Dream Big Media, Inc., et al. v. Alphabet Inc., et al.

Did the Memorandum Decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Memorandum” or “Decision”) err in totally ignoring (let alone assessing) the plausible allegations of Plaintiffs-Petitioners Dream Big Media, Inc., Getify Solutions, Inc., and Sprinter Supplier LLC (together, “Plaintiffs” or “Petitioners”) that they aim to link Google’s Maps APIs with competitors’ places APIs or routes APIs, an action that the Google Maps’ Terms of Service (“TOS”) expressly forbids?

Did the Decision err in accepting as true Defendants-Respondents Alphabet Inc.’s and Google LLC’s (together, “Defendants” or “Google”) Counsel’s off-the-record factual claim that the TOS does not forbid Plaintiffs from “using” Google’s Maps APIs with competitors’ places APIs or routes APIs, disregarding Plaintiffs’ plausible allegations that the TOS does forbid this and the reasonable interpretation of the TOS to this effect?

Did the Decision err in totally ignoring (let alone assessing) Plaintiffs’ plausible allegations of the chilling effect of the ambiguity or implication of the TOS?

Did the Decision err in accepting as true Defendants’ Counsel’s off-the-record factual claims that APIs within each relevant market are complements of each other, not substitutes, and that whether there are sub-markets should crater the action in totality, disregarding Plaintiffs’ plausible allegations that APIs within each relevant market are substitutes of each other, not complements, and that whether there are sub-markets are questions of fact for discovery?

Did the Decision err in requiring that to satisfy coercion to purchase the tied products, Google Maps’ competitors cannot offer equal or better tying products, disregarding Plaintiffs’ plausible allegations of Google’s monopoly power in the tying products and the negative-tying clause being in the TOS?

Did the Decision err in disregarding Plaintiffs’ plausible allegations of exclusive dealing in totality, even having ignored Plaintiffs’ plausible allegations—which Defendants have conceded—that at least in some respects, there was negative tying effectuated through the TOS?

Did the Decision otherwise err in dismissing all of Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice?