USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dan Mogin and Eric Miller, Mogin Law LLP
California remains a national epicentre for antitrust class action litigation. The state’s robust consumer protection laws, skilled law firms, active enforcement agencies, and concentration of technology, intellec- tual property-driven industries and healthcare firms make it fertile ground for legal innovation and aggres- sive litigation. This article explores recent trends, land- mark cases, legislative shifts, advances in data-based claims administration, and emerging enforcement tools – including artificial intelligence applications and whistle-blower incentives – that are reshaping California’s state courts’ class action authority stems from Section 382 of the California Code of Civil Pro- cedure, which allows one or more plaintiffs to sue on behalf of a larger group when common legal or factual issues exist. The pivotal case – Daar v Yellow Cab Co., 67 Cal.2d 695 (1967) – established the viability of consumer class actions in California, opening the door for broader use in areas like antitrust, consumer fraud, employment, and environmental harm. Key Trends in California Antitrust Class Actions Expansion of state-level enforcement powers Senate Bill 763 proposes increasing the maximum criminal fine under the Cartwright Act from USD1 million to USD100 million. California Attorney Gen- eral Rob Bonta and Senator Melissa Hurtado argue that current penalties are insufficient to deter large corporations from engaging in anticompetitive prac- tices. While fines are important, true deterrence requires broader strategies, including early detection, transparency, and structural remedies. (Note: As of 9/30/2025, the bill awaits the governor’s signature, which is expected.) Rise of tech-focused antitrust litigation the antitrust landscape in California. Historical and Legal Foundations In Epic Games, Inc. v Google LLC, (In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig.) 559 F. Supp. 3d 898 (N.D. Cal. 2021), a jury found in December 2023 that Google unlawfully maintained monopolies over Android app distribution and in-app billing services, violating Sec- tions 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act. The jury concluded that Google’s Play Store practices – including exclusive payment pro- cessing systems that charged commissions of 15%
to 30% – constituted anticompetitive conduct that harmed developers and consumers alike. Epic Games, a North Carolina-based video game developer, initiated the lawsuit in 2020 as part of a broader legal campaign against both Google and Apple. Epic sought to bypass the dominant app stores’ payment systems, which it argued imposed excessive fees and restricted competition. While Epic’s case against Apple resulted in a mixed bench ruling largely favouring Apple, the jury’s verdict against Google marked a significant victory for developers and consumers (Epic Games, Inc. v Apple Inc., No 4:20-cv-05640-YGR). On July 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the jury’s verdict, clearing the way for US District Judge James Donato to adopt remedies that could reshape the Android app ecosys- tem. The appellate ruling condemned Google’s Play Store as an illegal monopoly and affirmed the jury’s findings that Google’s conduct violated antitrust laws. 147 F.4th 917 (9th Cir. 2025) This decision is part of a cascade of legal setbacks for Google. Since late 2023, the company has faced anti- trust judgments targeting its search engine and digital advertising technologies. Although the Play Store is not as lucrative as Google’s search or ad businesses, it has generated billions in annual revenue in commis- sions. The upheld verdict and pending remedies could significantly disrupt Google’s app store dominance and expand consumer choice. The case also underscores the growing judicial willing- ness to scrutinise platform governance and the eco- nomic structures underpinning digital marketplaces. It sets a precedent for future litigation involving app distribution, payment systems, and developer access. On the other side of the country, Google recently escaped a breakup of its search business in a ruling by a federal judge in Washington, DC. The company has been found to be a monopolist in two different cases, with one involving search and another involving ads. In the search case, the court ordered behavioural rather than structural remedies, such as divesting Chrome and Android. Interestingly, the court cited competi-
338 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook