{"cached_at":"2026-10-29T10:42:29.268955+00:00","cl_docket_id":"71631869","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","id":71631869,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cand/","court_id":"cand","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/11047776/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9087/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2025-10-13T09:09:29.542848-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-28T15:04:51.410074-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"P. Casey Pitts","referred_to_str":"Nathanael M. Cousins","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-10-13","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-10-28","case_name_short":"Bryant","case_name":"Bryant v. Microsoft Corporation","case_name_full":"","slug":"bryant-v-microsoft-corporation","docket_number":"5:25-cv-08733","docket_number_core":"2508733","docket_number_raw":"5:25-cv-08733","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"5","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"PCP","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"457850","cause":"15:1 Antitrust Litigation","nature_of_suit":"410 Anti-Trust","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2025-10-13T09:09:29.534689-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16496392/","id":16496392,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172537/","attorney_id":11172537,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172537/","attorney_id":11172537,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172537/","attorney_id":11172537,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172538/","attorney_id":11172538,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172538/","attorney_id":11172538,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172539/","attorney_id":11172539,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172539/","attorney_id":11172539,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-13T10:00:15.802008-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-13T10:00:15.802025-07:00","name":"Microsoft Corporation","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16496391/","id":16496391,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172534/","attorney_id":11172534,"date_action":"2026-07-20","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777653/","attorney_id":10777653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16243733/","attorney_id":16243733,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777654/","attorney_id":10777654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-13T10:00:15.416866-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-13T10:00:15.416880-07:00","name":"Jason Zhang","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16496390/","id":16496390,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172534/","attorney_id":11172534,"date_action":"2026-07-20","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777653/","attorney_id":10777653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16243733/","attorney_id":16243733,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777654/","attorney_id":10777654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-13T10:00:15.330698-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-13T10:00:15.330709-07:00","name":"Cara Zajac","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16496389/","id":16496389,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172534/","attorney_id":11172534,"date_action":"2026-07-20","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777653/","attorney_id":10777653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16243733/","attorney_id":16243733,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777654/","attorney_id":10777654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-13T10:00:15.247028-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-13T10:00:15.247039-07:00","name":"Jake Wolfson","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16496388/","id":16496388,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172534/","attorney_id":11172534,"date_action":"2026-07-20","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777653/","attorney_id":10777653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16243733/","attorney_id":16243733,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777654/","attorney_id":10777654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-13T10:00:15.160497-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-13T10:00:15.160508-07:00","name":"Zachary Payne","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16496387/","id":16496387,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172534/","attorney_id":11172534,"date_action":"2026-07-20","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777653/","attorney_id":10777653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16243733/","attorney_id":16243733,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777654/","attorney_id":10777654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-13T10:00:15.052704-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-13T10:00:15.052719-07:00","name":"Samir Ouijdani","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16496386/","id":16496386,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172534/","attorney_id":11172534,"date_action":"2026-07-20","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777653/","attorney_id":10777653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16243733/","attorney_id":16243733,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777654/","attorney_id":10777654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-13T10:00:14.934311-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-13T10:00:14.934322-07:00","name":"Trenton Marsolek","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16496385/","id":16496385,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172534/","attorney_id":11172534,"date_action":"2026-07-20","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777653/","attorney_id":10777653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16243733/","attorney_id":16243733,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777654/","attorney_id":10777654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-13T10:00:14.829457-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-13T10:00:14.829470-07:00","name":"Alexander Halloran","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16496384/","id":16496384,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172534/","attorney_id":11172534,"date_action":"2026-07-20","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777653/","attorney_id":10777653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16243733/","attorney_id":16243733,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777654/","attorney_id":10777654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-13T10:00:14.682530-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-13T10:00:14.682548-07:00","name":"Alice Eidson","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16496383/","id":16496383,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172534/","attorney_id":11172534,"date_action":"2026-07-20","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777653/","attorney_id":10777653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16243733/","attorney_id":16243733,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777654/","attorney_id":10777654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-13T10:00:14.568635-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-13T10:00:14.568653-07:00","name":"Victoria Donovan","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16496382/","id":16496382,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172534/","attorney_id":11172534,"date_action":"2026-07-20","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777653/","attorney_id":10777653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16243733/","attorney_id":16243733,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777654/","attorney_id":10777654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-13T10:00:14.196049-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-13T10:00:14.196066-07:00","name":"Dominique Cavalier","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16496381/","id":16496381,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777652/","attorney_id":10777652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172534/","attorney_id":11172534,"date_action":"2026-07-20","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777653/","attorney_id":10777653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172535/","attorney_id":11172535,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11172536/","attorney_id":11172536,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16243733/","attorney_id":16243733,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10777654/","attorney_id":10777654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","docket_id":71631869,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-13T10:00:13.965973-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-13T10:00:13.965990-07:00","name":"Samuel