[00:00:06] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:00:07] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:08] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court, I am Justin Nemazzetta of Nemazzetta PLLC, representing plaintiffs in the proposed class.

[00:00:15] Speaker 00:
I would like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:20] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, plaintiffs plausibly allege negative tying

[00:00:25] Speaker 00:
that is a violation of Sherman Act sections 1 and 3 under either of the per se rule of reason as our quick look standard and the lower threshold under Clayton Act section 3 and the alleged exclusive dealing that is a violation of Sherman Act sections 1 and 3 and Clayton Act section 3.

[00:00:46] Speaker 00:
These two alleged anti-competitive actions in addition to the alleged self-preferencing

[00:00:52] Speaker 00:
which is plausibly alleged in totality violates Sherman Act Section 2, and all these actions violate California unfair competition laws.

[00:01:02] Speaker 00:
I would like to focus my argument on two of the components here as to whether the Google Maps terms of service actually effectuate the negative tie and coercion.

[00:01:16] Speaker 00:
That's not an indication of

[00:01:18] Speaker 00:
the order, I think, of the merits of the arguments.

[00:01:21] Speaker 00:
It's really in part because I want to make sure I have enough time to cover that.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
Also, it's a bit unclear whether the decision even found that there was no relevant markets nor market power.

[00:01:31] Speaker 00:
Of course, if I have time, I want to address those and all the other points.

[00:01:36] Speaker 00:
For the ease of everyone's review, I am going to be referring a lot to what is in the record as 3ER324.

[00:01:46] Speaker 00:
It's to the second amended complaint, paragraphs 202 to 203.

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
And those are sequential versions of the Google Maps terms of service.

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
It is Google Maps terms of service.

[00:01:59] Speaker 00:
So let's focus on what the term, and it's Google Maps terms 323E.

[00:02:06] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, at points in the decision, it found that

[00:02:14] Speaker 00:
this restriction is only a one-way tie, meaning it's only Google's places APIs and routes APIs that cannot be used with Maps.

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
That is contradicted by the language of the terms.

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
If one looks to the examples of that term, example two is display street view imagery, that's a Maps API with other content.

[00:02:38] Speaker 00:
And example three

[00:02:41] Speaker 00:
to link a Google Map to non-Google Maps content, again, the tying product is a Maps API.

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
And the negatively tied products are Places APIs and Routes APIs.

[00:02:55] Speaker 01:
Does the whole claim turn on the bold italicized portion of what you're referring to, or is there other parts of the terms of service that you're relying on?

[00:03:03] Speaker 01:
Not necessarily, Your Honor.

[00:03:06] Speaker 00:
Of course, the

[00:03:08] Speaker 00:
Example three, link a Google Map to non-Google Maps content.

[00:03:12] Speaker 00:
That is an express example of what we allege.

[00:03:15] Speaker 00:
But in totality, we're alleging that the terms considered include the forbidance of using Google's Maps APIs with places routes APIs.

[00:03:25] Speaker 00:
That it's the verbs link and use, if you look at that whole section.

[00:03:30] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, the decision below totally ignored, let alone assessed,

[00:03:37] Speaker 00:
Plaintiffs' allegations of wanting to link Google's Maps APIs with Places and Routes APIs.

[00:03:46] Speaker 00:
Plaintiffs Dream and Getify alleged them at several points in the complaint.

[00:03:50] Speaker 00:
Those allegations are plausible.

[00:03:52] Speaker 00:
They need to be accepted as true.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
Google just nitpicks other portions of the complaint where the plaintiffs may have used different verbiage.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
What are the specific allegations about linking in the complaint that you would point us to?

[00:04:08] Speaker 00:
So Your Honor, in 3ER 405 paragraph 549, Getify alleged that it has reviewed, assessed, and searched for places APIs and routes APIs from competitors, including without limitation OpenStreetMaps, a free provider, Mapbox, USG, 51 Degrees, and TeleNav, and Getify still wants to use and link places

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
APIs and routes APIs from those competitors with Google Maps APIs that Getify has used during the class period.

[00:04:38] Speaker 00:
There is also paragraph 554, there's paragraph 556, there's paragraph 563, 568, and for Dream there's paragraphs 527, 532, and 536.

[00:04:56] Speaker 00:
Those are some examples.

