Court Allows Core Antitrust Claims Against Google to Proceed While Rejecting Fraud Allegations

A federal judge has ruled that key claims in a consumer antitrust lawsuit against Google LLC can move forward, allowing plaintiffs to continue their challenge against the tech giant’s alleged monopoly in the U.S. search market. The case, James Attridge, et al. v. Google LLC, centers on allegations that Google has unlawfully dominated the search services market through exclusive agreements with device manufacturers and browser developers.

U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin rejected Google’s motion to dismiss the core antitrust claims, finding that the plaintiffs adequately demonstrated standing and plausibly alleged that Google’s default search engine agreements have harmed competition. However, the court dismissed allegations related to fraudulent concealment, ruling they failed to meet the required specificity standards.

The plaintiffs, a group of four consumers, argue that Google’s contracts with major technology companies like Apple, Mozilla, and Android manufacturers have effectively blocked rival search engines from gaining market share. According to the complaint, these agreements have enabled Google to maintain a commanding 94.9% market share on mobile devices as of 2020.

“Assuming Plaintiffs’ allegations to be true, as required at this stage, it is reasonable to infer that these search engines floundered due to the challenged agreements,” Judge Lin wrote in her ruling.

The decision comes at a significant moment in the tech landscape. Just this month, Google announced a partnership with Apple to integrate Google’s Gemini artificial intelligence system on Apple devices, potentially replacing Siri. If approved, this collaboration could put Gemini on approximately two billion Apple devices, further solidifying the companies’ market power and raising additional competition concerns.

Judge Lin addressed Google’s statute of limitations defense by finding that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged the timeframe was extended both by the government’s separate antitrust case against Google and by Google’s ongoing violations. “Plaintiffs plausibly allege that within the limitations period, Google committed new and independent acts causing new and accumulating injury to Plaintiffs,” the judge noted.

However, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to further extend the statute of limitations through fraudulent concealment claims. While such claims can be powerful tools to extend filing deadlines in antitrust cases, they require meeting a high evidentiary standard.

To successfully invoke fraudulent concealment, plaintiffs must demonstrate that defendants took affirmative steps to mislead them, that the plaintiffs lacked knowledge of the facts underlying their claims, and that they exercised due diligence in attempting to uncover those facts.

The court found the plaintiffs’ allegations in this regard “too vague or inherently self-concealing” and failed to meet the heightened pleading standard required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Judge Lin explained that the plaintiffs did not adequately “set forth what is false or misleading about each statement, and why it is false.” The court granted leave to amend these claims by February 20, 2026.

The ruling upheld claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and for unjust enrichment. Since the plaintiffs successfully pled a Sherman Act violation, their UCL claims under the “unlawful” and “unfair” prongs were deemed plausible. The court also determined that plaintiffs adequately alleged Google unjustly retained valuable user data through its anticompetitive conduct.

This case represents a significant development in the ongoing legal and regulatory scrutiny of tech giants. It highlights growing concerns about market dominance in digital advertising and search services, particularly as these companies expand their reach into artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies.

The judge’s recognition that consumers might have benefited from alternative search engines with enhanced privacy features, fewer advertisements, or user compensation models signals a potential shift in how courts evaluate competitive harm in digital markets.

As this litigation proceeds, it could have far-reaching implications for how technology companies structure their business relationships and potentially reshape competitive dynamics in the search engine market. The court has set a clear path forward for examining whether Google’s exclusive agreements have indeed foreclosed meaningful competition in violation of antitrust laws.