Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Canadian consumer suit over Google App store dismissed, (Mar 18, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

The FTAIA’s domestic effects exception did not apply to the consumer’s Canadian Google Play Store transactions.

The federal district court granted a motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit filed by a Canadian consumer alleging that Google engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the distribution of Android apps in the Google Play Store’s Canadian storefront. The court found that the consumer’s claims were barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) after concluding that the transactions described in the complaint constitute “trade or commerce with foreign nations,” and did not fall under the domestic effects exception. The court also dismissed the state law claims, finding that they also cannot extend beyond the reach of the FTAIA (Hurley v. Google LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00883-JD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, a Canadian citizen, is an Android mobile app consumer who bought a number of apps and in-app content through the Google Play Store’s Canadian storefront. The consumer, on behalf of a putative class of Canadian residents, alleges that Google engaged in anticompetitive practices in connection with the distribution of Android apps.

Google filed a motion to dismiss the suit arguing that the claims are barred by the FTAIA, 15 U.S.C. § 6a, because the complaint alleges only “exclusively foreign injury suffered exclusively in a foreign geographic market.”

FTAIA. The court began by outlining that the FTAIA “limits the extraterritorial reach” of the Sherman Act. “It does so by removing from the Sherman Act’s reach, (1) export activities and (2) other commercial activities taking place abroad, unless those activities adversely affect domestic commerce, imports to the United States, or exporting activities of one engaged in such activities within the United States.”

The consumer conceded that the transactions in this case are “trade or commerce (other than import trade or import commerce) with foreign nations” that are not within the scope of the Sherman Act, unless excepted by the FTAIA. Here, the purchases of apps have been tailored to the Canadian market, by Canadian purchasers through a Canadian storefront, and are exactly the types of transactions that raise important concerns of comity which inform the FTAIA analysis.

However, the consumer argued that that his claims come within the scope of the Sherman Act because he has satisfied the FTAIA’s domestic effects exception. This exception makes the Sherman Act applicable “if foreign conduct (1) has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on domestic commerce, and (2) such effect gives rise to a Sherman Act claim.” Here, the court found that the consumer did not satisfy the second prong of the domestic effects exception, that his Sherman Act claims were proximately caused by those domestic effects. The consumer argued that Google’s supra-competitive commissions caused higher U.S. prices, which in turn caused app developers (including U.S. developers) to raise prices for Canadian consumers.

The court contrasted a recent case, Seagate Technology LLC v. NHK Spring Co., Ltd., 163 F.4th 1272 (9th Cir. 2026), in which a proximate cause theory was found sufficient where it had provided evidence that “its foreign subsidiaries lacked any authority over the price, quantity, or timing of their orders,” and so “there only was one price, the U.S. and foreign prices being ‘one and the same.’” The Seagate court stressed that “but for” causation does not suffice, “such as where intervening forces may have caused the ultimate antitrust jury.”

In Seagate foreign entities had to accept the higher U.S. prices “as a matter of company policy and contractual requirements.” Here, the court detailed that the prices charged to Canadian consumers were not “one and the same” as the prices charged to the U.S. developers. The developers had the discretion to decide how the commissions they were charged by Google would impact the prices the developers in turn set for consumers. The court explained that the complaint “suggests that super-competitive [app and in-app content] prices in the United States may have facilitated” higher app and in-app prices charged to consumers by developers in Canada, but “it does not sufficiently allege a theory that the higher U.S. prices proximately caused [Hurley’s] foreign injury of having to pay higher prices outside the United States.”

The court also rejected the consumer’s argument that “Google has contracted with Plaintiff to litigate any claims by Canadians in U.S. courts under U.S. law” under its Terms of Service, indicating that the court will not expand the Sherman Act’s territorial reach. The court also noted that “whether a court in Canada would enforce the forum clause in Google’s Terms of Service is for a Canadian court to answer.” The court finally dismissed the state law claims, finding that the state law claims also cannot extend beyond the reach of the FTAIA.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-00883-JD.

Judge: Donato, J.

Attorneys: David E. Kovel (Kirby McInerney LLP) for Connor Hurley. Jeannie S. Rhee (Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP) for Google LLC.

Companies: Google LLC

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews