Stay on top of updates and developments around key cases across various global jurisdictions.

A class action was filed on 16 December 2024 on behalf of QNews Pty Ltd and Sydney Times Media Pty Ltd against Google LLC, Google Pte Ltd and Google Australia Pty Ltd (Google). 

The class action has been commenced to recover compensation for Australian-domiciled website and app publishers who have suffered financial losses as a result of Google’s misuse of market power in the advertising technology sector. The alleged loss is that publishers would have had significantly higher revenues from selling advertising space, and would have kept greater profits, if not for Google’s misuse of market power. 

The class action is being prosecuted by Piper Alderman with funding from Woodsford, which means affected publishers will not pay costs to participate in this class action, nor will they have any financial risk in relation to Google’s costs. 

Anyone, or any business, who has owned a website or app and sold advertising space using Google’s ad tech tools can join the action as a group member by registering their details at www.googleadtechaction.com.au. Participation in the action as a group member will be confidential so Google will not become aware of the identity of group members. 

The class action is on behalf of all publishers who had websites or apps and sold advertising space using Google’s platforms targeted at Australian consumers, including: 

1. Google Ad Manager (GAM);
2. Doubleclick for Publishers (DFP);
3. Google Ad Exchange (AdX); and
4. Google AdSense or AdMob. 

for the period 16 December 2018 to 16 December 2024. 

Google’s conduct 

Google’s conduct in the ad tech market is under scrutiny in various jurisdictions around the world. In June 2021, the French competition authority concluded that Google had abused its dominant position in the ad tech market. Google did not contest the decision, accepted a fine of €220m and agreed to change its conduct. The UK Competition and Markets Authority, the European Commission, the US Department of Justice and the Canadian Competition Bureau have also commenced investigations into, or legal proceedings regarding, Google’s conduct in ad tech. There are also class actions being prosecuted against Google for its practices in the ad tech market in the UK, EU and Canada. 

In Australia, Google’s substantial market power and conduct has been the subject of regulatory investigation and scrutiny by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) which released its report in August 2021. The ACCC found that “Google is the largest supplier of ad tech services across the entire ad tech supply chain: no other provider has the scale or reach across the ad tech supply chain that Google does.” It concluded that “Google’s vertical integration and dominance across the ad tech supply chain, and in related services, have allowed it to engage in leveraging and self-preferencing conduct, which has likely interfered with the competitive process”. 

Quotes 

Greg Whyte, a partner at Piper Alderman, said: 

“This class action is of major importance to publishers, who have suffered as a result of Google’s practices in the ad tech monopoly that it has secured. As is the case in several other 2. jurisdictions around the world, Google will be required to respond to and defend its monopolistic practices which significantly affect competition in the Australian publishing market”. 

Charlie Morris, Chief Investment Officer at Woodsford said: “This class action follows numerous other class actions against Google in other jurisdictions regarding its infringement of competition laws in relation to AdTech. This action aims to hold Google to account for its misuse of market power and compensate website and app publishers for the consequences of Google’s misconduct. Working closely with economists, we have determined that Australian website and app publishers have been earning significantly less revenue and profits from advertising than they should have. We aim to right this wrong.” 

Class Action representation 

The team prosecuting the ad tech class action comprises: 

• Law firm: Piper Alderman
• Funder: Woodsford
• Counsel team: Nicholas de Young KC, Simon Snow and Nicholas Walter

Dr Rachael Kent’s over £1.5bn collective action against Apple for alleged overcharging in relation to the Apple App Store will go to trial on 6 January 2025. The Competition Appeal Tribunal has confirmed the trial will run for eight weeks, with the first week reserved as a reading week. Hearings will commence on 13 January 2025 at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Salisbury Square House, 8 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8AP.

The claim, which seeks compensation for millions of UK consumers and businesses, alleges that Apple breached competition law by abusing its dominant position through its conduct relating to its App Store. According to the claim, Apple has excluded competition and charged unfairly high commissions of up to 30% on app and in-app purchases (including subscriptions) made on iPhones and iPads.