Bryant","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483289195/","id":483289195,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499102793/","id":499102793,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/75/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-10-28T15:04:51.553765-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-28T15:04:51.559865-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"75","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027857216","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Designation Form","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-28T15:04:51.531640-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-28T15:04:51.537034-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-28","time_filed":"14:45:50","entry_number":75,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":305,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483199028/","id":483199028,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499010336/","id":499010336,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-28T10:04:29.433436-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-28T10:04:29.433454-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"1 - Terminate Hearings AND Clerk's Notice AND ~Util - Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-28T10:04:29.410281-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-28T10:04:29.410300-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-28","time_filed":"09:56:03","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483058829/","id":483058829,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498859301/","id":498859301,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/73/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-10-27T12:34:30.580707-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-27T12:34:30.590191-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"73","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027850014","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appeal Remark","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-27T12:34:30.550448-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-27T12:34:30.557764-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-27","time_filed":"12:04:45","entry_number":73,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":297,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482669692/","id":482669692,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498453057/","id":498453057,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.432988-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.433007-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.414169-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.414184-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-07","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-07.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CASE REFERRED to Private ADR. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482409912/","id":482409912,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498183664/","id":498183664,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/72/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-10-21T17:01:16.867480-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-21T17:01:16.891005-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"72","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027827183","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-21T17:01:16.805723-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.783423-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-21","time_filed":"16:40:11","entry_number":72,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":294,"description":"MOTION Chuman Certification that Microsoft's Interlocutory Appeal is Frivolous re 70 Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit, filed by Samuel Bryant, Dominique Cavalier, Victoria Donovan, Alice Eidson, Alexander Halloran, Trenton Marsolek, Samir Ouijdani, Zachary Payne, Jake Wolfson, Cara Zajac, Jason Zhang. Motion Hearing set for 11/19/2026 02:00 PM in San Jose, Courtroom 8, 4th Floor before Judge P. Casey Pitts. Responses due by 11/4/2026. Replies due by 11/12/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Brian J. Dunne, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Draft 30(b)(6) Notice, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Oct. 8 K. Johnson Email, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Oct. 13 A. Wolinsky Email, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Oct. 13 K. Johnson Email, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Oct. 15 Cohen Letter, # 7 Exhibit 6 - Oct. 21 ACMS Notice, # 8 Proposed Order)(Dunne, Brian) (Filed on 10/21/2026) (Entered: 10/21/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482337936/","id":482337936,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498109623/","id":498109623,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/71/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-10-21T10:35:47.965081-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-21T10:35:47.974840-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"71","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027823584","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"USCA Case Number","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-21T10:35:47.931874-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.731601-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":71,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":290,"description":"USCA Case Number 26-6936 for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for 70 Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit, filed by Microsoft Corporation. (krp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2026) (Entered: 10/21/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481560256/","id":481560256,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497306653/","id":497306653,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/70/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-10-14T15:38:48.363937-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-14T15:38:48.377349-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"70","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027791051","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-14T15:38:48.295387-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.641185-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-14","time_filed":"15:07:44","entry_number":70,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":286,"description":"NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Microsoft Corporation. Appeal of Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion to Dismiss 69 (Appeal fee of $605 receipt number ACANDC-22590911 paid.) (Cohen, Russell) (Filed on 10/14/2026) (Entered: 10/14/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479729945/","id":479729945,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495410635/","id":495410635,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/63/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:46.312944-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T06:30:46.340929-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"63","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance/Substitution/Withdrawal of Attorney","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:46.278427-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.211065-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":63,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Withdrawal filed by Allison Watson, no longer appearing on behalf of Samuel Bryant, Dominique Cavalier, Victoria Donovan, Alice Eidson, Alexander Halloran, Trenton Marsolek, Samir Ouijdani, Zachary Payne, Jake Wolfson, Cara Zajac, Jason Zhang in this case (Watson, Allison) (Filed on 7/20/2026) (Entered: 07/20/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479729944/","id":479729944,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495410634/","id":495410634,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/64/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:46.234292-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T06:30:46.249659-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"64","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance/Substitution/Withdrawal of Attorney","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:46.197636-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.246543-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":64,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-20.