Judge sides with Meta in antitrust action

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) —  A federal judge handed Meta a victory Monday in an antitrust case that was set to go to trial in November.

U.S. District Judge James Donato, a Barack Obama appointee, granted Meta’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the proposed testimony of the user plaintiffs‘ expert witness, Dr. Nicholas Economides, is inadmissible.

“With the exclusion of Dr. Economides’ opinions, plaintiffs face an insurmountable barrier to proving antitrust injury,” he said in his order.

The plaintiffs, a group of Meta users, sued the company, formerly known as Facebook, in 2020, claiming the social media platform illegally monopolized the social network market by deceiving users about data collection and use, which stifled competition.

In January, Donato ruled that Economides’ proposed testimony that Meta would have paid Facebook users $5 a month for access to their data in a competitive world was not supported by the record.

“Overall, Dr. Economides did not identify reliable and validated economic literature to support his specific conclusion that, upon coming to the proverbial fork in the road between quality and price, Facebook would choose price in the but-for world,” he said in his ruling.

As a result of axing Economides’ testimony, Donato also denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify the case as a class action.

“Plaintiffs do not dispute that admissible expert testimony is essential to their ability to prove antitrust injury on a class-wide basis here, especially for an overcharge theory of the sort they advance, and that they rely entirely on Dr. Economides,” he said.

“But as demonstrated, Dr. Economides cannot provide admissible opinions on antitrust injury. Without those opinions, the user plaintiffs cannot establish that they have a class-wide method proving antitrust injury for either of their claims.”

In his ruling granting Meta’s motion for summary judgment, Donato said Economides’ proposed trial testimony is “effectively the same” as the testimony deemed inadmissible during class certification proceedings.

“They fare no better a second time around, and so are excluded from the case,” he said.

Donato also pushed back on the plaintiff’s argument that they can prove antitrust injury without an expert, writing that the evidence they rely on is the same material that Economides used for his testimony. Donato added that antitrust injury may be difficult for a jury to decide without expert testimony.

“The exclusion of Dr. Economides’ injury opinions guts plaintiffs’ case,” he said. “To be sure, the absence of admissible expert testimony by an economist does not automatically foreclose an antitrust claim. But as a number of courts have observed, proof of antitrust injury typically demands expert witness evidence.”

The ruling terminates the user plaintiffs’ case against Meta and vacates the trial set for Nov. 17.

In a statement to Courthouse News, a Meta spokesperson said they were “pleased” with the court’s decision.

“This decision confirms what we have known from the beginning — the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit. We look forward to putting this case behind us and continuing to focus on what we do best — delivering value to the people who use and love our products and competing in an extremely competitive market,” they said.

A representative for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Follow @mhattridge_