Dr Kent has issued a revised Trial Hearing Notice, available here, which confirms the trial schedule and provides further information about the case. For more information on the claim, visit www.appstoreclaims.co.uk/Apple. Class members are encouraged to check the website for updates about the claim, including access to Tribunal orders and further guidance. The Notice can also be found in the “Documents” section of the claim website.

For those interested in observing the trial, it will be open to the public both in person and online via the Tribunal’s website. A “Watch Now” link will be available under the Diary section on the Tribunal’s homepage (www.catribunal.org.uk) on the trial commencement date.

Further information on the claim

The legal claim applies to purchases made on many popular apps on iPhones and iPads, including Fortnite, YouTube and Tinder. It does not apply to apps providing “physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app”. These include Deliveroo and Uber, which are not required to use Apple’s payments system or pay Apple the disputed 30% commission on every purchase of and/or within their apps.

Affected app purchasers, on whose behalf the collective action is brought, will not pay costs or fees to participate in this legal action, which is being funded by Vannin Capital, a global litigation funder. The action is insured, which means that class members have no financial risk in relation to the claim.

Dr Kent is represented by Lesley Hannah, Sofie Edwards, Kio Gwilliam, Emma Poland, Jonathan Amior, Natalie Jukes, Jake Henderson, Abigail Masters and Kazi Elias at law firm Hausfeld & Co. LLP, with barristers Mark Hoskins KC and Matthew Kennedy from Brick Court Chambers, and Tim Ward KC, Michael Armitage and Antonia Fitzpatrick from Monckton Chambers

About Hausfeld & Co. LLP

Hausfeld is a leading international law firm specialising in competition law, with significant expertise in all aspects of collective redress and group claims.

Competition law expert Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s multi-billion pound case against Meta has been certified by the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London. Meta failed to prevent the case from proceeding as neither the Competition Appeal Tribunal nor the Court of Appeal granted Meta leave to appeal.

The case is now proceeding to trial, opening up the prospect of compensation for 46 million UK Facebook users.

Every Facebook user who were domiciled in the UK on 15 February 2024 and accessed Facebook at least once in the period between 14 February 2016 and 6 October 2023 will be automatically included in the case unless they opt out by 5 March 2025.

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen says: “We welcome the opportunity to hold Meta to account for abusing its dominant position by exploiting 46 million UK users’ data. Meta abused its market dominance by imposing unfair terms and conditions on UK users and imposing an unlawful price. We are very pleased that the Tribunal has approved me to go ahead and represent the class in our pursuit of redress for each individual affected”

The Tribunal ruled Meta’s attempts to challenge Dr. Lovdahl Gormsen’s claims were “insufficient” after expert testimony from leading economist Fiona Scott Morton, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economics at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. Whilst Meta attempted to appeal this decision, the Court of Appeal in October refused permission for them to do so.

Class action claims have risen in the UK in the past three years but do not always receive a Collective Proceedings Order. As of November 2024, only a third of all cases have reached this stage, underscoring the importance of this decision.

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen’s case argues that Meta set an ‘unfair price’ for UK Facebook users. The “price” set for granting access to the social network was the surrender of UK users’ highly valuable personal data on a take-it-or-leave-it basis for access to the network. In return, users only received “free” access to Facebook’s social network, and zero monetary recompense whilst Facebook generated billions in revenues from its users’ data. This unfair deal was only possible due to Meta’s market dominance, meaning users had no other social network they could use to get the same service.

The claim seeks damages of at least £2.1 billion, plus interest, on aggregate for all UK consumers affected.

Kate Vernon, partner and Head of Competition Litigation Practice at law firm Quinn Emanuel, representing Dr Lovdahl Gormsen said: “This groundbreaking case promises to redefine the application of competition law in the context of data exploitation. It sets a legal framework for approaching this pivotal matter and represents a significant shift in how we address the associated critical issues.”

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen’s legal action is an opt-out class action brought under the Competition Act 1998 and the first to protect individuals’ data rights against Meta under competition law in England and Wales. The case is backed by some of Britain’s most prominent lawyers and economists, such as the Rt. Honourable Lord Neuberger, former President of the Supreme Court, Professor Richard Whish, Honorary Kings Counsel, economist Chris Pike, and Peter Vicary-Smith, former CEO of Which?.

A notice of the collective proceedings order, which sets out how users may opt out of the claim, can be found here.

About Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen

The case is being led on behalf of the class by Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, Senior Research Fellow at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) and the director of the Competition Law Forum.The Competition Law Forum is a noted centre of excellence for European competition and antitrust policy and law.

In addition, Dr Lovdahl Gormsen is a Board Member of the Open Markets Institute and sits on the advisory board of the Journal of Antitrust Enforcement (OUP).

As an international expert in the field, Dr Lovdahl Gormsen co-authored the paper “Facebook’s Anticompetitive Lean in Strategies” (2019) and “Facebook’s Exploitative and Exclusionary Abuses in the Two-Sided Market for Social Networks and Display Advertising” (2021). The latter argues that antitrust enforcement is required to prevent the company from reinforcing its data-driven abuse of market power.

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP, one of the UK’s leading competition law specialists. The case is spearheaded by Quinn Emanuel partner Kate Vernon, a highly respected competition law specialist, and assisted by partner Leo Kitchen, and associates Megan Hiluta, Aadil Master and Alexander Groes. Also advising Dr Lovdahl Gormsen are counsel Robert O’Donoghue KC of Brick Court Chambers, Tom Coates of Blackstone Chambers, Greg Adey of One Essex Court and Ian Simester of Fountain Court Chambers.

The case is being funded by Innsworth, one of the world’s largest civil litigation funders.

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has certified the £7 billion claim against Google brought by Nikki Stopford, a consumer rights campaigner, on behalf of tens of millions of UK consumers – rejecting Google’s attempt to torpedo the claim early, and adding to the Big Tech firm’s legal and regulatory woes.

The specialist UK court will require Google to defend its longstanding conduct in the search engine market, after approving the landmark legal action brought by Nikki Stopford and legal firm Hausfeld & Co LLP.

The claim accuses Google of exploiting its dominance in the search market to increase advertising costs, which were ultimately passed on to consumers. With certification now secured, millions of UK consumers are poised to pursue compensation for the economic harm caused by Google’s conduct.

The CAT’s decision is the latest in a series of setbacks for Google’s parent company Alphabet, which is fighting to preserve its all-important dominance in online search globally. Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) proposed that the US courts should force Google to sell its Chrome web browser, prohibiting Google from entering into agreements that make it the default search engine on smartphones and browsers, and additional restrictions to ensure its Android smartphone software does not favour Google Search.

The full CAT judgment can be viewed here. The UK court dismissed Google’s arguments in full, including its attempt to have the claim struck out. The CAT held that Ms Stopford had put forward a serious case and authorised her to act as the class representative and permitted the claim to proceed to trial.

Following the CAT’s certification, Ms Stopford will represent all UK-domiciled consumers aged 16 years or over who, during the period from 1 January 2011 until 7 September 2023 (inclusive), purchased goods and/or services from a business selling in the UK, which used search advertising services provided by Google. The action is being brought as an opt-out collective action, meaning that everyone in the UK affected is automatically included as a claimant in the case unless they opt out.

The case against Google

The collective action argues that Google used its dominant position in the UK search engine market to overcharge advertisers and that these costs were then passed directly on to the consumer.

Google forced mobile phone handset manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search and Google Chrome browser apps on devices that used Google’s Android operating system; and

Google paid billions to Apple to ensure that Google was the default search engine on all devices, such as the iPhone, that used Apple’s iOS operating system.

Other proceedings

The DoJ action follows a long legal fight brought by the DoJ and several Attorneys General in the US, culminating in a judgment in August 2024 by the District Court of Columbia, which found that Google’s conduct is anti-competitive and unlawful.

This judgment also supports Nikki Stopford’s claim that Google’s commercial agreement with Apple foreclosed the market for search on iOS devices, as do recent findings by the UK Competition and Markets Authority.