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Withdrawal filed by Allison Watson, no longer appearing on behalf of Samuel Bryant, Dominique Cavalier, Victoria Donovan, Alice Eidson, Alexander Halloran, Trenton Marsolek, Samir Ouijdani, Zachary Payne, Jake Wolfson, Cara Zajac, Jason Zhang in this case (Watson, Allison) (Filed on 7/20/2026) (Entered: 07/20/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479729943/","id":479729943,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495410633/","id":495410633,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/60/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:46.119984-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T06:30:46.141368-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"60","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Case Management Conference - Initial","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:46.078472-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.090489-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":60,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge P. Casey Pitts: Initial Case Management Conference held on 7/9/2026. Within 4 weeks, the parties shall file a stipulation selecting ADR process. If the selected ADR process is private mediation, the parties shall also identify a private mediator. Within 4 weeks, the parties shall also file an updated proposed case schedule. Plaintiff's Attorneys: Yavar Bathaee, Allison Watson. Defendant's Attorney: Russel Cohen. Zoom Recording Time: 2:01-2:08 PM.Transcriber - Tara Jauregui, email: echoreporting@yahoo.com (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (nmc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/9/2026) Modified on 7/15/2026 (lmh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479729942/","id":479729942,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495410632/","id":495410632,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/59/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:46.014218-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T06:30:46.039881-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"59","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:45.977856-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.025928-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-06","time_filed":null,"entry_number":59,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (Time Change Only). Initial Case Management Conference reset for 7/9/2026 at 02:00 PM in San Jose, Courtroom 8, 4th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lrt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2026) (Entered: 07/06/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479729941/","id":479729941,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495410631/","id":495410631,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/55/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:45.815955-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T06:30:45.832507-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"55","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance/Substitution/Withdrawal of Attorney","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:45.779471-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:29.752758-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":55,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance filed by Priscilla Ghita on behalf of Samuel Bryant, Dominique Cavalier, Victoria Donovan, Alice Eidson, Alexander Halloran, Trenton Marsolek, Samir Ouijdani, Zachary Payne, Jake Wolfson, Cara Zajac, Jason Zhang (Ghita, Priscilla) (Filed on 5/28/2026) (Entered: 05/28/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479729940/","id":479729940,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495410630/","id":495410630,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/40/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:45.159031-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T06:30:45.188865-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"40","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:45.102010-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:29.155089-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":40,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge P. Casey Pitts: Motion to Compel Arbitration 20 and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint 21 Hearing held on 4/9/2026. Argument presented by counsel. The Court took the matter under submission. Order shall issue. Total Time in Court: 1:15. Court Reporter: Marla Knox. Plaintiff Attorney: Yavar Bathaee Bryan Dunne. Defendant Attorney: Russell Cohen, Julia Chapman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (akw, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/9/2026) (Entered: 04/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479729939/","id":479729939,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495410629/","id":495410629,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/38/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:44.975394-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T06:30:45.051056-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"38","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:44.854073-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:29.065956-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-06","time_filed":null,"entry_number":38,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING TIME FOR MOTION HEARINGS April 9, 2026 Motion to Compel 20 and Motion to Dismiss 21 Hearing reset to April 9, 2026 at 11:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 8, 4th Floor before Judge P. Casey Pitts. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (akw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2026) (Entered: 04/06/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479729938/","id":479729938,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495410628/","id":495410628,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/35/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:44.753045-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T06:30:44.790061-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"35","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-29T06:30:44.699271-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:28.879248-07:00","date_filed":"2026-01-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-01-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Initial Case Management Conference previously set for 5/14/2026 is RESET for 6/11/2026 at 01:00 PM in San Jose, Courtroom 8, 4th Floor. Joint Case Management Statement due by 6/4/2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (nmc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2026) (Entered: 01/28/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479636143/","id":479636143,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495302278/","id":495302278,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/69/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-28T11:01:17.616579-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-28T09:38:58.382701-07:00","sha1":"b617604ccc565792335cb3a766ade7318317039d","page_count":14,"file_size":277268,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457850/gov.uscourts.cand.457850.69.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.457850/gov.uscourts.cand.457850.69.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 1 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2\n\n 3\n\n 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n 6\n\n 7 SAMUEL BRYANT, et al., Case No. 25-cv-08733-PCP\n Plaintiffs,\n 8\n ORDER DENYING MOTION TO\n v. COMPEL ARBITRATION AND\n 9\n GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS IN\n 10 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, PART\n Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 20, 21\n 11\n\n 12\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 In their class action complaint, the plaintiffs here allege that defendant Microsoft\n\n 14 Corporation violated federal and state antitrust laws by entering into an agreement with OpenAI in\n\n 15 which OpenAI would rely exclusively on Microsoft to provide it with \u201ccompute\u201d\u2014the processing\n\n 16 capacity needed to train OpenAI\u2019s models and provide outputs to users. Plaintiffs allege that\n\n 17 Microsoft\u2019s agreement drove up OpenAI\u2019s costs and resulted in higher prices and worsened\n\n 18 quality. Microsoft now moves to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 19 claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the Court\n\n 20 denies Microsoft\u2019s motion to compel arbitration and grants in part and denies in part Microsoft\u2019s\n\n 21 motion to dismiss.