Dreamstime.com, LLC v. Google, LLC

A Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. §2 claim includes two elements: "(1) the defendant has monopoly power in the relevant market, and (2) the defendant has willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power in that market." United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-571 (1966).

Dreamstime.com, LLC brought suit against Google, LLC for violating The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §2. The claim alleged Google furthered their monopoly by impeding the appellant’s success both in sponsored advertising and free search results. Appellant asserts that the district court erred in dismissing their Sherman Act claim with prejudice because the relevant market was mischaracterized as only the search advertising market and did not include the online search market as well. The two elements of a Sherman Act §2 claim are that “(1) the defendant has monopoly power in the relevant market, and (2) the defendant has willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power in that market.” United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966). The first element requires that the appellant defines the relevant market. The trial record demonstrated that the district court offered multiple opportunities for the appellant to include the online search market in their definition, which they refused. The second element requires showing that the defendant’s actions have harmed “the competitive process” in general, and not merely “the success or failure of individual competitors,” which the appellants failed to demonstrate. Cascade Health Sols. V. PeaceHealth, 515 F.3d 883, 902 (9th Cir. 2008). Because the appellants have not met the elements for a claim under §2 of the Sherman Act, the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.