专栏名称: 网络法实务圈

探寻网络法实务，汇聚网络法精英。

判例译析 | 谷歌地图反垄断案：解开反垄断诉讼中的搭售之谜

网络法实务圈 · 公众号 · · 2024-12-18 17:00

正文

一、引言

2022年4月，Dream Big Media, Getify Solutions和Sprinter Supplier在加州北区法院起诉谷歌及其母公司Alphabet。在本案中，谷歌被指控滥用其在GPS导航领域的优势地位，依托谷歌地图及相关服务进行（消极）搭售，意图将用户“圈禁”于其生态之中。2024年7月，加州北区法院Richard Seeborg法官驳回谷歌《服务条款》消极搭售（指禁止用户将竞争对手的地点和路线APIs与谷歌地图搭配使用）的论点，永久性地驳回了该诉讼。

（图片源于网络）

二、 案情概述

Plaintiffs Dream Big Media, Getify Solutions, Inc., and Sprinter Supplier, LLC, allege they use mapping products provided by defendants Google, LLC and Alphabet, Inc. (collectively, “Google”), including application programming interfaces (“APIs”), to display or use maps or maps-related information on their websites or mobile applications. Plaintiffs contend the Terms of Service (“TOS”) Google imposes on customers seeking to use those APIs give rise to claims for unlawful tying, bundling, exclusive dealing, and monopoly leveraging in violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and California’s Unfair Competition Law.

原告 Dream Big Media、Getify Solutions等和 Sprinter Supplier等声称他们使用被告Google，LLC和Alphabet（以下统称“谷歌”）提供的地图产品，包括应用程序编程接口（以下简称“API”），在其网站或移动应用程序上显示或使用地图或与地图相关的信息。原告认为，谷歌针对寻求使用这些API的客户所强制实施的《服务条款》（Terms of Service）引起了非法搭售、捆绑销售、排他交易行为和垄断杠杆的索赔，违反《谢尔曼法（Sherman Act）》、《克莱顿法（Clayton Act）》和《加利福尼亚州不正当竞争法（California’s Unfair Competition Law）》。

Plaintiffs’ original and First Amended complaints presented a novel tying theory: because Google’s TOS purportedly prohibit customers who buy any one of its “Maps,” “Routes,” or “Places” APIs from using either of the other two categories of APIs provided by any other supplier, each of those three APIs could be either the “tying” product or the (negatively) “tied” product. [1] The order dismissing the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend did not preclude plaintiffs from continuing to pursue that theory, but cautioned that they would have to show how it was viable legally and factually.

原告在最初和第一次修正后的诉状中提出了一个新颖的搭售理论：由于谷歌的《服务条款》据称对购买其“地图”、“路线”或“地点”APIs任何一种的客户作出了限制，禁止其使用任何其他供应商提供的其余两类APIs，这三种APIs中的每一种都可能是“搭售”产品或（消极）“被搭售”产品。驳回第一次修正后的诉状并允许继续修改的命令并未阻止原告继续提出这一理论，但告诫他们必须证明这一理论在法律上和事实上的可行性。

In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs instead elected to pursue a conventional (negative) tying theory. Plaintiffs Dream Big and Getify allege “after purchasing Google’s Maps APIs” they were forced through the negative tying effects of Google’s TOS to purchase Google’s Places APIs and Routes APIs, despite their preferences for competitors’ APIs that provide places and routes data and functions. Plaintiff Sprinter, which does not allege to have purchased Google Maps APIs, does not advance claims for an unlawful tying arrangement, but nonetheless contends it may pursue relief under exclusive dealing or other theories.

在第二次修正后的诉状中，原告选择了传统的（消极）搭售理论。原告Dream Big和Getify声称，“在购买谷歌地图API之后，由于谷歌《服务条款》的消极搭售效应，尽管他们更倾向于使用谷歌竞争对手提供的位置APIs和路线APIs的数据和功能，他们也被迫购买了谷歌的位置APIs和路线APIs。另一原告Sprinter并未声称其已购买谷歌地图的APIs，因此并未针对非法搭售安排提出诉求，但它仍然认为其可以根据排他性交易或其他理论寻求救济。

Although the Second Amended Complaint eliminates the prior basis for dismissal that plaintiffs had not shown a product could be either tying or tied, their election to declare now that “Maps APIs” is the tying product is seriously undermined by their prior—and continuing—assertions that Google competitors offer superior maps APIs. Plaintiffs also have not shown at the outset that the Google TOS prohibits its customers who purchase Maps APIs from using APIs provided by Google competitors to provide “places” or “routes” data and functions. For these and other reasons discussed below, the Second Amended Complaint must be dismissed. No further leave to amend is warranted.