\n\n 22 BACKGROUND\n\n 23 Plaintiffs are a proposed class of ChatGPT subscribers who subscribed from November 30,\n\n 24 2022, to the present.1 Complaint \u00b6 14. Plaintiffs allege that they are consumers in the \u201cConsumer\n\n 25 Generative AI Market\u201d and that they \u201coverpaid for ChatGPT subscription products from\n\n 26 November 30, 2022, through February 1, 2025.\u201d Complaint \u00b6 14.\n\n 27\n 1\n 28 The Court assumes the truth of the allegations in the complaint for the purposes of Microsoft\u2019s\n motions.\n\f Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 2 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 OpenAI is a California nonprofit entity that offers the subscription-based ChatGPT\n\n 2 product. Complaint \u00b6 43. ChatGPT is a Consumer Generative AI (CGAI) product that responds to\n\n 3 users\u2019 text prompts with text or image answers and other responses based on ChatGPT\u2019s internal\n\n 4 models. Complaint \u00b6 6. OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. Complaint \u00b6 6.\n\n 5 OpenAI needs \u201ccompute\u201d to run OpenAI\u2019s models and generate answers to users\u2019\n\n 6 ChatGPT queries. Complaint \u00b6 8. Large AI models require large numbers of computations to train\n\n 7 their models. Complaint \u00b6 205. This requires graphical processing units (GPUs), hardware that\n\n 8 Microsoft had advantages in securing. Complaint \u00b6\u00b6 206, 208, 209. Microsoft\u2019s advantage in\n\n 9 obtaining GPUs meant that it could provide the computational capacity that AI models need to\n\n 10 produce outputs. Complaint \u00b6 215. The computational capacity used to train AI models and infer\n\n 11 outputs from them is a \u201cnecessary input\u201d in CGAI products such as ChatGPT. Complaint \u00b6 9.\n\n 12 Microsoft is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Washington state. Complaint \u00b6 27.\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 Microsoft provides cloud computing services through its Azure AI business line. Complaint \u00b6 32.\n\n 14 Azure \u201cis one of only a handful of cloud computing clusters with adequate computational power\n\n 15 for the training of large-scale \u2026 AI models.\u201d Complaint \u00b6 82. Microsoft provides OpenAI with\n\n 16 compute. In October 2023, Microsoft also started offering its own CGAI product called Copilot.\n\n 17 Complaint \u00b6 133.\n\n 18 In July 2019, Microsoft invested $1 billion in OpenAI in exchange for OpenAI agreeing to\n\n 19 rely exclusively on Azure for OpenAI\u2019s cloud computing requirements. Complaint \u00b6\u00b6 86\u201389.\n\n 20 Microsoft provided OpenAI with that $1 billion \u201cin the form of Azure credits,\u201d which helped\n\n 21 Microsoft earn OpenAI\u2019s business and take it away from its competitor Google. Complaint \u00b6 89.\n\n 22 Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI\u2019s reliance on Microsoft undermined OpenAI\u2019s ability to switch to a\n\n 23 different cloud provider. Complaint \u00b6 92.\n\n 24 After its initial 2019 investment, Microsoft expanded its involvement with OpenAI,\n\n 25 investing an additional $10 billion in 2023 and incorporating OpenAI technology into Microsoft\u2019s\n\n 26 Co-Pilot tool. Complaint \u00b6\u00b6 94\u201396. By the end of 2024, independent reporting confirmed that\n\n 27 Microsoft had invested $13 billion in OpenAI and amassed a 20% stake in OpenAI\u2019s revenue.\n\n 28 Complaint \u00b6 102.\n 2\n\f Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 3 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 According to the initial 2023 agreement, OpenAI pays Azure more than $1 billion every\n\n 2 year for server rentals. Complaint \u00b6 104. Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft\u2019s exclusivity agreement\n\n 3 dragged down OpenAI\u2019s success in 2023 and 2024. According to plaintiffs, OpenAI was the\n\n 4 market leader for CGAI but was not profitable in large part because its costs \u201cof responding to\n\n 5 user queries by running the trained model[] remained high, particularly at the prices and capacity\n\n 6 limits imposed on OpenAI\u2019s business by Microsoft.\u201d Complaint \u00b6 125. Plaintiffs note that OpenAI\n\n 7 CEO Sam Altman publicly acknowledged that a lack of compute capacity hindered OpenAI\u2019s\n\n 8 operations. See, e.g., Complaint \u00b6 131.\n\n 9 Plaintiffs argue that the advent of Chinese company DeepSeek AI\u2019s CGAI product in\n\n 10 January 2025 jostled OpenAI and Microsoft out of their complacency in the CGAI market.\n\n 11 Complaint \u00b6\u00b6 140\u2013166. DeepSeek produced a CGAI model that rivaled OpenAI\u2019s despite\n\n 12 DeepSeek having less capital and access to GPUs. Complaint \u00b6 140. DeepSeek reportedly offered\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 prices for its application that were \u201cup to 40 times lower than OpenAI\u2019s comparable models.\u201d\n\n 14 Complaint \u00b6 144. In response, OpenAI cut prices, Complaint \u00b6 147, but could not compete\n\n 15 effectively against DeepSeek because of Microsoft\u2019s exclusivity requirement, which \u201ccontinued to\n\n 16 constrain the supply of compute available to OpenAI.\u201d Complaint \u00b6 151.\n\n 17 Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft eventually relaxed its constraint on OpenAI\u2019s compute\n\n 18 capacity so that OpenAI could maintain its market dominance. Complaint \u00b6 170. On June 10,\n\n 19 2025, OpenAI agreed to receive compute from Google, one of Microsoft Azure\u2019s competitors.\n\n 20 Complaint \u00b6 171, 172. On the same day, OpenAI cut its prices by 80%, which put OpenAI roughly\n\n 21 \u201cin line with the rest of the market.\u201d Complaint \u00b6\u00b6 173\u2013177.\n\n 22 Plaintiffs\u2019 class action complaint alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and\n\n 23 California\u2019s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law. Complaint \u00b6\u00b6 353\u2013421. Plaintiffs allege\n\n 24 that the relevant market is the United States Consumer Generative AI Market. Complaint \u00b6\u00b6 223\u2013\n\n 25 276. Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI possessed 82.65% of the CGAI market in July 2025, and that\n\n 26 five competitors each had a market share below 10%, including Microsoft, which had a market\n\n 27 share of 4.59%. Complaint \u00b6 279. A different estimate of the relevant market shares in August\n\n 28 2025 concluded that OpenAI had a 60.4% market share with Microsoft\u2019s Copilot coming in\n 3\n\f Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 4 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 second place with a 14.1% market share. Complaint \u00b6 281.\n\n 2 Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft\u2019s exclusivity agreement injured end users of\n\n 3 CGAI applications. Complaint \u00b6\u00b6 287\u2013305. Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI\u2019s dominance in the\n\n 4 CGAI market is protected by an \u201cAI Computation Barrier to Entry,\u201d or the large compute scale\n\n 5 needed to be able to provide models comparable to market leaders such as OpenAI. Complaint \u00b6\n\n 6 186.\n\n 7 Microsoft now moves to compel arbitration and to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 lawsuit for failure to\n\n 8 state a claim.\n\n 9 LEGAL STANDARD\n\n 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include a \u201cshort and plain\n\n 11 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.\u201d If the complaint does not do\n\n 12 so, the defendant may move to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 12(b)(6). Dismissal is required if the plaintiff fails to allege facts allowing the court to \u201cdraw the\n\n 14 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.\u201d Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556\n\n 15 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). \u201cDismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint\n\n 16 lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.\u201d\n\n 17 Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). To survive a Rule\n\n 18 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff need only plead \u201cenough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible\n\n 19 on its face.\u201d Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).\n\n 20 In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must \u201caccept all factual allegations in the\n\n 21 complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable\u201d to the non-moving party.\n\n 22 Rowe v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 559 F.3d 1028, 1029\u201330 (9th Cir. 2009). While legal\n\n 23 conclusions \u201ccan provide the [complaint\u2019s] framework,\u201d the Court will not assume they are correct\n\n 24 unless adequately \u201csupported by factual allegations.