Gab Sues Google for Anti-Trust Violations

The Washington Times reports that social media site Gab is suing Google for anti-trust violations.

“Google Play and Android have monopoly power in the app store market, and Google’s apps YouTube and Google+ compete directly against Gab,” said Marc Randazza, the attorney for the company, in a statement reported by the Hill. “Google’s intimate partnership with Twitter, which also competes against Gab, makes Google’s control of all Android apps available through the Play Store a serious restraint of trade issues.”

Ron Coleman is also one of the lawyers helping Gab in this matter.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will note that I own shares in Gab.

12 thoughts on “Gab Sues Google for Anti-Trust Violations

  1. Google is about to find out why the mere mention of the name “Marc Randazza” strikes fear in the hearts of evildoers, not to mention that the team of Randazza and Coleman should send the executives at Google to run for the hills gibbering in fear!

    • Mr. Randazza doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy to file suit without having a plan. I suspect this could get very tense for Google.

      • On the other hand, see Vox Day’s analysis, which John “Minemyown” Doe linked just downthread. I don’t see this suit surviving a Motion to Dismiss from Google: the “our Play Store policies were written well before you showed up, and we’re just applying those policies” argument is going to play very well with any unbiased judge. And if they happen to get a biased judge, he’s going to be biased left, so Gab’s suit is in trouble either way.

        • That Google’s “policies” predate Gab’s presence does not negate the notion that they’re violative of anti-trust law. Further, they’re clearly not evenly applied. If they were, Twitter would be long gone from the Google Play store.

          • I’d like that argument to sway the judge, but I’m not sanguine. Maybe the “they’re not applying the rules evenly” argument will fly. But I think the judge is more likely to say “Just because they should also have banned Twitter based on their own rules, does not mean that they were unfair in enforcing those same rules against you.” I.e., he’s likely to see that argument as being equivalent to the guy who gets a speeding ticket and says, “But what about all the other cars that were speeding which the cop didn’t give a ticket to?” Which is an argument that has swayed approximately zero judges ever when it comes to speeding tickets, and I’m guessing that that’s how the judge will see this case too.

            We’ll see, though. If Randazza and his legal team can find evidence of collusion, (or a closer-than-normal working relationship) between Google and Twitter during discovery, they’ll have a far stronger case on the anti-trust side of the argument.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s