尽管第二次修正后的诉状删除了此前被驳回的理由，即原告未能证明某产品既可作为搭售产品，也可作为被搭售产品，他们现在选择宣布“地图”APIs是搭售产品的行为，却因之前持续的主张——谷歌的竞争对手提供更优质的地图APIs——而遭到严重削弱。原告起初也未证明谷歌《服务条款》禁止购买其地图APIs的客户使用谷歌争对手提供的APIs来提供“位置”或“路线”数据和功能。基于上述原因及下文讨论的其他原因，第二次修正后的诉状必须被驳回，且没有理由允许其再进一步修改。

（图片源于网络）

三、 案件背景

The Second Amended Complaint describes APIs as software code, sold as products, that enable one computer application to retrieve and utilize data from another computer application. As relevant here, Google offers (for cash or certain kinds of “credits”) access to various APIs that allow its customers to use Google maps and related information on their own websites or in other applications. Plaintiffs allege three separate markets, which they claim align with categories Google itself uses：

(i) APIs that retrieve and display a digital map (“maps APIs”);

(ii) APIs that retrieve and display information on a digital map about establishments, locations, and other points-of-interest (“places APIs”); and,

(iii) APIs that retrieve and display navigational information, such as directions, navigation, and travel time, on a digital map “routes APIs”).

第二次修正后的诉状将APIs描述为作为产品出售的软件代码，允许一个应用程序获取和使用另一个应用程序的数据。与此相关的事，谷歌（通过现金或某种形式的“积分”）提供许多APIs的接口，允许它的客户在自己的网站和其他应用上使用谷歌地图及相关信息。原告声称有三个独立市场，他们声称这与谷歌自身使用的分类相同：

（i）收集并显示数字图的APIs（“地图APIs”）；

（ii）收集并显示数字地图上关于机构、地点和其他兴趣点的信息（“地点API”）；

（iii）收集并显示数字地图上的导航信息，如方向、导航和旅行时间（“路线API”）。

Google markets its own Maps APIs, Places APIs, and Routes APIs under what it calls the Google Maps Platform. The TOS on which plaintiffs’ claims are based governs use of the Maps Platform as a whole. The provision of the TOS in dispute appears under section 3.2.3, entitled “Restrictions Against Misusing the Services.”

谷歌在其所谓的“谷歌地图平台”推广它的“地图APIs”、“地点APIs”和“路线APIs”。原告的诉讼请求所基于的《服务条款》规范了整个地图平台的使用。受争议的《服务条款》在第3.2.3条，标题为“防止滥用服务的限制”。

Paragraph (e), labeled “No Use with Non-Google Maps” states：“To avoid quality issues and/or brand confusion, Customer will not use the Google Maps Core Services with or near a non-Google Map in a Customer Application. For example, Customer will not (i) display or use Places content on a non-Google map, (ii) display Street View imagery and non-Google maps on the same screen, or (iii) link a Google Map to non-Google Maps content or a non-Google map.”

其中标记为“不能使用非谷歌地图”的第（e）项规定：

为避免质量问题和/或品牌混淆，客户不得在客户应用程序中将谷歌地图核心服务与非谷歌地图一起或在其附近使用。例如，用户不得（i）在非谷歌地图上显示或使用地点内容，（ii）在同一屏幕上显示街景图像和非谷歌地图，或（iii）将谷歌地图链接到非谷歌地图内容或非谷歌地图。

The TOS defines “Google Maps Core Services” as including various APIs falling within the category of Maps APIs, Places APIs, and Routes APIs. The TOS also defines “Street View” as a Core Service. Paragraph (e) and its examples therefore unambiguously purport to prohibit a customer from buying Google’s Places or Routes APIs and using them on maps generated from competitors’ APIs. A customer is also precluded from using Google’s Street View (a specific API within the “maps APIs” category as defined by plaintiffs) “on the same screen” as a non-Google map.

