and 'engaged in conduct to obfuscate internal communications' are plainly insufficient." Sharing bystander photos documenting Google's Sundar Pichai and Apple's Tim Cook meeting at a restaurant with a manila folder tucked under Pichai's elbow did not help users' case. Lin was also not moved by users demonstrating that Google has a history of destroying evidence, because "they put forth no specific factual allegations that defendants did so in this case." However, users will have 30 days to amend currently "inadequately" alleged claims that "Google's exclusive default agreement, under which Apple set Google as the default search engine for its Safari web browser, foreclosed competition in the general search services market in the United States," Lin wrote. If users miss that deadline, the case will be tossed with no opportunities to further amend claims.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Rules Against Users Suing Google and Apple Over 'Annoying' Search Results More

Judge Rules Against Users Suing Google and Apple Over 'Annoying' Search Results

Comments Filter:

  • The perception of collusion brought forth by the users is absolutely correct, even though they're not able to use it as a provable fact in the case.

    These companies are doing what's in best interest of themselves, their investors and stockholders, not that of their own users.

    .

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Not to mention it's not even remotely true for a number of years now. When you set up an iPhone, it gives you the option to pick your search engine - Google is at the top and selected by default (which is what Google paid for), but you can easily tap #2 which is Bing, or #3, DuckDuckGo when the OS asks you.

      All Google paid for is that page to be at the top and selected. But one could easily select Bing or DuckDuckGo. Heck, it's why DuckDuckGo has a rather large iOS userbase.

      • Not to mention it's not even remotely true for a number of years now. When you set up an iPhone, it gives you the option to pick your search engine - Google is at the top and selected by default (which is what Google paid for), but you can easily tap #2 which is Bing, or #3, DuckDuckGo when the OS asks you.

        All Google paid for is that page to be at the top and selected. But one could easily select Bing or DuckDuckGo. Heck, it's why DuckDuckGo has a rather large iOS userbase.

        I have used DDG as the Default Search on my iPhone, iPad and Macs for several years now.

        Whiners.

  • The Decade of Frivolous Lawsuits; where every single thing is alleged to be either a "Conspiracy" or "Anticompetitive Behavior".

    And I don't honestly know who is more to blame: "Liberals" or "Conservatives"?

    • The tech industry has normalized anticompetitive behavior. It's up to courts to decide when that behavior is illegal.

      • The tech industry has normalized anticompetitive behavior. It's up to courts to decide when that behavior is illegal.

        Proprietary != Anticompetitive.

        • What on earth does proprietary have to do with any of this?

          No-one is complaining about the apple ecosystem in this complaint, and (as a cult member), that's about as proprietary as it gets.

          1. What we are talking about is Google intentionally, and knowingly degrading the quality, and utility of its search results in order to increase profitability.

          2. Raising the barriers to entry for potential competitors by using its unprecedented market capitalization to lock up most of the users from the sing

  • Bottom line is, there's NO way these 26 people were impacted so negatively by any of this that they deserve some kind of financial compensation for their losses.

    But as someone else pointed out in a reply here already? There's NOTHING stopping a person from visiting whatever search engine they like on any Apple or other devices out there! Just because a company like Google pays to be placed first in a list or as a "default selection", it doesn't prevent you from using an alternative any more than Dell making

    • Itâ(TM)s not about the 26. Itâ(TM)s the lawyers aspirations to get it certified as a class action.

      This is just lawyers fishing for a payday with no contribution to society.

  • It always amazes me in descriptions such as the one in the summary how people are apparently psychic, or have a connection to some alternate timeline in which things happened differently, since they can say with such certainty what WOULD have happened if not for the one thing they're complaining about.

    Who's to say Apple would have wanted to get into search results? Who's to say they would have done so well? These guys, apparently.

    • Actually, had Apple not signed the agreement with Google, I was going to start a search company which would provided search results to Apple and the rest of the world, should have a market cap near google now. I think I'm owed some compensation here, I figure I would have owned about 12% of the company by now. I'll take 12% of Google as a settlement. I know, I will have to pay taxed on that settlement vs. had I just owned shares from the get-go no taxes till I sell, but I'll swallow that in exchange for a q

  • QQ (Score:2)

    by dohzer ( 867770 )

    They should cut out the delivery services and go straight for the source of 99% of annoying results by taking legal action directly against Quora.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Close