Google is urging a federal judge to throw out online video service Rumble's claims that Google violated antitrust laws by allegedly promoting YouTube in the search results, and by installing YouTube on Android devices.
The evidence in the case "unequivocally" shows that Google doesn't "artificially boost YouTube webpages over other webpages in Google search results," the company argued in a motion seeking summary judgment -- meaning a verdict in its favor based on evidence developed in the course of litigation.
Google adds that its contracts with phone manufacturers don't prevent preinstallation of Rumble's app on Androids.
"The undisputed evidence also shows that Rumble's failure to secure preinstallation of its mobile application on Android devices has no relationship to Google's contracts that distribute YouTube; in fact, there is no evidence that any third party that sells or manufactures Android devices has ever considered preloading Rumble on any Android device," the company argues in its motion, filed with U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. in the Northern District of California and made publicly available on Friday.
"There is no dispute that users can easily download any apps they wish onto their devices -- as millions of Americans have done with Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, or any number of competing apps on Android and other mobile devices," Google writes, adding that Android users users downloaded TikTok, Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat more than 12 million times each last year.
The company's papers come in response to a lawsuit brought in January 2021 by Rumble, a video service favored by some prominent right-wing figures. (Rumble subsequently filed a separate antitrust suit against Google this May; that case is pending before U.S. District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose.)
Rumble alleged in its 2021 complaint that Google manipulated search results to rank YouTube highly, which allowed the company to "to wrongfully divert massive traffic to YouTube, depriving Rumble of the additional traffic, users, uploads, brand awareness and revenue it would have otherwise received."
Rumble also alleged that Google required smartphone manufacturers to install YouTube in order to license the Android operating system.
Google argues in its bid for summary judgment that self-preferencing doesn't violate antitrust laws, but that even if self-preferencing could be anti-competitive, the depositions and other evidence doesn't show that Google either rigged search results or thwarted installations of Rumble on Android devices.
"The unanimous and unequivocal testimony of all Google employees who were deposed was that Google does not preference YouTube in Google Search ranking," the company argues.
Google also says Rumble's claims are barred by a four-year statute of limitations, arguing that the alleged antitrust violations would have started in 2014 -- soon after Rumble launched.
Gilliam is expected to hold a hearing in the case on January 23.