《服务条款》将“谷歌地图核心服务”定义为包括地图APIs、地点APIs和路线APIs类别的各类API。《服务条款》还将“街景”定义为核心服务。第（e）项及其示例明确禁止客户购买谷歌的地点或路线API，并将其用于竞争对手API生成的地图上。同时，客户也不得将谷歌的“街景”（原告定义的“地图API”类别中的一个特定API）与“非谷歌地图”在“同一屏幕上”一起使用。

The Second Amended Complaint, however, is premised on the theory that Google’s Maps APIs is the tying product, and places and/or routes APIs are the (negatively) tied product(s). The fact that the TOS purports to prohibit Google’s products in the allegedly tied markets from being used with competitor’s products in the alleged tying market does not give rise to an unlawful tying claim, and plaintiffs do not argue otherwise. Similarly, Google’s insistence that one of its products in the purported tying market (Street View) may only be used with other Google products in the same alleged market does not support an unlawful tying claim.

然而，第二次修正后的诉状的前提是，谷歌的地图APIs是搭售产品，而地点APIs和/或路线APIs是（被）搭售产品。尽管《服务条款》看起来禁止在所谓的搭售市场中将谷歌的产品与竞争对手的产品一起使用，但这并不构成非法搭售，原告也未提出异议。与之相似的是，谷歌坚持认为其产品之一在所谓的搭售市场中（街景）只能与同一搭售市场中谷歌的其他产品一起使用，也不足以支持非法搭售的主张。

Accordingly, the parties’ dispute centers on paragraph (e) (iii), purporting to restrict a purchaser of Google Maps APIs from “link[ing] a Google Map to non-Google Maps content or a non-Google map.” Plaintiffs contend this must be interpreted as prohibiting a person who has purchased Google Maps APIs from using a competitor’s routes and/or places APIs in conjunction with a Google Map. Google insists its Maps customers are free to use a competitors’ routes or places APIs with their Google maps, as long as they do not link those the Maps to non-Google content or non-Google maps, such that an end user would be redirected from the Google Map to non-Google content.

因此，双方的争议焦点是第（e）款第（iii）项。该条款旨在限制购买谷歌地图APIs的用户“将谷歌地图链接到一个非谷歌地图的内容或一个非谷歌地图上”。 [2] 原告主张，该条款必须被解释为禁止一个购买谷歌地图APIs的人将竞争对手的路线APIs和或地点APIs和谷歌地图一起使用。谷歌则认为其地图客户可以在其谷歌地图中自由地使用竞争对手的路线或地点APIs，只要这些地图不会链接到非谷歌内容或非谷歌地图，从而将最终用户从谷歌地图转到非谷歌内容。

（图片源于网络）

四、法律依据

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”. While “detailed factual allegations” are not required, a complaint must have sufficient factual allegations to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” This standard asks for “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” The determination is a context-specific task requiring the court “to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”

诉状必须包含“简短明确的诉讼请求陈述，表明原告有权获得救济”。 [3] 虽然并不需要“详尽的事实指控”，诉状仍然必须有充分的事实指控，以表明其诉讼请求是“表面上合理的”。 [4] 当“原告提出的事实内容能使法院合理推断出被告应对其所指控的不当行为负责时”，该主张即为表面上合理。 [5] 这一标准要求“不仅仅是被告可能非法形事的纯粹可能性。 [6] 这一判定需要结合具体情境，由法院“运用其司法经验和常识”。 [7]

A motion to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civi Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either the “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or on “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” When evaluating such a motion, the court must accept all material allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第12条第（b）款第（6）款项出的驳回起诉的动议，是对诉状中指控的诉讼请求的法律充分性进行检验。 [8] 根据第12条第（b）款第（6）项提出的驳回起诉可以基于“缺乏可认知的法律理论”或“在可认知的法律理论下缺乏足够的事实指控”。 [9] 在评估此类动议时，法院必须接受诉状中的所有实质性指控为真，并从最有利于非动议方的角度作出解释。 [10]

五、 法律分析

（一）《服务条款》

Google insists that even though the TOS restrict using Google mapping content “with or near a non-Google Map,” the plain language permits developers to use or display non-Google places or routes APIs with or near a Google Map. Thus, Google contends, there is no negative tie because its customers are perfectly free to use competitors’ versions of the allegedly tied products (routes and places APIs) with the alleged tying product (Google Maps APIs). As noted above, the dispute turns on section 3.2.3(e)(iii), which prohibits “linking” a Google Map to non-Google content. Google argues plaintiffs are improperly asking the court to read the word “link” to mean “use” or “display,” thereby expanding the scope of clause (iii) to prohibit developers from using Google Maps and competitors’ routes or places APIs “even near each other [or] even in the same app.”

