Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Crane school advertiser seeks Supreme Court review of claims against Google and Apple, (Jan 20, 2026)

By Elizabeth C. Pope, J.D.

The petitioner emphasized the importance of a 2024 ruling in the District Court for the District of Columbia regarding Google’s monopoly power.

A Google advertiser that runs a crane operating school has filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of its antitrust claims against Google and Microsoft. Among the petitioner’s contentions is its assertion that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling conflicts with a 2024 ruling in the District Court for the District of Columbia regarding Google’s monopoly power (California Crane School, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 25-850 (U.S. Jan. 16, 2026)).

Antitrust claims. California Crane School, Inc. (CCS), a crane operating school and Google advertiser, complained that Google and Apple agreed to divide the search and search advertising markets in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. In March 2024, the district court in San Jose, California, granted in part Google’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed remaining claims against both Google and Apple under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court found that CCS failed to provide direct or circumstantial evidence of the alleged non-compete agreements.

Ninth Circuit ruling. The Ninth Circuit upheld the trial court’s ruling, stating that two agreements between Apple and Google that had been publicized on the Justice Department’s website were not new evidence. The court similarly affirmed the trial court’s underlying reasoning and decision to dismiss the advertiser’s antitrust claims. The advertiser did not plead any direct or pertinent circumstantial evidence of a secret agreement between Apple and Google to divide the search and search advertising markets.

Nine questions presented. In its certiorari petition to the High Court, CCS sets forth nine questions presented, including its assertion that the Ninth Circuit’s decision ignores Supreme Court precedent on per se antitrust violations, including profit sharing and division of markets. The petitioners also asserted that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling conflicts with a 2024 ruling in the District Court for the District of Columbia regarding Google’s monopoly power (United States v. Google, LLC, 747 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2024)). Thus, the High Court’s “review is necessary to resolve this circuit conflict and ensure uniform application of the antitrust laws.”

The Case is No. 24-4604.

News: Antitrust CaliforniaNews