\u201d Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Courts do not \u201caccept\n\n 25 as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable\n\n 26 inferences.\u201d In re Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Sprewell\n\n 27 v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001)).\n\n 28\n 4\n\f Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 5 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 ANALYSIS\n\n 2 I. Microsoft\u2019s Motion to Compel Arbitration\n\n 3 Microsoft argues that plaintiffs should be compelled to arbitrate their claims because\n\n 4 OpenAI\u2019s Terms of Use (TOU) require mandatory arbitration for all claims \u201carising out of or\n\n 5 relating to these Terms or our Services.\u201d MTC at 1\u20132, 4. \u201cWhere a nonsignatory seeks to enforce\n\n 6 an arbitration clause, the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies in two circumstances: (1) when a\n\n 7 signatory must rely on the terms of the written agreement in asserting its claims against the\n\n 8 nonsignatory or the claims are \u2018intimately founded in and intertwined with\u2019 the underlying\n\n 9 contract, and (2) when the signatory alleges substantially interdependent and concerted\n\n 10 misconduct by the nonsignatory and another signatory and \u2018the allegations of interdependent\n\n 11 misconduct [are] founded in or intimately connected with the obligations of the underlying\n\n 12 agreement.\u201d Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp., 705 F.3d 1122, 1128\u201329 (9th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up)\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 (quoting Goldman v. KPMG, LLP, 173 Cal. App. 4th 209, 219, 221 (2009)); see also Herrera v.\n\n 14 Cathay Pac. Airways Ltd., 104 F.4th 702, 707 (9th Cir. 2024).\n\n 15 Neither ground supports compelling arbitration here.\n\n 16 First, plaintiffs do not \u201crely on the terms of the written agreement in asserting [their]\n\n 17 claims against\u201d Microsoft and their claims are not \u201cintimately founded in and intertwined with\u2019 the\n\n 18 underlying contract.\u201d Kramer, 705 F.3d at 1128. Plaintiffs\u2019 theory of liability does not depend on a\n\n 19 contractual entitlement between them and Microsoft or Open AI, nor must they rely on the terms\n\n 20 of their user agreement with OpenAI to bring their claims against Microsoft. Plaintiffs allege that\n\n 21 Microsoft\u2019s exclusivity provision constrained OpenAI\u2019s output and quality of CGAI services. The\n\n 22 legality of that alleged restraint does not turn on their agreement with OpenAI.\n\n 23 For similar reasons, plaintiffs\u2019 claims are also not \u201cintimately founded in and intertwined\n\n 24 with the underlying contract.\u201d The TOU do not relate to or affect plaintiffs\u2019 exclusive dealing\n\n 25 theory of antitrust liability. Plaintiffs\u2019 general right to be free of the harms of exclusive dealing\n\n 26 \u201carise independently of\u201d the TOU under federal and state antitrust laws. See Ngo v. BMW of N.\n\n 27 Am., LLC, 23 F.4th 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). And it goes without saying that\n\n 28 plaintiffs \u201cdo not seek to enforce or challenge the terms, duties, or obligations of the\u201d TOU.\n 5\n\f Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 6 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 Kramer, 705 F.3d at 1132.\n\n 2 Microsoft cites Franklin v. Community Regional Medical Center, 998 F.3d 867 (9th Cir.\n\n 3 2021), in support of its motion, arguing that under Franklin the only relevant consideration is\n\n 4 whether the agreement containing the arbitration agreement is \u201ccentral\u201d to plaintiffs\u2019 claims. MTC\n\n 5 at 14. Franklin held that a nurse\u2019s suit against a hospital for wage-and-hour violations had to be\n\n 6 arbitrated because she was employed by a staffing company that \u201cwas responsible for reviewing\n\n 7 the timekeeping records and raising any discrepancies with the Hospital.\u201d Id. at 875. In other\n\n 8 words, Franklin\u2019s primary complaint was with her staffing company, not the hospital, and her\n\n 9 agreement with the staffing company required arbitration of that complaint. In this case, by\n\n 10 contrast, plaintiffs challenge Microsoft\u2019s exclusivity agreement with OpenAI and that agreement\u2019s\n\n 11 effects on the terms of dealing in the CGAI market. Plaintiffs\u2019 agreement with OpenAI is in no\n\n 12 way \u201ccentral\u201d to that dispute.\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 For the same reason, the instant case is distinguishable from this Court\u2019s decision in Hunt\n\n 14 v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 735 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 1137\u201338 (N.D. Cal. 2024). In Hunt, the plaintiff\u2019s\n\n 15 claims against Google and Meta were \u201cintimately intertwined\u201d with his agreement with H&R\n\n 16 Block because Hunt\u2019s theory of liability depended on establishing that plaintiffs had been\n\n 17 defrauded in contravention of representations in H&R Block\u2019s agreement with Hunt. Here,\n\n 18 plaintiffs\u2019 theory of liability against Microsoft is entirely independent of the TOU.\n\n 19 Microsoft also argues that this case is like Herrera, in which the Ninth Circuit concluded\n\n 20 that airline passengers had to arbitrate claims against airlines whose tickets were purchased\n\n 21 through a third-party. The Ninth Circuit explained that the plaintiffs\u2019 claims placed the third-party\n\n 22 vendor\u2019s \u201cconduct at issue,\u201d 104 F.4th at 708, in particular \u201cwhether the [third-party] travel agent\n\n 23 breached its own terms,\u201d Houghton v. Polychain Alchemy, LLC, 2025 WL 2965204, at *4 (9th Cir.\n\n 24 Oct. 21, 2025). In contrast here, neither plaintiffs nor Microsoft have put OpenAI\u2019s compliance\n\n 25 with the TOU at issue.\n\n 26 Second, plaintiffs do not allege \u201csubstantially interdependent and concerted misconduct\u201d\n\n 27 that is \u201cfounded in or intimately connected with the obligations of the underlying agreement.\u201d\n\n 28 Kramer, 705 F.3d at 1132\u201333; see Herrera, 104 F.4th at 713 (Forrest, J., dissenting).\n 6\n\f Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 7 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 Microsoft is certainly correct that plaintiffs allege \u201csubstantially interdependent and concerted\n\n 2 misconduct\u201d by Microsoft and OpenAI given that the focus of their claims is the exclusivity\n\n 3 agreement between those two companies. But that alleged misconduct is not founded in or\n\n 4 intimately connected with the TOU. Microsoft suggests that because the TOU was a necessary\n\n 5 condition for access to OpenAI\u2019s ChatGPT, any harms plaintiffs suffered arise from the TOU. See\n\n 6 Reply at 12. But the Ninth Circuit rejected a similar argument in Kramer. There, Toyota argued\n\n 7 that plaintiffs\u2019 suit against the car manufacturer was \u201cintertwined\u201d with plaintiffs\u2019 purchase\n\n 8 agreements with independent Toyota dealers, but the Ninth Circuit rejected that argument,\n\n 9 explaining that \u201c[u]nder California law, mere reference to a term of the Purchase Agreements is\n\n 10 not enough.\u201d See Kramer, 705 F.3d at 1132. That the price term set forth in the TOU provides one\n\n 11 measure of the damages plaintiffs suffered also does not mean that plaintiffs\u2019 antitrust claims are\n\n 12 founded in the TOU. The precise magnitude of the price term itself is not the source of Microsoft\u2019s\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 liability. Instead, \u201cthe plaintiff\u2019s allegations must rely on or depend on the terms of the written\n\n 14 agreement, not simply on the fact that an agreement exists.\u201d Goldman v. KPMG, LLP, 173 Cal.\n\n 15 App. 4th at 231 (cleaned up). Here, plaintiffs\u2019 allegations do not rely on the terms of the written\n\n 16 agreement because the terms do not establish Microsoft\u2019s rights or duties.\n\n 17 Microsoft also argues that plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate disputes about ChatGPT\u2019s price and\n\n 18 quality. But that agreement governed only plaintiffs\u2019 disputes with OpenAI. Whether or not\n\n 19 plaintiffs would be required to arbitrate an antitrust claim against OpenAI, this case presents only\n\n 20 claims against Microsoft. Because plaintiffs never agreed to arbitrate those claims, the scope of\n\n 21 their agreement with OpenAI is not relevant here.\n\n 22 Accordingly, Microsoft has not established either of the two conditions for compelling\n\n 23 arbitration on an equitable estoppel theory. Microsoft\u2019s motion to compel arbitration is therefore\n\n 24 denied.