[00:05:00] Speaker 00:
Google

[00:05:01] Speaker 00:
admitted in the briefing that they're not moving to strike any of plaintiff's allegations.

[00:05:07] Speaker 00:
So that alone is reversible error just merely on the independent link.

[00:05:13] Speaker 00:
Then if we think more expansively on use, which plaintiffs do allege, let's look at the terms here.

[00:05:21] Speaker 00:
So is link a form of use?

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
It is, Your Honor.

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
But your position is use is broader than link?

[00:05:28] Speaker 00:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:05:29] Speaker 00:
We presented Webster definitional comparisons that envelope link under use, which were not imposed.

[00:05:36] Speaker 00:
There were decisions cited of the broadness of use.

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
Plus, if we look to the language itself, Google states use as the introductory term, followed by a for example, which link follows under, necessarily showing that link is a part of use.

[00:05:54] Speaker 00:
Now, defendants in the brief try to limit link to a hyperlink.

[00:06:00] Speaker 00:
That's not the only way to use link.

[00:06:02] Speaker 00:
It is nowhere in the terms, and it's outside the record.

[00:06:05] Speaker 00:
If we focus on use, Your Honor.

[00:06:07] Speaker 01:
What else does it mean then?

[00:06:10] Speaker 01:
What else does link mean?

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
So link means hyperlink at minimum, but what else do you think it would mean?

[00:06:16] Speaker 00:
It would mean pretty much to couple or connect by or as if by a link.

[00:06:21] Speaker 00:
To become connected by or as if by a link.

[00:06:24] Speaker 00:
So it's not such a narrow term.

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
It's a broad term itself.

[00:06:29] Speaker 00:
But if we go to use as well, link is for example of use.

[00:06:35] Speaker 00:
On top of that, Your Honor, expressly in the examples, the forbidden pairing of Google's maps APIs and the negatively tied places and routes APIs is a forbidden example there.

[00:06:50] Speaker 00:
the examples are not exhaustive.

[00:06:53] Speaker 00:
And what clearly shows this is even in the decision, it states the terms clearly showed and Google admitted that routes APIs is a tying product.

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
Let's read the terms.

[00:07:06] Speaker 00:
Nowhere in those terms as examples do routes API showed up.

[00:07:11] Speaker 00:
So if these examples are exhaustive and routes API showed up,

[00:07:16] Speaker 00:
That contradicts the position that even the judge found, and Google pointed out, that yes, routes APIs are a tying product.

[00:07:24] Speaker 00:
Although plaintiffs weren't required to, we attempt to harmonize the language.

[00:07:31] Speaker 00:
The term non-Google maps

[00:07:34] Speaker 00:
would refer to any of competitors' maps APIs, places APIs, and routes APIs.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
So the theory here is based just on the terms of service.

[00:07:46] Speaker 01:
Is there any other allegation about things that Google has said or done that would give further content to this theory in terms of why your clients believe they're in a tying situation?

[00:07:58] Speaker 00:
There are, Your Honor.

[00:08:00] Speaker 00:
There were general allegations of threats

[00:08:03] Speaker 00:
on developers throughout the complaint that we allege there is the chilling effect that we have alleged that the judge ignored.

[00:08:14] Speaker 01:
There is a chilling effect off of the terms of service.

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
In other words, your clients are reviewing the terms of service and allege that this is chilling them.

[00:08:21] Speaker 01:
Is there other allegations about things that Google has

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
has said or done that would lead to that chilling effect?

[00:08:27] Speaker 00:
Well, the chilling effect to my clients is that the terms and how they read it, and it's generally that someone doesn't want to cross paths with Google.

[00:08:34] Speaker 00:
If they're reading something, it's Google.

[00:08:36] Speaker 00:
So, Your Honor, I do want to point out that this term, non-Google maps, pointing to all of competitors' other maps, they're consistent to other terms of service that we pointed out.

[00:08:49] Speaker 00:
Terms of service 3.2.2A1,

[00:08:53] Speaker 00:
3.2.283 and Term 14, where Google itself is referring to Google Maps broadly to all of its Maps APIs, Places APIs and Routes APIs.

[00:09:06] Speaker 00:
If we look at the succession of the terms, you see

[00:09:11] Speaker 00:
The introductory sentencing in the prior term and the later term did not change, saying, no use with non-Google Maps.

