In an MDL brought by private plaintiffs challenging Google’s allegedly monopolistic digital advertising practices, Judge Castel ruled on Monday that Google was precluded from relitigating issues decided in an April bench trial ruling in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Virginia case involved similar monopolization allegations, but was brought by DOJ and state attorneys general.
Judge Castel found that the elements for issue preclusion were met — that is, that the Virginia case involved the same issues, that Google had a fair chance to litigate the issues, and that they were necessary to a final judgment — but noted that issue preclusion, as an equitable doctrine, required him to also consider the overall fairness of binding a litigant to adverse findings from another case.
On that point, Judge Castel found “no unfairness to Google” in applying issue preclusion, especially given the “massively high stakes” of the Virginia case:
The case brought by the DOJ and state attorneys general in the E.D. Va. Action had massively high stakes for Google. One of the world’s largest companies, measured by market capitalization and earnings, had the incentive to aggressively defend a government enforcement action that sought its breakup. At the time that it went to trial …, Google was actively defending the Moving Plaintiffs’ actions in the MDL. Thus the risk of issue preclusion was apparent. The prior adjudication does not arise in a minor dispute with unforeseen consequences that is now being cited to preclude a defense in a case of massive importance. . . . Application of issue preclusion will foster efficiency, not jury confusion, in the trial of the Moving Plaintiffs’ actions.