谷歌坚持认为，尽管《服务条款》限制了“在非谷歌地图上或附近使用”谷歌地图内容，但其文义允许开发者在谷歌地图上或附近使用或显示非谷歌的地点或路线APIs。因此，谷歌辩称，不存在消极搭售，因为其客户完全可以自由地将据称搭售的产品（路线和地点APIs）的竞争对手版本与据称的搭售产品（谷歌地图APIs）一起使用。如上所述，争议的核心在于第3.2.3条第（e）款第（iii）项，该条禁止将谷歌地图与“非谷歌内容”进行“链接”。谷歌辩称，原告要求法院将“链接”一词解读为“使用”或“显示”是不恰当的，从而扩大了第（iii）款的适用范围，禁止开发者在谷歌地图和竞争对手的路线或地点APIs“相互靠近时”或“甚至在同一个应用程序中”使用谷歌地图。

Google contends clause (iii) prohibits only “link[ing] a Google Map to non-Google Maps content or a non-Google map” and that it does not refer to “use” or “display,” which are expressly used in other parts of section 3.2.3(e). Google relies on the “blackletter contract interpretation principles” that different words must be given different meanings, particularly when they appear in the same section. [11]

谷歌认为，第（iii）款仅禁止“将谷歌地图链接到非谷歌地图内容或非谷歌地图”，并未提及“使用”或“显示”，而这两个词在第3.2.3条第（e）节的其他部分已明确使用。谷歌依据的是“普遍接受的合同解释原则”，即不同的词语必须赋予不同的含义，特别是当它们出现在同一节时。

Google argues the principle applies with particular force here, because plaintiffs’ proposed reading would “transform section 3.2.3(e) from a narrow, one-directional prohibition into a far broader two-directional prohibition” and because plaintiffs have pointed to no instance of Google claiming the TOS means non-Google mapping API services (e.g., maps APIs, routes APIs, or places APIs) cannot be used with or near a Google Map.

谷歌辩称，这一原则在此处尤其适用，因为原告提出的解释将“把第3.2.3（e）节从一个狭窄的单向禁令转变为一个更广泛的双向禁令”，而且原告没有指出主张《服务条款》意味着非谷歌地图API服务（如地图APIs、路线APIs或地点APIs）不能与谷歌地图一起使用或在谷歌地图附近使用的任何实例。

（图片源于网络）

Plaintiffs have not shown how a prohibition on “linking” a Google Map to non-Google Maps content or a non-Google map reasonably can be understood to prohibit the use of competitors’ routes and/or places APIs in conjunction with a Google Map. While there might be circumstances where a negative tying claim could be supported by mere uncertainty as to the possible scope of terms of service, plaintiffs have not presented plausible factual allegations that Google has precluded its Maps APIs customers from turning to its competitors for their routes and places API needs, either by the express terms of the TOS, or through some chilling effect arising from ambiguity or possible implication, or through any other means.

原告没有说明，为什么将谷歌地图与“非谷歌地图内容或非谷歌地图”进行“链接”的禁令，可以合理地被理解为禁止在谷歌地图中结合使用竞争对手的路线和/或地点APIs。虽然在特定情况下，消极搭售可能仅仅因为服务条款的可能范围不确定而成立，但原告并没有提出合理的事实指控，证明谷歌通过《服务条款》的明确条款，或通过模糊性或可能含义产生的寒蝉效应，或通过任何其他方式，阻止其地图APIs客户使用竞争对手路线和地点APIs。

判例译析 | 谷歌地图反垄断案：解开反垄断诉讼中的搭售之谜

正文

请到「今天看啥」查看全文