Whether under the Rule of Reason, an antitrust plaintiff must prove less restrictive alternatives could accomplish procompetitive benefits of challenged conduct

In this antitrust case, the court instructed the jury that it could find Google liable for antitrust violations even if no less restrictive alternative existed for accomplishing the procompetitive goals of Google’s conduct, and then entered an unprecedented, nationwide antitrust injunction that goes far beyond ceasing the challenged anticompetitive conduct. These rulings conflict with established law in this Court and other Circuits and upend the distribution of Android apps for over a hundred million non-party consumers and hundreds of thousands of non-party app developers—all at the request of a single private plaintiff and competitor. The questions presented are: 1. Whether under the Rule of Reason, an antitrust plaintiff is required to prove that less restrictive alternatives could accomplish the procompetitive benefits of the challenged conduct, as three circuits have held, or whether there is no such requirement, as six circuits have held. 2. Whether a court may impose a duty on an antitrust defendant to deal directly with its competitors without first determining that such courtmandated dealings will remedy the consequences of conduct found to violate the antitrust laws. 3. Whether the court must assess a private plaintiff’s Article III standing with respect to each proposed remedy before awarding injunctive relief.