[00:09:21] Speaker 00:
But in the secondary term, Google Ads link a Google Map to non-Google Maps content.

[00:09:28] Speaker 00:
They're expressly adding the example of you can't

[00:09:32] Speaker 00:
UserLink, Google's Maps APIs with Places or Routes APIs.

[00:09:35] Speaker 00:
But they don't change the prior introductory point of no use with Google Maps.

[00:09:41] Speaker 00:
That shows that even according to Google, non-Google Maps means non-Google Maps content.

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
Do you want to address that the district court also talked about coercion?

[00:09:53] Speaker 01:
Do you want to address that?

[00:09:54] Speaker 00:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:09:56] Speaker 00:
That is the second point I want to address.

[00:10:01] Speaker 00:
Firstly, Google and the decision incorrectly insinuate that if there are other options to the tying product, you can't have a tying claim.

[00:10:13] Speaker 00:
That's wrong.

[00:10:13] Speaker 00:
No one mandates 100% market share.

[00:10:16] Speaker 00:
There's permission to be other options.

[00:10:18] Speaker 00:
Secondly, in terms of the tying product, there are a few alternative ways someone can allege the sufficient economic power.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
One is you could allege monopoly power.

[00:10:30] Speaker 00:
even a lower standard for the time product.

[00:10:33] Speaker 00:
The other way is a desirable product.

[00:10:36] Speaker 00:
The decision only addressed the alternative angle of the desirable Maps APIs.

[00:10:42] Speaker 00:
They did not address the alternative angle of the monopoly power allegations, which is one way to prove.

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
And then on top of that, your honor, in the alternative, although yes, there may be competitors that offer Maps APIs that are better than, it does not mean

[00:11:00] Speaker 00:
that you automatically lose on desirability.

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
Because in the alternative, we do allege that regardless of other competitors offering Maps APIs that may be better, the plaintiffs in the class... They are better, actually.

[00:11:13] Speaker 02:
I'm looking at 17.

[00:11:14] Speaker 02:
There are competitors to Google Maps that offer Places APIs and Routes APIs of comparable, if not better quality, and which are materially cheaper.

[00:11:24] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:11:26] Speaker 00:
Those are the tied products.

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
It's not required that even if competitors offer Maps APIs that are better.

[00:11:35] Speaker 00:
We still alleged an alternative that plaintiffs still cannot avoid Google's Maps APIs in totality because Google Maps has data advantages.

[00:11:44] Speaker 00:
One of the body of data advantages are Google Maps is a presumption on all mobile phones on Android.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
And that would help a developer, because when they're developing an app, the fact that the Maps APIs, for example, are presumptions on mobile, it makes the application of the development easier.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
On top of that, Google Maps has data advantages through the sharing of the data with the panellope of other maps.

[00:12:10] Speaker 00:
even companies such as Microsoft admitted that Google has data advantages.

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
I do want to also note that when it comes to the coercion is to the tied products and that coercion can be shown in the alternative of either an express tie

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
are further threats.

[00:12:27] Speaker 00:
Both are not required.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
We allege the tie in the terms of service.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
That suffices it when you have monopoly power, plus the language in the terms effectuating the tie that satisfies that element.

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
Because it's not required that plaintiffs

[00:12:47] Speaker 00:
call Google or get on the phone with Google's lawyers as if they could and ask, hey, Google, we understand the terms be this.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
Can we do this?

[00:12:54] Speaker 00:
Does this violate it?

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
That's not required.

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
In fact, to require that rewards bad behavior, rewards a plaintiff violating the terms to see if there is a threat.

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
But if the terms express the negative time, that is sufficient.

[00:13:10] Speaker 00:
There is no additional requirement of threats.

[00:13:13] Speaker 01:
Do you want to save any time for rebuttal or?

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:13:34] Speaker 03:
Good morning, your honors.

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
May it please the court, David Kiernan on behalf of Google and Alphabet.

[00:13:41] Speaker 03:
One thing I want to address to clarify is Google has not conceded that the routes API is a tying product.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
I heard that from my friend, but Google has not admitted that.

[00:13:54] Speaker 03:
What's at issue here is Google Maps APIs as the tying product.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
And I think the key place to start

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
on this appeal is what the plaintiffs say they want it to do.

