An appellate panel partly dismissed an April 2021 ruling in the suit brought by mobile application developers Reveal Chat Hold, Beehive Biometric and USA Technology and Management Services, while also upholding a portion of the decision, reported LawStreet Media.
The non-precedential opinion concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their injunctive relief claims under the federal antitrust laws and that their claims for damages were time-barred. The class action initiated by the developers had argued for relief from violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts and various state laws.
The January 2020 suit against Facebook stems from allegations that it acted as a gatekeeper in the social data and social advertising markets. According to the plaintiffs’ complaint and in 2015, Facebook cut off third-party developers from its application programming interfaces (APIs) that the plaintiffs, including Reveal Chat, an anonymous chatting app that was formerly linked to the dating site LikeBright, relied on for their mobile applications.
The complaint also took aim at Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, arguing that they further entrenched its monopoly. The plaintiffs contended that their claims were safe from time-sensitivity rules because Facebook engaged in fraudulent concealment to cover its tracks, with plaintiffs only able to discover the alleged conduct after the statute of limitations had run out.
“Facebook’s March 2019 announcement about the ongoing back-end integration of Instagram and WhatsApp constitutes a new act that is not a reaffirmation of a previous act and inflicts a new and accumulating injury,” one plaintiff explained.
In this week’s six-page opinion, the Ninth Circuit raised the issue of antitrust standing on its own and reviewed the district court’s decision regarding timeliness.
The court said that the plaintiffs’ injunctive relief claims fail because they alleged injuries that occurred in 2015 and were therefore “not fairly traceable to Meta’s challenged conduct in 2019.” The court further reasoned that the plaintiffs neither offered evidence suggesting that Meta’s 2019 actions threatened future harm, nor alleged facts demonstrating that any of the harms they claimed were redressible by the injunctive relief sought.
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
ADM CFO Resigns Amidst DOJ Investigation into Accounting Issues
Apr 23, 2024 by
CPI
FTC Throws the Bag: Tapestry’s Capri Deal Blocked Over Market Monopoly Concerns
Apr 22, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Antitrust Authority Investigates Enel’s Communication of Energy Price Hikes
Apr 22, 2024 by
CPI
UK Data Regulator Uncovers Flaws in Google’s Privacy Sandbox Proposal
Apr 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Body Orders Google to Amend Ad Search Practices
Apr 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI