Class Action Lawsuit | Business Litigation | Oceania

Introduction: Advertising Technology Under Scrutiny

Australia’s burgeoning wave of lawsuits against Google for alleged anti‑competitive practices in its ad technology (“ad tech”) sector is not just about legal merit — it’s also become a contest between law firms to lead and control the class actions. While multiple publishers and regional media outlets claim Google has misused its dominant position, the procedural skirmishes over carriage, lead applicants, representation, and funding are proving almost as strategically important as the substance of the claims.

Factual & Legal Background

• What’s Being Alleged: Publishers accuse Google of abusing market power in several parts of the ad tech supply chain — including services like Google Ad Manager, Ad Exchange, AdSense/AdMob, DoubleClick for Publishers — resulting in lower advertising revenue than they should have earned. The competition regulator (ACCC) has already raised concerns. (Maurice Blackburn)
• Existing Actions: Multiple class actions have been commenced:
  1. Piper Alderman / Woodsford on behalf of QNews Pty Ltd and Sydney Times Media Pty Ltd. (sydneytimes.net.au)
  2. Maurice Blackburn / Phi Finney McDonald on behalf of the Riverine Grazier, a regional publisher. (Maurice Blackburn)
• Regulatory Context: The ACCC’s 2021 inquiry into digital advertising services (the “Digital Advertising Services Inquiry”) pointed to conflicts of interest, self‑preferencing, vertical integration, and lack of competition. Publishers rely heavily on this for establishing Google’s dominance. (Maurice Blackburn)

Law Firm Clashes: What’s at Stake Procedurally

In class actions, “carriage” refers to which lead applicant(s) or representative(s) get to run the case. The law firm that secures carriage generally controls litigation strategy, discovery, settlement negotiations, and often determines the legal team and funder. Some key clashes in the Google AdTech cases:

1. Riverine Grazier Wins Carriage Against Piper Alderman Case
   • Recently, the Federal Court (Justice O’Bryan) awarded carriage of the Google AdTech class action to Riverine Grazier Pty Ltd (along with Mornington Peninsula News Group) represented by Maurice Blackburn. (The Riverine Grazier)
   • As a consequence, the competing action by Piper Alderman (lead applicant QNews Media Pty Ltd / Sydney Times Media) has been stayed (put on hold). (The Riverine Grazier)
   • The decision was based on considerations including the breadth of the class (how many publishers covered), the factual allegations (how robust / extensive), and likely efficiency / convenience. (The Riverine Grazier)
2. Competing Approaches to Representative Classes
   • Piper Alderman / Woodsford’s case is broader in theory (open to many publishers who used Google ad tech tools over a defined period), but its competing with Maurice Blackburn in terms of who better represents the interests of group members. (mi-3.com.au)
   • Maurice Blackburn has emphasized its role as a plaintiff‑firm experienced in class actions, and positioned Riverine Grazier as able to represent a broad group including smaller and regional publishers. (The Riverine Grazier)
3. Funding & Risk Assumption
   • Some law firms (e.g. Woodsford funding Piper Alderman’s case) advertise that group members will incur no upfront or out‑of‑pocket costs and that the litigation is funded. (sydneytimes.net.au)
   • This financial structure influences who may join, how aggressive the litigation can be, and sometimes public perception.

Legal Issues Tied to Firm Clashes

The carriage battle and law‑firm rivalry have legal implications beyond prestige:

• Representation of the Class: Courts will assess whether the chosen lead applicant and legal team are capable of adequately representing the whole class (including small, regional publishers). If case control is given to a party whose interests conflict with some in the class, that could weaken the class’s position, or lead to objections.
• Efficient Use of Court Resources: Courts are wary of multiple overlapping suits on similar facts (duplicative discovery, risk of inconsistent rulings). Deciding carriage helps consolidate efforts. The Riverine Grazier decision suggests the court prefers a single well‑pleaded, comprehensive class action rather than fragmented ones.
• Scope and Pleadings: A lead case must allege facts in sufficient detail to survive early procedural hurdles — “particularization” of alleged misconduct, market power, harm to the class, etc. Law firms competing try to ensure their pleadings are stronger / more detailed. That helps in carriage decisions and in motions to dismiss.
• Cost and Delay Implications: The firm controlling carriage typically sets the litigation timeline, chooses plaintiffs, expert economists, etc. Delays by overlapping proceedings or interlocutory fights over lead status can slow substantive progress.

Current Status & What to Watch

• The Riverine Grazier case now has carriage — Maurice Blackburn is now lead for the class representing publishers broadly. Piper Alderman’s case is stayed. (The Riverine Grazier)
• The class of publishers eligible under Maurice Blackburn’s case is wide: publishers who sold ad space via Google’s ad tech tools directed at Australian consumers during a multi‑year period. (Maurice Blackburn)
• Next phases to watch:
  1. Pleadings: How specifically the allegations are stated (what Google allegedly did, when, to which publishers).
  2. Discovery: Will Google be forced to produce internal documents showing self‑preferencing, pricing, fee rates, impact on auctions, etc.
  3. Economic Experts: Evidence quantifying harm. Which models law firms propose, how credible they are.
  4. Certification / Group Definition: The Federal Court will have to define the class, set group member criteria, possibly manage opt‑in vs opt‑out.
  5. Potential Settlement or Motion to Strike Early: Google may move to strike or dismiss parts of the plaintiff’s claim; settlement pressure is often high in such class actions because of scale.

Implications

• For Publishers: Having carriage with a firm experienced in major class actions gives publishers a better chance at coordinated recovery and possibly higher damages or better terms.
• For Legal Practice: The case highlights how funding, lead applicant status, and strategic law firm alignments are becoming as central as the legal merits in big‑tech class actions.
• For Competition Law: Outcomes may reshape Australia’s jurisprudence regarding digital platform dominance, vertical integration, and fair revenue sharing in ad tech.
• Policy Impact: The litigation runs in parallel with regulatory scrutiny (ACCC), legislative reforms pushed by media publishers and politicians, and similar cases internationally. A strong verdict or settlement could influence how Google and other tech platforms treat publishers in future contracts and algorithms.

Conclusion

While the substantive claims in Australia’s Google ad tech class actions are closely watched, the war for carriage and firm leadership has already shaped how these cases will proceed. The Federal Court’s decision giving Riverine Grazier (Maurice Blackburn) carriage most likely resolves one of the preliminary rounds of the competition. Yet, the broader legal fight over how digital advertising markets are structured, how much control platforms like Google may exert, and how publishers are rewarded remains very much ongoing — both in the pleadings and in the court of public perception.