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
And it's the same paragraphs that the plaintiffs outlined.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
Paragraphs 533, 536, with respect to Dream Big, and then he mentions several paragraphs with respect to Getify, which is a copy and paste of what's there for Dream Big.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
What the plaintiffs state they want to do

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
is to display or use a competitor places or routes APIs with or near a Google map.

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
And this is key on this one digital screen, whether it be an app or a website.

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
That's what they claim they want to do.

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
They want to take non-Google routes, non-Google places, put on the same screen with a Google map.

[00:14:49] Speaker 03:
They are permitted to do that.

[00:14:51] Speaker 03:
We've stated that in the district court three times in our briefing.

[00:14:55] Speaker 03:
We stated in open court at oral argument.

[00:14:58] Speaker 03:
We stated in our briefs on appeal.

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
They can do that.

[00:15:03] Speaker 03:
The Google terms of service do not prohibit plaintiffs from doing that.

[00:15:08] Speaker 03:
The plain language of that provision does not prohibit them from doing it.

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
So what is prohibited?

[00:15:14] Speaker 03:
The link?

[00:15:16] Speaker 03:
You have to start, Your Honor, with the title.

[00:15:20] Speaker 03:
The plaintiffs and developers cannot use the Google

[00:15:25] Speaker 03:
API, mapping APIs with a non-Google map.

[00:15:29] Speaker 03:
The prohibition itself states, customer will not use the Google Maps core services, which is defined to mean Google Maps APIs, routes APIs, and Google Places APIs, with or near a non-Google map.

[00:15:46] Speaker 03:
And then it provides examples of that, of what's prohibited.

[00:15:50] Speaker 03:
The examples can't expand.

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
what the general prohibition is within that section.

[00:15:56] Speaker 03:
And if you look at the examples, the first example is you cannot display or use places content on a non-Google map.

[00:16:06] Speaker 03:
Plaintiffs don't want to do that.

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
They don't want to use a non-Google map.

[00:16:10] Speaker 03:
They're not asking to put places next to a non-Google map.

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
The second one that counsel for the appellants outlined, display street view imagery.

[00:16:22] Speaker 03:
which is a Google Maps API and non-Google Maps on the same screen.

[00:16:27] Speaker 03:
They don't want to do that.

[00:16:30] Speaker 03:
The third is link a Google Map, which means hyperlink, to non-Google Maps content or a non-Google Map.

[00:16:38] Speaker 03:
They don't want to hyperlink a Google Map to non-Google Map content or a non-Google Map on some separate screen.

[00:16:46] Speaker 03:
They want to take non-Google Routes APIs or non-Google

[00:16:51] Speaker 03:
places APIs and put on the same screen with the Google map.

[00:16:55] Speaker 03:
They can do that.

[00:16:57] Speaker 03:
And this is why they have brought forward not a single instance, not one, of Google ever interpreting this provision the way that they're interpreting it, ever enforcing the way that they say it's interpreted or that they're interpreting it.

[00:17:15] Speaker 03:
And this is despite having three opportunities to amend the complaint.

[00:17:20] Speaker 03:
It would not have been hard to find.

[00:17:23] Speaker 03:
The plaintiffs themselves could have called up Google, could have emailed Google, could have chatted with Google.

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
Can we do this?

[00:17:30] Speaker 03:
And the answer would have been the same that we put in our briefs and the same that we've said in open court.

[00:17:35] Speaker 03:
The answer is yes.

[00:17:37] Speaker 03:
They have found no other developers that are laboring under the same misinterpretation of the contract.

[00:17:45] Speaker 03:
And what I've heard from the appellants is, well, they don't have to do more.

[00:17:51] Speaker 03:
They can read the terms of service, and if they misunderstood it, that's enough.

[00:17:56] Speaker 03:
Twombly asks for more than that in an antitrust case.

[00:18:00] Speaker 03:
They make it very clear that they need to do more than speculate and argue what is possible.

[00:18:07] Speaker 01:
When it says link a Google map to non-Google maps content or a non-Google map, walk through what you understand that to both permit and to disallow?

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
It's permitted to have non-Google Map content APIs with or near a Google Map.

[00:18:29] Speaker 03:
That's permitted.

