Preview
‘/
Gregory AckersjPro-Per) FLLE
299 17‘“ St. JUN 14 2019
San Diego,Ca 92101 Clerk of the Court
arpedorCmdeAcOwnydsanm Iara
BY EPLJTY
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Gregory Ackers (Et-Al) mm. gcvgzi-MM
Principal Plaintiff
V. ANTl-TRUST
GOOGLE MONOPOLY
10. SUNDAR PICHAJ UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE
11. Defendant(s) JURY TRIAL DEMAND
12. STATEM ENT OF FACTS
l3. We,the aforementioned CLASS,do represent to the Court that t
hs GOOGLE & its Founder/CEO have
14. employed ANTl-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT in order to diminish incentives of COMPETITION in re; the
15. cataloguing & dissemination of subscriber identification. In this way,th GOOGLE & its owner
16. engaged in stand-afone violations of‘COVENANTS NOT TO COMPETE,IN RE; UCL Business &
17. Professions code. t
hs did,indeed,emp|oy anti—competitive contractual restrictions on automated
18. cross-management of subscriber information. Aforenamed restrictions are condemned by
19. CARTWRIGHT ACT (16720) of Calif. Business & Professions Code,as well as 16600-166025 of Calif.
20. Code,due to limitations on advertisers ability to make use of data. This reduced innovation &
21. increased transaction among advertisers & 3'd
pty businesses. In addition,the activity degrades
22. quality of t
hs rivals,as well as search & search advertising. t
hs ”preferred efficiency" justification
23. for restrictions was ts
h
pre-textual. exclusionary agreements were,indeed, violative of Calif. Bus &
24. Prof. Code,due to the attempts ts
h by to actively foreclose a portion of the marketplace.
25. Their behavior resulted in denial-of—scale to any & all competitors,as well as being a significant
26. barrier to potential entrants, in the overall term.
27. WE,in acting as a CLASS,represent to the Superior Court that h(s) engaged t in ”abuse of
28. dominance” within the following areas:
The Class does allege to the Court that t
hs engaged in ”abuse of dominance" within the
foIIowing 4 areas;
a.) Favorable treatment of its own vertical-search services,compared to its competitors in
natural search-results.
The practice of copying 3m pty—content own
PWNQWPPP!‘
b.) (in order to supplement its vertical offerings).
c.) Exclusivity agreements with publishers for provisions of search-advertising intermediate
services.
d.) Restrictions with regard t0 portability & cross-platform management of online advertising
campaigns.
. The Ciass heretofore represents to the Superior Court that t
hs have engaged in Tort-liability.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
. The Superior Court retains both Personal Jurisdiction over this civil lawsuit in re; CCP 395.5,
. as well as Subject Matter Jurisdiction in re; CCP 410.50,as the amount of damages in question
. exceed $1 Million. In re; CCP 382,this civiI-Iawsuit does stand as a class-action.
THE PARTIES
. THE PRINCIPAL PLAINTIFF Gregory Ackers is a citizen of San Diego,Ca & is a GOOGLE
. Subscriber with a GMAII. account.
. THE CLASS is a multi-faceted cross-section of worid citizens in re; "diversity” element of 28 USC-
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
oougwmnwmpomooxlmmwan—xo
. Section 1332. GOOGLE customers do comprise an element ofalmost 2 billion people. They do
. utilize GOOGLE as an industrial & communications platform.
. THE DEFENDANTS involve GOOGLE,which is a public Delaware Corporation with Corporate
. H.Q. in Sunnyvale,Ca. Sundar Pichai is the founder & CEO who owns & operates
. GOOGLE. He is a citizen of California. h
t
Google trades,|eases & licenses search-products 8:
. services,inc|uding a ”horizontal" search-engine,as well as numerous integrated "vertical”
. websites.
THE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY
. The internet is a vast,|argely unorganized platform of constantiy-changing information,in which
. algorithims act as an actual & virtual card-catalogue.
th has unlawfully ”scraped",or appropriated content of ‘vertical-websites in order to improve its
own online vertical‘properties. [n this way, GOOGLE sought to maintain,enhance & preserve
MONOPOLY power in mkts for search & search-advertising. Such conduct is violative of Section 2
of SHERMAN & CARTWRIGHT. In sum;evidence within this civil lawsuit detail hs t
own complimentary
PPNP‘U‘PP’N!‘
monopolistic activities in scraping rival content,in order to improve its
vertical-offerings. This was done,egregiously,to the detriment of all rivals. These activities were
performed without countervailing efficiencyjustification.
ths conduct resulted & will result in harm to consumers & innovation within online search &
& advertising mkts. t
hs did strengthen MONOPOLISTIC, anti-competitive means,thereby
. forestalling competitors abilities. This activity has overall lasting effects on overall consumer
pp . welfare.
