Gannett is taking no chances on a federal judge’s not understanding its lawsuit against Google.
Two weeks after filing an answer to Google’s motion to have its anti-trust
case tossed, Gannett has introduced an amended rebuttal to Google’s bid, filling in sources and possibly clarifying some of the language.
Filed on Monday, the
document counters Google’s assertion that there is no harm to competition in any relevant market from Enhanced Dynamic Allocation (EDA). Gannett states that the Court held last year:
‘Enhanced Dynamic Allocation was anticompetitive conduct in the ad exchanged market.”
Gannett also alleges that Google coerces publishers to use exchange bidding, that Google
unlawfully hashes user IDs, that AMP (accelerated mobile pages) and coerces publishers to abandon client-side header bidding.
“Previously, the Court sustained allegations that Google
abused arbitrary line-item caps and unlawful dataset redactions to “thwart[ ] the ability of publisher clients to assess the relative performance of auction results on Exchange ,Bidding and
header bidding,” and to “direct more transactions toward Exchange Bidding,” it states.
advertisement
advertisement
Don’t expect this to be resolved quickly. The court could well deny
Google’s motion based on precent that, when “a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint, a court “must construe it liberally, accepting all factual allegations therein as true and
drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor,” Gannett writes.
In seeking to have the case dismissed earlier this month, Google argued that Gannett’s June
complaint was almost identical to the suit filed by the Daily Mail.
For instance, as in the Daily Mail case, “many of Gannett’s claims focus on
Google’s alleged campaign to ‘kill’ header bidding,” Google states.
But the filing adds that “Gannett’s own allegations underscore that header bidding
is alive and well—Gannett admits in its Complaint that it has used client-side header bidding since 2016, and continues to use it to this day.’
No knockout yet.