[00:18:30] Speaker 03:
What's not permitted is taking a customer, creating a link that takes a customer from a Google Map, hyperlinking to something else, a mapping API, a non-Google Map or a non-Google Map API.

[00:18:45] Speaker 03:
And that's because, and it's stated right at the top of the provision, it's to avoid confusion.

[00:18:50] Speaker 03:
So you have to read that prohibition in the example in IIII with the purpose, which is to avoid quality issues but also bring confusion, as well as the express prohibition.

[00:19:04] Speaker 03:
The customer will not use the Google Maps core services with or near a non-Google Map.

[00:19:09] Speaker 03:
So you can't take somebody from Google Maps API, take them out of it, and put them into, let's say, a non-Google Map, like an Apple Map or

[00:19:19] Speaker 03:
Microsoft Bing map that would confuse the customer to think they're still within Google Maps.

[00:19:26] Speaker 03:
And they're not asking to do that.

[00:19:28] Speaker 03:
That's the critical piece.

[00:19:33] Speaker 01:
What if they were asking to do that?

[00:19:37] Speaker 01:
What happens then?

[00:19:38] Speaker 01:
Because they seem to be saying, we are asking to do that.

[00:19:41] Speaker 01:
We could look at the complaint and evaluate whether that's true or not.

[00:19:44] Speaker 01:
But let's assume that's what they're asking to do.

[00:19:46] Speaker 01:
Then what?

[00:19:49] Speaker 03:
Two points, Your Honor.

[00:19:50] Speaker 03:
First, their complaint does not allege that.

[00:19:54] Speaker 03:
And what the plaintiffs here have not said that they want to take someone out of Google Maps and take them to a hyperlink to something else.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
They've been very expressed.

[00:20:05] Speaker 03:
They want to stay on the Google Map.

[00:20:08] Speaker 03:
And paragraph 536 is critical on this point.

[00:20:12] Speaker 03:
In paragraph 536, they state they don't want to take a customer out of the screen.

[00:20:19] Speaker 03:
because that would destroy the customer experience.

[00:20:21] Speaker 03:
They want to stay on the same screen and the same app as a Google map.

[00:20:27] Speaker 03:
So they are not, just to be clear, they are not asking to link away from a Google map.

[00:20:32] Speaker 03:
It's the opposite, and they made that very clear.

[00:20:35] Speaker 03:
If they were and that's prohibited, then that leads us to coercion, market power, which they have failed to allege with sufficient well-pled facts.

[00:20:48] Speaker 03:
But we never get to coercion, market definition, or market power because the time condition does not exist.

[00:20:56] Speaker 03:
They have no support for it.

[00:21:00] Speaker 03:
With respect to the chilling effects, the only facts that they've alleged is the TOS, the Terms of Service.

[00:21:11] Speaker 03:
They don't have any facts alleged that any developer, as I mentioned,

[00:21:16] Speaker 03:
is laboring under this misinterpretation of the terms of service or that they are otherwise following the plaintiff's interpretation.

[00:21:29] Speaker 03:
The plaintiffs simply have done no investigation on this piece.

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
They don't allege any facts about developers.

[00:21:35] Speaker 03:
They don't allege any facts about whether there are websites that have non-Google places, non-Google maps with a Google map.

[00:21:45] Speaker 03:
They didn't do any investigation whatsoever.

[00:21:47] Speaker 03:
They focused entirely on the language of the terms of service.

[00:21:55] Speaker 03:
Now, Your Honor, I would like to just spend a moment on coercion.

[00:22:01] Speaker 03:
Our argument on coercion is that it undermines the plausibility that there is a negative tie with respect to these plaintiffs.

[00:22:10] Speaker 03:
They allege that there are 12 or so competing Maps providers that provide competing Maps APIs that are of better quality and cheaper than Google Maps.

[00:22:22] Speaker 03:
They don't explain why they didn't choose the non-Google Map APIs, why other developers would not choose the non-Google Maps APIs.

[00:22:32] Speaker 03:
It makes their allegations that they were coerced or other developers were coerced as completely implausible.

[00:22:39] Speaker 03:
They need to allege something.

[00:22:41] Speaker 03:
Whether Google Maps APIs was a must-have, there was some reason why they had to choose Google Maps APIs over the competing products that they concede are of either equal or better quality and cheaper.