\n\n 25 II. Microsoft\u2019s Motion To Dismiss for Failure To State a Claim\n\n 26 A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Federal Claim\n\n 27 Microsoft moves to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 federal claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to\n\n 28 plead antitrust standing, antitrust injury, or an illegal agreement. The Court need only address\n 7\n\f Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 8 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 Microsoft\u2019s argument that plaintiffs have not suffered antitrust injury because their alleged injury\n\n 2 occurred in the CGAI market, not the \u201cupstream input\u201d cloud compute market in which OpenAI\n\n 3 and Microsoft transact. MTD at 11\u201312.\n\n 4 A plaintiff pursuing federal antitrust claims \u201cmust prove antitrust injury, which is to say\n\n 5 injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes\n\n 6 defendants\u2019 acts unlawful.\u201d Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489\n\n 7 (1977). An antitrust injury must be \u201cattributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under\n\n 8 scrutiny.\u201d Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 334 (1990).\n\n 9 Antitrust injury has four requirements: \u201c(1) unlawful conduct, (2) causing an injury to the\n\n 10 plaintiff, (3) that flows from that which makes the conduct unlawful, and (4) that is of the type the\n\n 11 antitrust laws were intended to prevent.\u201d Am. Ad Mgmt., Inc. v. Gen. Tele. Co. of Cal., 190 F.3d\n\n 12 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999).\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 Plaintiffs satisfy the first three requirements. First, accepting the pleaded facts as true,\n\n 14 plaintiffs have adequately alleged the \u201cunlawful conduct\u201d of an anticompetitive restraint. Second,\n\n 15 plaintiffs have alleged harm from that unlawful conduct. Plaintiffs are users who allege that\n\n 16 Microsoft\u2019s limitations on cloud compute capacity resulted in OpenAI having less ability to serve\n\n 17 end users like them, hurting them in the form of higher prices and lower quality. Third, plaintiff\u2019s\n\n 18 claimed injury \u201cflows from that which makes the conduct unlawful.\u201d Id. Plaintiffs allege that they\n\n 19 paid more than they would have absent Microsoft exercising its market power in cloud compute to\n\n 20 extract an exclusivity requirement from OpenAI. If Microsoft did not have its exclusivity\n\n 21 requirement, OpenAI\u2019s supply of CGAI output would purportedly have increased and plaintiffs\n\n 22 would have received a better price for their CGAI purchase.\n\n 23 Plaintiffs have not, however, alleged an injury \u201cof the type the antitrust laws were intended\n\n 24 to prevent.\u201d Id. In Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council\n\n 25 of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff union failed to plead\n\n 26 antitrust injury resulting from a multiemployer association\u2019s allegedly coercing third-party\n\n 27 landowners and general contractors into dealing with nonunion firms. Id. at 527\u201328. In the\n\n 28 process, the Supreme Court noted that \u201cthe Union was neither a consumer nor a competitor in the\n 8\n\f Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 9 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 market in which trade was restrained.\u201d Id. at 539. From Associated General Contractors, the\n\n 2 Ninth Circuit has derived a general \u201ccorollary[] that the injured party [must] be a participant in the\n\n 3 same market as the alleged malefactors.\u201d Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 772 F.2d 1467, 1470 (9th Cir.\n\n 4 1985); see also Malheur Forest Fairness Coalition v. Iron Triangle, LLC, 164 F.4th 710, 733 (9th\n\n 5 Cir. 2026).2\n\n 6 Here, the relevant restraint is OpenAI\u2019s exclusivity agreement with Microsoft, which\n\n 7 limited OpenAI\u2019s ability to purchase compute from other providers. Plaintiffs do not participate in\n\n 8 that market at all. Plaintiffs argue, instead, that the relevant market here is the one they alleged in\n\n 9 their complaint: the CGAI market. Opposition at 19. But under Bhan, that the consequences of an\n\n 10 antitrust violation may be felt outside the immediate market in which that violation took place\n\n 11 does not mean that those attenuated consequences are actionable under the federal antitrust laws.\n\n 12 Instead, the Ninth Circuit has suggested that \u201c[p]arties whose injuries, though flowing from that\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 which makes the defendant\u2019s conduct unlawful, are experienced in another market do not suffer\n\n 14 antitrust injury.\u201d Am. Ad Mgmt., Inc., 190 F.3d at 1057.\n\n 15 Whether or not Bhan\u2019s particular application of Associated General Contractors is\n\n 16 dispositive, plaintiffs have not shown that they meet the fourth prong of the antitrust injury inquiry\n\n 17 based on the underlying principles announced in Associated General Contractors. In that decision,\n\n 18 the Supreme Court considered the union\u2019s failure to participate in the purportedly restrained\n\n 19\n\n 20 2\n The Court notes that the Associated General Contractors Court\u2019s observation that \u201cthe Union\n 21 was neither a consumer nor a competitor in the market in which trade was restrained,\u201d 459 U.S. at\n 539, does not necessarily compel a requirement that an antitrust plaintiff must always \u201cbe a\n 22 participant in the same market as the alleged malefactors,\u201d Bhan, 772 F.2d at 1470. The\n Associated General Contractors court noted the union\u2019s distinct status to suggest, in the next line,\n 23 that the antitrust laws will often not apply to unions because \u201c[i]t is not clear whether the Union\u2019s\n interests would be served or disserved by enhanced competition in the market.\u201d 459 U.S. at 539.\n 24 The Supreme Court justified its holding that the union had not shown an antitrust injury based\n largely on the union\u2019s interests as a union and on labor law\u2019s particular policies and attempts to\n 25 account for those policies. Id.; but see id. at 550\u201351 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (listing several\n injuries the plaintiff union could have suffered as a result of defendant\u2019s alleged antitrust\n 26 violations). And the Supreme Court went on to consider several other facts relevant to the antitrust\n injury inquiry after noting the union\u2019s non-participation in the relevant market\u2014an analysis that\n 27 would have been entirely unnecessary if non-participation was dispositive. Rather than\n announcing any blackletter rule, which the Supreme Court deemed \u201cvirtually impossible,\u201d the\n 28 Court explained that it would merely \u201cidentify factors that circumscribe and guide the exercise of\n judgment in deciding whether the law affords a remedy in specific circumstances.\u201d Id. at 536\u201337.\n 9\n\f Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 10 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 market, the indirectness of the injury to the union, the speculative nature of the union\u2019s damages,\n\n 2 and the risk of duplicative or difficult-to-apportion damages in determining whether the union had\n\n 3 pleaded antitrust injury. 459 U.S. at 539\u201345. Here, as in Associated General Contractors, these\n\n 4 factors all weigh against permitting plaintiffs to pursue a federal claim. In their own telling,\n\n 5 plaintiffs\u2019 injury was indirect, and it was OpenAI itself that suffered direct harm as a result of the\n\n 6 exclusivity agreement. For the same reason, determining the extent to which the agreement\u2014\n\n 7 rather than, for example, OpenAI\u2019s own market dominance\u2014resulted in plaintiffs paying a higher\n\n 8 price is somewhat speculative and may require apportioning damages as between plaintiffs and\n\n 9 OpenAI itself.\n\n 10 The core problem with plaintiffs\u2019 theory of antitrust injury is that they allege harm to a\n\n 11 competitor in the market for CGAI, rather than harm to the market itself. Antitrust injury should\n\n 12 arise from \u201ca less competitive market due to either artificial restraints or predatory and\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 exclusionary conduct.\u201d FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974, 990 (9th Cir. 2020). Here,\n\n 14 Microsoft\u2019s compute constraint did not materially change the structure of the CGAI market (as\n\n 15 DeepSeek\u2019s successful disruption of that market in 2025 demonstrates). The agreement did not\n\n 16 change the number of competitors or change how they could compete against one another. Instead,\n\n 17 according to plaintiffs\u2019 theory, it merely acted as a drag on OpenAI\u2019s performance. Plaintiffs are\n\n 18 not competing compute providers foreclosed from being able to sell compute to OpenAI. Nor are\n\n 19 plaintiffs competing CGAI providers foreclosed from accessing compute capacity necessary to\n\n 20 compete with OpenAI. A contractual constraint inhibiting one competitor\u2019s ability to compete\n\n 21 does not amount to an antitrust injury absent a broader harm to the market\u2019s ability to provide\n\n 22 consumers a full range of options.\n\n 23 The \u201cco-conspirator exception\u201d also does not establish that plaintiffs have alleged a proper\n\n 24 antitrust injury. The \u201cco-conspirator exception\u201d to the Illinois Brick rule \u201callows an indirect\n\n 25 purchaser to sue when co-conspirators set the price paid by the plaintiff.\u201d In re ATM Fee Antitrust\n\n 26 Litig. 686 F.3d 741, 750 (9th Cir. 2012). The exception \u201cis not really an exception at all\u201d but\n\n 27 instead a recognition that if a plaintiff transacts directly with a co-conspirator to an antitrust\n\n 28 violation, the plaintiff is not an indirect purchaser. See In re NFL\u2019s Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig.\n 10\n\f Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 11 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 933 F.3d 1136, 1157\u201358 (9th Cir. 2019). The co-conspirator exception does not change the fact\n\n 2 that plaintiffs here do not participate in the upstream compute market. Plaintiffs do not experience\n\n 3 antitrust injury because they only experienced the effects of Microsoft\u2019s exclusivity requirements\n\n 4 through OpenAI\u2019s alleged difficulty to respond to increases in demand.\n\n 5 Accordingly, plaintiffs have not alleged that they suffered an \u201cinjury of the type the\n\n 6 antitrust laws were intended to prevent.\u201d Am. Ad Mgmt., 190 F.3d at 1055.3\n\n 7 B. State Claims\n\n 8 Microsoft argues that plaintiffs\u2019 Cartwright Act and UCL claims both fail because most\n\n 9 plaintiffs do not reside in California and because the state claims\u2019 plausibility depends on the\n\n 10 Sherman Act claim\u2019s viability.\n\n 11 1. Plaintiffs\u2019 Connection to California\n\n 12 California courts \u201cpresume the [California] Legislature did not intend a statute to be\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 operative, with respect to occurrences outside the state, unless such intention is clearly expressed\n\n 14 or reasonably to be inferred from the language of the act or from its purpose, subject matter or\n\n 15 history.\u201d Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 4th 1191, 1207 (2011) (cleaned up). The California\n\n 16 Supreme Court has held that the \u201cpresumption against extraterritoriality applies to the UCL in full\n\n 17 force.\u201d Id. In evaluating a proposed application of the UCL to extraterritorial violations, the\n\n 18 California Supreme Court instructs courts to look to whether \u201crelevant conduct occurr[ed] in\n\n 19 California.\u201d Id. at 1208.\n\n 20 Here, plaintiffs have pleaded enough conduct that occurred in California to overcome the\n\n 21 presumption against extraterritoriality. Most importantly, OpenAI is a San Francisco-based\n\n 22 company, and plaintiffs allege that the \u201canticompetitive [exclusivity] agreement between OpenAI\n\n 23 and Microsoft, occurred in and/or emanated from the State of California.\u201d Complaint \u00b6 53. Given\n\n 24 that Microsoft entered into an agreement with OpenAI, a California-based company, to constrain\n\n 25 that company\u2019s conduct, the relevant conduct occurred in California. Plaintiffs also allege that, as\n\n 26 part of the contractual arrangement between those parties, the head of Microsoft\u2019s AI division\n\n 27\n 3\n 28 Though the Court need not address Microsoft\u2019s argument that plaintiffs also lack antitrust\n standing, the attenuated nature of plaintiff\u2019s injury also raises serious questions as to that issue.\n 11\n\f Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 12 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 Mustafa Suleyman and the division as a whole \u201cwork[] directly with OpenAI\u2019s California-based\n\n 2 engineers, including by working on-site at OpenAI\u2019s offices in San Francisco using OpenAI\n\n 3 laptops.\u201d Complaint \u00b6 37. Plaintiffs\u2019 allegations thus distinguish their case from those cited by\n\n 4 Microsoft in which courts of this district concluded on different facts that plaintiffs\u2019 allegations\n\n 5 did not \u201cha[ve] anything to do with California.\u201d See Wilson v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 961 F. Supp.\n\n 6 2d 1134, 1147\u201348 (N.D. Cal. 2013); Kay v. Copper Cane, LLC, 549 F. Supp. 3d 1014, 1021 (N.D.\n\n 7 Cal. 2021).\n\n 8 Drawing all factual inferences in plaintiffs\u2019 favor, plaintiffs have alleged a connection\n\n 9 between Microsoft and California sufficient to make plausible the inference that \u201crelevant conduct\n\n 10 occur[ed] in California.\u201d Sullivan, 51 Cal. 4th at 1208.\n\n 11 2. Cartwright Act Claim\n\n 12 Microsoft argues that plaintiffs\u2019 Cartwright Act claim should be dismissed because\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 plaintiffs\u2019 allegations are conclusory and because the Cartwright Act \u201cmirrors federal antitrust\n\n 14 law.\u201d Motion to Dismiss at 22.\n\n 15 Plaintiffs\u2019 allegations are not conclusory: They plausibly allege the existence of an\n\n 16 agreement between Microsoft and OpenAI to restrict OpenAI\u2019s use of cloud compute to\n\n 17 Microsoft\u2019s Azure provider. And while California\u2019s Cartwright Act does closely track the federal\n\n 18 Sherman Act, the two laws are not coterminous in all respects. \u201cAlthough California law similarly\n\n 19 [to federal antitrust law] requires an \u2018antitrust injury,\u2019 the scope of that term is broader.\u201d Cellular\n\n 20 Plus, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., 14 Cal. App. 4th 1224, 1234 (1993). For example, California has expanded\n\n 21 the scope of injured persons who may pursue antitrust claims to those \u201cwho dealt either \u2018directly\n\n 22 or indirectly\u2019 with the antitrust law offenders.\u201d See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code \u00a7 16750(a). Here,\n\n 23 plaintiffs allege that they dealt indirectly with Microsoft by purchasing CGAI for which compute\n\n 24 was a necessary input.4 Because Microsoft fails to make any further argument regarding plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 25\n 4\n 26 Microsoft cites the Ninth Circuit\u2019s decision in In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM)\n Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 28 F.4th 42 (9th Cir. 2022), in support of their contention\n 27 that the Cartwright Act\u2019s requirements mirror those of the Sherman Act. But in that decision the\n Court merely noted that the plaintiffs\u2019 Cartwright Act claim, like its Sherman Act claim, required\n 28 the plausible pleading of a conspiracy, and that the plaintiffs\u2019 failure to plead a conspiracy was\n dispositive as to both the plaintiffs\u2019 state and federal claims. Id. at 54 n.7.\n 12\n\f Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 13 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 failure to state a Cartwright Act claim, the Court denies Microsoft\u2019s motion to dismiss that claim.\n\n 2 3. UCL Claim\n\n 3 Microsoft moves to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 UCL claim for three reasons. Motion to Dismiss at\n\n 4 22. First, Microsoft argues that plaintiffs have not shown that they were injured because of\n\n 5 Microsoft\u2019s conduct or that Microsoft\u2019s conduct caused an economic injury. Motion to Dismiss at\n\n 6 22\u201323. Second, Microsoft argues that plaintiffs have failed to allege that Microsoft\u2019s conduct was\n\n 7 either \u201cunlawful\u201d or \u201cunfair.\u201d See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code \u00a7 17200. Third, Microsoft contends that\n\n 8 plaintiffs fail to plead an inadequate remedy at law, especially because plaintiffs themselves allege\n\n 9 that Microsoft\u2019s exclusivity agreement with OpenAI ended on June 10, 2025. Complaint \u00b6 171;\n\n 10 Motion to Dismiss at 24; see also Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir.\n\n 11 2020). None of Microsoft\u2019s arguments merit dismissal of the UCL claim.\n\n 12 First, plaintiffs allege Microsoft\u2019s conduct caused them economic injury. They allege that\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 Microsoft\u2019s exclusivity agreement with OpenAI limited OpenAI\u2019s ability to lower its prices and\n\n 14 thus resulted in their payment of higher prices. See Complaint \u00b6\u00b6 178, 179. While plaintiffs may\n\n 15 not have directly transacted with Microsoft, they still allege that Microsoft\u2019s conduct led to their\n\n 16 economic injuries.