Search court records - party David Goldberger, page 2

Reveal Chat Holdco LLC et al v. Facebook, Inc.

Docket 4:20-cv-00363, California Northern District Court (Jan. 16, 2020)

Judge Beth Labson Freeman, presiding

Anti-Trust

Division	Oakland
Flags	ADRMOP, APPEAL, CLOSED, STAYED
Cause	15:15 Antitrust Litigation
Case Type	410 Anti-Trust
Tags	410 Anti-Trust, 410 Anti-Trust
Plaintiff	Reveal Chat Holdco LLC
Plaintiff	USA Technology and Management Services, Inc.
Plaintiff	Cir.cl, Inc.
...

Cite Docket

Analyze

No. 38

Document Reveal Chat Holdco LLC et al v. Facebook, Inc., 3:20-cv-00363, No. 38 (N.D.Cal.)

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case

No. 905 AMENDED ORDER re Dr. Nicholas Economides and User Class Certification

Document Klein et al v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 3:20-cv-08570, No. 905 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 13, 2025)

Meta also contends, without meaningful opposition by plaintiffs, that because “[Dr.] Economides’s opinions on [antitrust injury] are junk science,” if they are “properly excluded, Users necessarily fail to meet the requirements of Rule 23.” Dkt. No. 806 at 5.

To be clear, FRE 702 “does not license a court to engage in freeform factfinding, to select between competing versions of the evidence, or to determine the veracity of the expert’s conclusions at the admissibility stage.” Elosu v. Middlefork Ranch Inc., 26 F.4th 1017, 1026 (9th Cir. 2022).

Meta’s main criticism is that Dr. Economides’ antitrust injury opinion, namely that Facebook users suffered the loss of direct payments for their data that they assertedly would have received in the but-for world, is unsupported by the record.

Dr. Economides did not credibly explain why no social-media company, or firm in the PSNS market, has tried to compete by paying users, even as he maintains that Facebook would change its product structure do just that when faced with competition.

A claim of attempted monopolization requires demonstrating “(1) specific intent to control prices or destroy competition; (2) predatory or anticompetitive conduct directed at accomplishing that purpose; (3) a dangerous probability of achieving ‘monopoly power’; and (4) causal antitrust injury.” Rebel Oil Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995).

Cite Document

Analyze