After a San Jose, California court refused to dismiss antitrust allegations against Facebook in January, the company has fired back at the advertiser plaintiffs’ amended complaint, arguing that their refreshed arguments fare no better than those previously tossed.
The case, a consolidated action, argues that companies and individuals that purchased Facebook advertising space overpaid for services due to Facebook’s illegal monopolization of the relevant social media advertising markets. A second set of plaintiffs, consumers, allege that Facebook made false claims about its data privacy practices, deceiving consumers, depriving them of the right to control their privacy, and ultimately furthering the social media platform’s dominance.
In the court’s mid-January dismissal opinion, the plaintiffs’ allegations partly withstood Facebook’s arguments undercutting their antitrust standing and the degree to which they had pleaded the relevant claim elements. The 110-page opinion found that both sets of plaintiffs pleaded that Facebook has monopoly power in the relevant markets, but dismissed a chunk of their claims as untimely.
Thereafter, several events transpired. First, the advertisers filed an amended complaint that abandoned some of their previously dismissed legal theories, but continued with the three causes of action: monopolization, attempted monopolization, and restraint of trade. Second, the case was reassigned from Judge Lucy H. Koh to Judge James Donato.
Third,...
The President of the Association of Yorubas in Diaspora, South Africa, Dr Olusola Agbeniyi, has asked the senator representing Edo North, Adams Oshiomhole, to desist from making what he described ...