\n\n 17 Second, because Microsoft has not identified any basis for dismissing plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 18 Cartwright Act claim, plaintiffs have stated a UCL claim under the UCL\u2019s \u201cunlawful\u201d prong. See\n\n 19 Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal. 4th 939, 949 (9th Cir. 2002) (\u201cBy defining unfair competition to\n\n 20 include any \u2018unlawful business act or practice, the UCL permits violations of other laws to be\n\n 21 treated as unfair competition that is independently actionable.\u201d) (cleaned up). Moreover, the\n\n 22 Sherman Act and the UCL are not necessarily coterminous with respect to the \u201cunfair\u201d prong. For\n\n 23 UCL claims regarding unfairness to consumers, \u201ca court uses the balancing test, which weighs the\n\n 24 utility of the defendants\u2019 conduct against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim.\u201d Epic\n\n 25 Games. Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th 946, 1000 (9th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). At the pleadings stage,\n\n 26 the Court cannot weigh \u201cthe utility of the defendants\u2019 conduct against the gravity of the harm to\n\n 27 the alleged victim.\u201d Id.\n\n 28 Third, plaintiffs have alleged a plausible entitlement to injunctive relief and thus the lack\n 13\n\f Case 5:25-cv-08733-PCP Document 69 Filed 09/28/26 Page 14 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 of an adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs allege that even though Microsoft voluntarily lifted the\n\n 2 exclusivity constraint on cloud compute in June 2025, that constraint still \u201csat (and sits) as a sword\n\n 3 of Damocles wielded by OpenAI\u2019s own giant\u2014and increasingly CGAI-focused\u2014direct\n\n 4 competitor.\u201d Complaint \u00b6 180; Opposition at 24. Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint quotes at length from a June\n\n 5 16, 2025, article from the Wall Street Journal reporting on OpenAI\u2019s negotiations with Microsoft,\n\n 6 and OpenAI\u2019s consideration of \u201ca nuclear option\u201d of \u201caccusing Microsoft of anticompetitive\n\n 7 behavior during the partnership.\u201d Complaint \u00b6 181. Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft \u201ccould (and\n\n 8 can) choose to enforce the compute restraint again, even to potentially eliminate OpenAI from the\n\n 9 CGAI competitive landscape.\u201d Complaint \u00b6 180. Given that Microsoft retains the ability to enforce\n\n 10 the compute exclusivity agreement challenged in this lawsuit to plaintiffs\u2019 alleged detriment,\n\n 11 plaintiffs adequately plead an entitlement to injunctive relief under the UCL.\n\n 12 Accordingly, Microsoft\u2019s motion to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 UCL claim is denied.\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 CONCLUSION\n\n 14 For the reasons stated above, Microsoft\u2019s motion to compel arbitration is denied.\n\n 15 Microsoft\u2019s motion to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 Sherman Act claim is granted without prejudice and with\n\n 16 leave to amend. Microsoft\u2019s motion to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 state law claims is denied. If plaintiffs\n\n 17 seek to amend their complaint, any amendment must be filed within 28 days of the issuance of this\n\n 18 order. Failure to amend their complaint will result in dismissal of plaintiffs\u2019 Sherman Act claim\n\n 19 with prejudice.\n\n 20\n\n 21\n\n 22 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n 23 Dated: September 28, 2026\n\n 24\n\n 25\n P. Casey Pitts\n 26 United States District Judge\n 27\n\n 28\n 14\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-29T06:30:52.882698-07:00","document_number":"69","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027709047","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Compel","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-28T11:01:17.587352-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-28T09:38:58.364576-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-28","time_filed":"10:39:15","entry_number":69,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":283,"description":"ORDER DENYING 20 MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND GRANTING 21 MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART. Signed by Judge P. Casey Pitts on 9/28/2026. Amended Complaint due by 10/26/2026. (nmc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474805694/","id":474805694,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490317208/","id":490317208,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/68/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-17T17:01:25.780751-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T06:30:46.536574-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"68","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027520779","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T17:01:25.742981-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.498555-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-17","time_filed":"16:39:19","entry_number":68,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":280,"description":"CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge P. Casey Pitts on 8/17/2026. Amended Pleadings and Joinder of Parties due by 10/7/2026. Close of Fact Discovery due by 6/25/2027. Opening Reports due by 7/9/2027. Motion for Class Certification due by 7/23/2027. Rebuttal Reports due by 9/7/2027. Close of Expert Discovery due by 10/7/2027. Dispositive Motion due by 1/18/2028. Trial Setting Conference set for 7/11/2028 at 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 8, 4th Floor before Judge P. Casey Pitts. (nmc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2026) (Entered: 08/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473706620/","id":473706620,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489180891/","id":489180891,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/67/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-07T15:05:22.242776-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-07T15:05:22.250208-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"67","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027485131","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Stipulation selecting Private ADR","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-07T15:05:22.216657-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.351616-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-07","time_filed":"14:37:03","entry_number":67,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":276,"description":"ORDER Granting 66 Stipulation Selecting Private ADR. Signed by Judge P. Casey Pitts on 8/7/2026. (nmc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2026) (Entered: 08/07/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473706492/","id":473706492,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489180763/","id":489180763,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-07T15:05:16.196393-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-07T15:05:16.196402-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Case Referred to Private ADR","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-07T15:05:16.185410-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T06:30:46.439882-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-07","time_filed":"14:44:10","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-07.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473577000/","id":473577000,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71631869/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489046100/","id":489046100,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71631869/65/bryant-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-06T18:36:36.129840-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-06T18:36:36.141745-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"65","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027480418","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Statement","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-06T18:36:36.112090-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T13:35:30.272545-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-06","time_filed":"18:16:40","entry_number":65,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":270,"description":"Statement re 60 Case Management Conference - Initial,,,, Terminate Hearings,,, Joint Statement re Case Schedule by Samuel Bryant, Dominique Cavalier, Victoria Donovan, Alice Eidson, Alexander Halloran, Trenton Marsolek, Samir Ouijdani, Zachary Payne, Jake Wolfson, Cara Zajac, Jason Zhang. (Dunne, Brian) (Filed on 8/6/2026) (Entered: 08/06/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=71631869&page_size=40"}