United States of America: Northern District of California Court partially denied Google's motion to dismiss a class action alleging antitrust violations

On 21 January 2026, the United States Court for the Northern District of California issued an order partially denying Google LLC's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by consumers alleging antitrust violations. The plaintiffs allege that Google LLC unlawfully foreclosed competition in the United States general search services market through exclusive dealing agreements with mobile device manufacturers, sellers, and browser developers. Under these contracts, Google is preset as the default search engine on devices from Apple and Android, as well as the Safari and Firefox browsers. The lawsuit contends that these default contracts exclude competitors and monopolise the search market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The plaintiffs further raise an unjust enrichment claim based on the retention of search data and fraudulent concealment claims for statements made by Google dating back to 2008. The court granted antitrust and granted the unjust enrichment claim as a continuation of antitrust standing. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that in the absence of the challenged agreements, search engines would have developed with increased privacy protections, fewer advertisements, or compensation models for users. The court rejected the argument that such developments were speculative. The order also addressed the directness of the injury, finding that consumers provide data and attention directly to Google, rather than through manufacturers. Furthermore, the court ruled that the statute of limitations did not bar the claims due to the continuing violation doctrine. The court dismissed allegations related to fraudulent concealment for lack of specificity, but granted leave to amend by 20 February 2026. The court concluded that determining the feasibility of calculating damages would require further discovery and expert testimony, rather than being resolved at the dismissal stage.