Meanwhile, the European Commission imposed the biggest fine in history on Google for the anti-competitive practices in Android.

It is alleged that the abuses by Google are possible because Google is set as the default search engine account for at least 94% of the mobile device sector, by usage. Google Ads generated over $224 billion in revenue in 2022, accounting for almost 80% of parent company Alphabet’s revenue ($283 billion in 2022).

Nikki Stopford, the class representative in the action, said:

“This green light from the tribunal is a significant victory for UK consumers. Almost everybody uses Google as their go-to search engine, trusting it to deliver quality results at no cost. But its service isn’t genuinely free because its dominance has resulted in increased costs for consumers. Google has been warned repeatedly by competition regulators. Yet it continues to rig the market to charge advertisers more, which raises the prices they charge consumers. This action seeks to promote healthier competition in digital markets, and to hold Google accountable and ensure that consumers are compensated for the harm caused by its conduct.”

Luke Streatfeild, Partner at legal firm Hausfeld & Co LLP, who is leading the litigation, said:

“This judgment is good news for UK consumers, as the case for compensation brought by our client on their behalf can now proceed to trial. The judgment is also helpful in clarifying the standard for assessing exclusionary conduct by dominant companies, in particular in digital markets with high barriers to entry, and it will be a useful reference point in future cases that aim to promote fairer competition and better outcomes for consumers in those marketplaces.”

Further information

The certified claim against Google is being brought at the CAT against Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited and Google UK Limited under CAT Claim No. 1606/7/7/23.

Who is eligible to be part of the claim?

All that is necessary is that a consumer purchased goods or services from a business who advertised using search advertising services provided by Google. It is not necessary for them to have seen the goods or services advertised on Google or used Google to purchase the goods or services. This is because the claim says that these higher prices affected all a business’ products if it advertised on Google.

Those who are interested in finding out more about the claim and signing up for regular updates should visit www.searchclaim.co.uk.

About the class representative

Nikki Stopford is co-founder of Consumer Voice and brings 25 years of experience in advocating and raising industry standards for consumers. She is Chair of the British Standard Institute’s Consumer Forum and a member of its Standards Policy and Strategy Committee. She has held executive leadership roles running successful digital and content-led consumer-facing businesses that have engaged and advocated for millions of consumers. Most notably, she was Group Director of Research and Publishing at Which? – the UK’s largest consumer organisation – for more than 10 years.

Additional notes

Affected claimants, on whose behalf the class action is brought, will not pay costs or fees to participate in this legal action, which is being funded by global commercial litigation funder Hereford Litigation. The action is insured, which means that class members have no adverse cost risk in relation to the claim.

Ms Stopford is represented by:

• Hausfeld & Co. LLP, Partners Luke Streatfeild and Simon Bishop, supported by Counsel Jonothan Broadbent and Stella Gartagani, Associates Natalie Jukes, Ginevra Bicciolo and Lisa Amrani and paralegals Martha Papapostolou and Alice Caroff
• Charles Rivers Associates, Oliver Latham, Vice President, supported by Director Sam Marden and Senior Associate Liam Connolly
• Rosamilia Consulting, Davide Rosamilia, co-founder and principal consultant
• Ben Lask KC of Monckton Chambers
• Daniel Jowell KC and Colin West KC, both of Brick Court Chambers
• Mehdi Baiou and (formerly) Andrew Lomas, both of One Essex Court.

Nakiki SE announces that the two so-called “mask lawsuits” (lawsuits against the federal government for payment related to supply contracts for COVID masks), which are currently in the review phase or at the stage of a Letter of Intent, will not be financed after thorough and detailed examination.

Litigation funders such as Nakiki SE assess claims to be financed through both internal and external legal and economic evaluations. A decision not to finance a claim is not necessarily an indicator of the claim’s chances of success but may also be due to a limited risk appetite or other factors.

In principle, Nakiki SE remains interested in financing so-called mask lawsuits. Affected mask suppliers are still encouraged to contact Nakiki. Each case will be reviewed individually and promptly.