PLATFORM PRIVELEGE
. Clearly,ths do retain Platform Privelege,which allows them incentive & ability to prioritise their
. own goods & svcs over that of their competitors.
PRICE FIXING-GROUP BOYCOTI'ING/MKT DIVISION SCHEME/EXCLUSIVE
DEALINGS/PRICE DlSCRlMlNATION/TYING
gpywawNp-nomoowsngnLBBI-ao
. t
h(s) unlawfully maintained MONOPOLY over general search & search-advertising.
. Furthermore,ths engaged in VIOLATIONS 0F U.S ANTl—TRUST codes in the following ways;
. a.) ”Scraping" content of rival vertical-websites in order to improve its own product—offerings.
. b.) methods of competition by entering into exclusive,restrictive agreements with web—
Unfair
NNNNNNMNHHHHHH
. publishers,thereby preventing them from displaying competing search-results/advertisements.
. c.) Maintaining contractual restrictions which inhibit cross-platform mgmt. of ad campaigns.
. in utilizing these methods,GOOGLE,in alignment with its officers,has violated The Cartwright
. Act,The Clayton Act,The FTC Act & The Sherman Act,simultaneously.
CAUSES 0F ACTION
COUNT 1
ANTI-TRUST
28. GOOGLE & its officers did willfully engage in ”exclusionary course of conduct” (CARTWRIGHT)
COUNT 2
ILLICIT AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
th GOOGLE has,indeed,acted in violation 0f Section 5 ofSherman Act (15 USC-Sec.l—7) by mktg
free data to relevant industry & then altering & demoting data within the very same mktplace.
Pmfimmbwwr‘
COUNT 3
MONOPOLISATION-VIOLATION OF FTC ACT
th GOOGLE has willfully engaged in MONOPOLISATION by ”engaging deceptively & unfairly"
through the altering of SERP—status,demotion of ad mkts & restriction (by ”scraping”) of search-
advertising.
COUNT4
DISCRIMINATION OF PRICE,SERVICE & FACILITIES
. [n re; The Cartwright Act;th(s) did engage in ”discrimination of price between different
. purchasers of commodities”. ln re; chpts 81 & 100 ofTitle 15 (the role of commerce & trade in
. re; U.S. Code),th(s) have attempted to reconfigure the High Performance Computing Act of
. 1991 (chpt 81) by covertly pirating IT commerce within the promulgation of a cyber-industry.
COUNT 5
UNFAIR COMPETITION
. In re; CALIFORNIA BUSINEES & PROFESSION CODE 17200,et-seq,th(s) & Corp. officers engaged
NNNNMNMNNHHHHHHHHHH
ooummaLpNI—‘omooggambuumv—zo
. in UNLAWFULL,UNFA|R & FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES. h(s) manage Headquarters t of
. their own worldwide operations within the state 0f California & are,therefore,liable to
. commercial codes of that state.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
. The CLASS prays to the Court for COMPENSATORY,PUNIT|VE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF for all
. Damages, as well as a neutraI-interlocutor to perform an AUDIT on all t
hs.The SHERMAN ACT
. imposes damages of TWICE the amount obtained through conspirators course of illegality &,or
. TWICE the amount lost by victims of any & all criminal & civil liability (if the amount is over $100
. million). The U.S. Supreme Court declared that all violations 0f SHERMAN do also violate the
. FTC Act,which bans unfair methods of competition,or ”unfair & deceptive acts & practices”. The
CLASS prays for the same damages in re; SHERMAN be also applied to FTC & CLAYTON. The
Clayton Act bans ”discriminatory prices,services & allowances in dealing between
merchants. CLAYTON authorizes pvt parties to sue forTREBLE DAMAGES when harmed by
conduct in volation ofSHERMAN & FTC,as well as obtaining INJUNCTIVE orders prohibiting
damages the condidered amount
PWNQWPWN!‘
future anti-competitive behaviour. The CLASS prays for in
of all insidious profiteering in re; anti-trust & monopolization incurred by h(s) to hi-jack t
the online mktplace. The CLASS prays for DAMAGES amounting to $1 Billion. This,inc|uding
all profits,receipts 81 accounts payable,if billed t
by h(s) in any act of illegality or civil
liability. These to be paid to The CLASS by any & all t
hs jointly,severaIly &,or,individually,in
. association with |egal,administrative& subsidiary costs. 1N re; CCP 631 & Sec. 16 of Article 1
. ofThe California C0nstitution,we,as a CLASS,hereby demand TRIAL BY JURY within the
. Jurisdiction on all points so triable & judiciable.
on this day June 1 by Gregory Ackers (Principal Pltf)
NNNNNNNNNI—‘HHn—ar—‘I—IHHHH
.
