Chief Justice Roberts denies South Carolina’s attempt to shield itself from Google’s antitrust probe, potentially exposing state secrets to tech giant scrutiny.
At a Glance
- Chief Justice Roberts rejected South Carolina parks department’s effort to block Google’s subpoena
- Subpoena is part of a multi-state antitrust lawsuit against Google’s online advertising practices
- South Carolina cited 11th Amendment immunity, but lower courts ruled the state waived immunity by joining the lawsuit
- Decision could set precedent for state agency involvement in federal antitrust cases
- Trial set for March 2025, with crucial motions due by November 18
Roberts Rebuffs South Carolina’s Immunity Claim
In a decisive move, Chief Justice John Roberts has denied South Carolina’s attempt to block a subpoena from Google in a high-stakes antitrust lawsuit. The South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism sought protection under the 11th Amendment, which typically shields states from federal court suits. However, this claim was swiftly dismissed, potentially setting a precedent for state involvement in federal antitrust cases against tech giants.
The subpoena, part of a broader multi-state lawsuit challenging Google’s dominance in online display advertising, seeks the department’s online advertising files. Google argues these records are crucial for its defense, particularly regarding the department’s use and assessment of Google’s advertising products. The tech giant’s lawyers warned that allowing states to shield their agencies from discovery could lead to “manipulation and abuse” in future cases.
In an effort to avoid divulging advertising data to Google, South Carolina’s parks department has framed itself as separate from the attorney general’s antitrust lawsuit against the company. @KelseyReichmann https://t.co/SJBoL0lTlA
— Courthouse News (@CourthouseNews) October 3, 2024
State Sovereignty vs. Federal Jurisdiction
The South Carolina parks department’s lawyers argued that the lower court’s decision “improperly intrudes into every state’s prerogative to order its own government and disregards foundational principles of federalism.” This stance highlights the ongoing tension between state sovereignty and federal jurisdiction in antitrust cases involving powerful technology firms.
“The decision below improperly intrudes into every state’s prerogative to order its own government and disregards foundational principles of federalism,” the department wrote in an emergency application. “This court’s guidance is needed on this important question discerning the balance of state and federal power.”
However, both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled against the department. They determined that South Carolina had effectively waived its immunity by joining the lawsuit against Google. This ruling underscores the complexities of state participation in federal antitrust actions and the potential consequences for state agencies.
Implications for Future Antitrust Cases
The Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene could have far-reaching implications for how states and their agencies participate in federal antitrust cases. It potentially opens the door for tech companies to access state records more easily when defending against multi-state lawsuits. This development is particularly significant given the increasing scrutiny of Big Tech’s market practices and the role of state governments in these legal challenges.
“The rule SCPRT urges this court to adopt would be a recipe for manipulation and abuse. It would allow a state to waive its own immunity by bringing suit against a defendant, while nevertheless insulating state agencies from any obligation to comply with the discovery the defendant needs to mount a defense,” Google’s lawyers argued.
The March 2025 trial date approaches, with crucial motions due by November 18.