[00:22:58] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, unless there are additional questions for me, we'll rest on the papers.

[00:23:05] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:23:35] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, there are really five quick points I want to make.

[00:23:38] Speaker 00:
The assertion that the only forbidden link is between a Google Maps hyperlink to a separate app contradicts the language of the forbidance, because in the language, the prohibitions are within the same customer application.

[00:23:53] Speaker 00:
So if that's the only forbidden thing, that makes no sense, because that link is outside the customer application.

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
So it's within the customer application.

[00:24:00] Speaker 00:
Two, our allegations are also supported by the House antitrust report.

[00:24:05] Speaker 00:
the Germany Federal Antitrust Decision, and even testimony from a Mapbox founder where it's not just link.

[00:24:12] Speaker 00:
It's a prohibition in general of using Google, any of Google's digital mapping APIs with other competitors' maps, places, or routes APIs.

[00:24:21] Speaker 00:
That is not conclusory.

[00:24:23] Speaker 00:
It's based on an investigation where they interviewed witnesses

[00:24:26] Speaker 00:
They assessed documents from Google.

[00:24:31] Speaker 00:
Even at point states in the Germany issue, they assessed comments from Google to the decision.

[00:24:35] Speaker 00:
They still made that founding.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
There is no issue of customer confusion or quality because plaintiffs adequately alleged that the lack of competition has resulted in Google Maps having poor quality.

[00:24:48] Speaker 00:
And that's even with support from the House Antitrust Report.

[00:24:51] Speaker 00:
Google has not opposed those allegations in the briefing.

[00:24:55] Speaker 00:
We have not alleged that there are 12 competitors just within digital maps APIs.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
We allege that there are at least 12 competitors across the spectrum of maps APIs, places APIs, and routes APIs.

[00:25:08] Speaker 00:
And again, just because some competitors may offer better maps APIs in some sense, still plaintiffs allege and the law allows that there is monopoly power and there's still data advantages that plaintiffs cannot avoid mapping APIs.

[00:25:25] Speaker 00:
APIs in totality.

[00:25:27] Speaker 00:
And that is consistent with the court's finding and inform, part of the Google digital advertising action, where they allege that even though the ADEX exchange, the mapping tying product, was not the best product out there, there was still, and even though plaintiffs purchased other tying products, there was still coercion because of the monopoly power and strength of the

[00:25:52] Speaker 00:
ad exchange that plaintiffs could not avoid and had to purchase.

[00:25:57] Speaker 01:
We've let you go a little over your time, but why don't you wrap up.

[00:26:00] Speaker 01:
But let me first see if I have questions from colleagues.

[00:26:03] Speaker 01:
Why don't you go ahead and just briefly wrap up.

[00:26:06] Speaker 00:
In terms of relevant markets, the points that Google makes, more or less, and their interpretation of the law, more or less would mean that there could never be a relevant market with more than one product.

[00:26:18] Speaker 00:
Because if the products are purchased together, they're complements.

[00:26:21] Speaker 00:
Can't be a market.

[00:26:23] Speaker 00:
But if you want to allege more than one product, they all need to be purchased together.

[00:26:26] Speaker 00:
Those two angles contradict each other.

[00:26:29] Speaker 00:
That's a factual issue.

[00:26:30] Speaker 00:
We have alleged that within each of the maps APIs, places APIs and routes APIs, the APIs are substitutes of each other.

[00:26:38] Speaker 00:
We've alleged that well.

[00:26:39] Speaker 00:
It's a factual issue.

[00:26:40] Speaker 00:
And there's nothing on the face of the complaint that shows you can't allege that.

[00:26:44] Speaker 00:
In terms of monopoly power, we have alleged direct demonstrations of monopoly power.

[00:26:50] Speaker 00:
Price increases to the tune of 1,400%, 200 times, 20 times.

[00:26:56] Speaker 00:
And as Ninth Circuit law shows, when you're dealing with digital markets, the same bounds of alleging both increased prices and decrease in quantity is not a problem.

[00:27:07] Speaker 01:
With which you go a little over your time, so I want to just thank you for your presentation.

[00:27:11] Speaker 01:
this morning thank you counsel for appearing here today we thank opposing counsel as well in this case is submitted thank you thank you