Respectflthed
9°>I¢915>9°NH9w°°>1m5fié>s-Ho
. Signed
Preview
‘/ Gregory AckersjPro-Per) FLLE 299 17‘“ St. JUN 14 2019 San Diego,Ca 92101 Clerk of the Court arpedorCmdeAcOwnydsanm Iara BY EPLJTY SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY Gregory Ackers (Et-Al) mm. gcvgzi-MM Principal Plaintiff V. ANTl-TRUST GOOGLE MONOPOLY 10. SUNDAR PICHAJ UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE 11. Defendant(s) JURY TRIAL DEMAND 12. STATEM ENT OF FACTS l3. We,the aforementioned CLASS,do represent to the Court that t hs GOOGLE & its Founder/CEO have 14. employed ANTl-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT in order to diminish incentives of COMPETITION in re; the 15. cataloguing & dissemination of subscriber identification. In this way,th GOOGLE & its owner 16. engaged in stand-afone violations of‘COVENANTS NOT TO COMPETE,IN RE; UCL Business & 17. Professions code. t hs did,indeed,emp|oy anti—competitive contractual restrictions on automated 18. cross-management of subscriber information. Aforenamed restrictions are condemned by 19. CARTWRIGHT ACT (16720) of Calif. Business & Professions Code,as well as 16600-166025 of Calif. 20. Code,due to limitations on advertisers ability to make use of data. This reduced innovation & 21. increased transaction among advertisers & 3'd pty businesses. In addition,the activity degrades 22. quality of t hs rivals,as well as search & search advertising. t hs ”preferred efficiency" justification 23. for restrictions was ts h pre-textual. exclusionary agreements were,indeed, violative of Calif. Bus & 24. Prof. Code,due to the attempts ts h by to actively foreclose a portion of the marketplace. 25. Their behavior resulted in denial-of—scale to any & all competitors,as well as being a significant 26. barrier to potential entrants, in the overall term. 27. WE,in acting as a CLASS,represent to the Superior Court that h(s) engaged t in ”abuse of 28. dominance” within the following areas: The Class does allege to the Court that t hs engaged in ”abuse of dominance" within the foIIowing 4 areas; a.) Favorable treatment of its own vertical-search services,compared to its competitors in natural search-results. The practice of copying 3m pty—content own PWNQWPPP!‘ b.) (in order to supplement its vertical offerings). c.) Exclusivity agreements with publishers for provisions of search-advertising intermediate services. d.) Restrictions with regard t0 portability & cross-platform management of online advertising campaigns. . The Ciass heretofore represents to the Superior Court that t hs have engaged in Tort-liability. JURISDICTION & VENUE . The Superior Court retains both Personal Jurisdiction over this civil lawsuit in re; CCP 395.5, . as well as Subject Matter Jurisdiction in re; CCP 410.50,as the amount of damages in question . exceed $1 Million. In re; CCP 382,this civiI-Iawsuit does stand as a class-action. THE PARTIES . THE PRINCIPAL PLAINTIFF Gregory Ackers is a citizen of San Diego,Ca & is a GOOGLE . Subscriber with a GMAII. account. . THE CLASS is a multi-faceted cross-section of worid citizens in re; "diversity” element of 28 USC- NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH oougwmnwmpomooxlmmwan—xo . Section 1332. GOOGLE customers do comprise an element ofalmost 2 billion people. They do . utilize GOOGLE as an industrial & communications platform. . THE DEFENDANTS involve GOOGLE,which is a public Delaware Corporation with Corporate . H.Q. in Sunnyvale,Ca. Sundar Pichai is the founder & CEO who owns & operates . GOOGLE. He is a citizen of California. h t Google trades,|eases & licenses search-products 8: . services,inc|uding a ”horizontal" search-engine,as well as numerous integrated "vertical” . websites. THE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY . The internet is a vast,|argely unorganized platform of constantiy-changing information,in which . algorithims act as an actual & virtual card-catalogue. th has unlawfully ”scraped",or appropriated content of ‘vertical-websites in order to improve its own online vertical‘properties. [n this way, GOOGLE sought to maintain,enhance & preserve MONOPOLY power in mkts for search & search-advertising. Such conduct is violative of Section 2 of SHERMAN & CARTWRIGHT. In sum;evidence within this civil lawsuit detail hs t own complimentary PPNP‘U‘PP’N!‘ monopolistic activities in scraping rival content,in order to improve its vertical-offerings. This was done,egregiously,to the detriment of all rivals. These activities were performed without countervailing efficiencyjustification. ths conduct resulted & will result in harm to consumers & innovation within online search & & advertising mkts. t hs did strengthen MONOPOLISTIC, anti-competitive means,thereby . forestalling competitors abilities. This activity has overall lasting effects on overall consumer pp . welfare. PLATFORM PRIVELEGE . Clearly,ths do retain Platform Privelege,which allows them incentive & ability to prioritise their . own goods & svcs over that of their competitors. PRICE FIXING-GROUP BOYCOTI'ING/MKT DIVISION SCHEME/EXCLUSIVE DEALINGS/PRICE DlSCRlMlNATION/TYING gpywawNp-nomoowsngnLBBI-ao . t h(s) unlawfully maintained MONOPOLY over general search & search-advertising. . Furthermore,ths engaged in VIOLATIONS 0F U.S ANTl—TRUST codes in the following ways; . a.) ”Scraping" content of rival vertical-websites in order to improve its own product—offerings. . b.) methods of competition by entering into exclusive,restrictive agreements with web— Unfair NNNNNNMNHHHHHH . publishers,thereby preventing them from displaying competing search-results/advertisements. . c.) Maintaining contractual restrictions which inhibit cross-platform mgmt. of ad campaigns. . in utilizing these methods,GOOGLE,in alignment with its officers,has violated The Cartwright . Act,The Clayton Act,The FTC Act & The Sherman Act,simultaneously. CAUSES 0F ACTION COUNT 1 ANTI-TRUST 28. GOOGLE & its officers did willfully engage in ”exclusionary course of conduct” (CARTWRIGHT) COUNT 2 ILLICIT AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE th GOOGLE has,indeed,acted in violation 0f Section 5 ofSherman Act (15 USC-Sec.l—7) by mktg free data to relevant industry & then altering & demoting data within the very same mktplace. Pmfimmbwwr‘ COUNT 3 MONOPOLISATION-VIOLATION OF FTC ACT th GOOGLE has willfully engaged in MONOPOLISATION by ”engaging deceptively & unfairly" through the altering of SERP—status,demotion of ad mkts & restriction (by ”scraping”) of search- advertising. COUNT4 DISCRIMINATION OF PRICE,SERVICE & FACILITIES . [n re; The Cartwright Act;th(s) did engage in ”discrimination of price between different . purchasers of commodities”. ln re; chpts 81 & 100 ofTitle 15 (the role of commerce & trade in . re; U.S. Code),th(s) have attempted to reconfigure the High Performance Computing Act of . 1991 (chpt 81) by covertly pirating IT commerce within the promulgation of a cyber-industry. COUNT 5 UNFAIR COMPETITION . In re; CALIFORNIA BUSINEES & PROFESSION CODE 17200,et-seq,th(s) & Corp. officers engaged NNNNMNMNNHHHHHHHHHH ooummaLpNI—‘omooggambuumv—zo . in UNLAWFULL,UNFA|R & FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES. h(s) manage Headquarters t of . their own worldwide operations within the state 0f California & are,therefore,liable to . commercial codes of that state. PRAYER FOR RELIEF . The CLASS prays to the Court for COMPENSATORY,PUNIT|VE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF for all . Damages, as well as a neutraI-interlocutor to perform an AUDIT on all t hs.The SHERMAN ACT . imposes damages of TWICE the amount obtained through conspirators course of illegality &,or . TWICE the amount lost by victims of any & all criminal & civil liability (if the amount is over $100 . million). The U.S. Supreme Court declared that all violations 0f SHERMAN do also violate the . FTC Act,which bans unfair methods of competition,or ”unfair & deceptive acts & practices”. The CLASS prays for the same damages in re; SHERMAN be also applied to FTC & CLAYTON. The Clayton Act bans ”discriminatory prices,services & allowances in dealing between merchants. CLAYTON authorizes pvt parties to sue forTREBLE DAMAGES when harmed by conduct in volation ofSHERMAN & FTC,as well as obtaining INJUNCTIVE orders prohibiting damages the condidered amount PWNQWPWN!‘ future anti-competitive behaviour. The CLASS prays for in of all insidious profiteering in re; anti-trust & monopolization incurred by h(s) to hi-jack t the online mktplace. The CLASS prays for DAMAGES amounting to $1 Billion. This,inc|uding all profits,receipts 81 accounts payable,if billed t by h(s) in any act of illegality or civil liability. These to be paid to The CLASS by any & all t hs jointly,severaIly &,or,individually,in . association with |egal,administrative& subsidiary costs. 1N re; CCP 631 & Sec. 16 of Article 1 . ofThe California C0nstitution,we,as a CLASS,hereby demand TRIAL BY JURY within the . Jurisdiction on all points so triable & judiciable. on this day June 1 by Gregory Ackers (Principal Pltf) NNNNNNNNNI—‘HHn—ar—‘I—IHHHH . Respectflthed 9°>I¢915>9°NH9w°°>1m5fié>s-Ho . Signed