Insights
Publications

How Antitrust and Unfair Competition Laws Affect Platform Providers’ Relationships With ISVs, API Developers, and Scrapers

July 13, 2020 Articles
Legaltech News

A wide variety of business and consumer platforms host mutually beneficial ecosystems. But these ecosystems are also fraught with antitrust risk that arises when platforms try to terminate or modify the terms of third-party platform access.

Virtually all of today’s large software platforms are open ecosystems that allow third parties to build applications to improve the base platform under a variety of models. For example, “independent software vendor” (ISV) or application programming interface (API) access contracts govern how third-party developers may interact with technology platforms. “Scrapers” also access platform information without any contract to develop analytics products. Adding to the complexity, platforms may be on both sides of these relationships, acting as ISVs to integrate their products with other platforms, or scraping competitor data to develop new products.

A wide variety of platforms host these mutually beneficial ecosystems, from business-oriented platforms such as Salesforce to consumer-facing products such as Instagram. But these ecosystems are also fraught with antitrust risk that arises when platforms try to terminate or modify the terms of third-party platform access, especially when a change in access is accompanied by the platform offering a competing product.

ISV agreements are typically term limited, API agreements usually allow platforms to terminate access without cause, and scrapers access platforms without platform permission. So it may seem counterintuitive that antitrust law can intrude on a platform’s decision to change an ISV contract’s terms, terminate an API access agreement, or block a scraper (usually by threatening a CFAA violation). It’s commonly accepted that parties have “no duty to deal,” and platforms may believe they don’t have high enough market share to be a monopolist. For example, see Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, which restates the “no duty to deal” norm, and United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., setting the floor for antitrust liability at 65% market share or more.

In our experience representing parties on both sides of these disputes, however, companies facing loss of platform access rely on two antitrust doctrines to circumvent the “no duty to deal” and market power rules: the “essential facilities” doctrine originated by United States v. Terminal R.R. Ass’n and lock-in theories based on Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc. Parties also frequently assert claims under California’s broad Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), under which conduct may be “unfair” if it merely “violates the policy or spirit” of antitrust law, such as in Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co.

The widely accepted test (MCI Commc’ns Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.) for an essential facilities claim requires “(1) control of the essential facility by a monopolist,” (2) a competitor’s inability “to duplicate” the essential facility, (3) denial of access to the facility, and (4) the “feasibility of providing the facility.”

A platform shutoff claim could easily arise under this theory. For example, it’s fairly common for platforms to support several ISV or API developer apps that all offer similar services, and for the platform to eventually acquire the most successful version of the app. At that point, the platform becomes a direct competitor with the non-acquired ISVs and API developers. If the platform increases costs to the remaining ISVs during contract renewal, or inhibits API access for the other developers, the developers may claim this is a de facto denial of access to the “essential” platform.

Under a lock-in theory, a firm leverages monopoly power in one market to gain power in a related, derivative market. Per Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., these claims typically require (1) “two separate but related markets,” (2) illegal conduct affecting only “the aftermarket,” (3) leveraging the consumer relationship in the first market to achieve power in the aftermarket, and (4) “market imperfections” preventing consumers from realizing that their choice in the first market will constrain their choices in the aftermarket. Platform access claims could arise under this theory if an API developer or scraper believes that a platform’s decision to terminate access is an unlawful attempt to leverage dominance in the primary, platform-related market into aftermarket analytics or other services. Importantly, under a lock-in theory, market share may be irrelevant because plaintiffs can successfully define the market as the defendant itself. Eastman Kodak rejected the argument that “a single brand of a product or service can never be a relevant market.”

Parties are still navigating which bodies of law govern these platform-based relationships, so there are few public cases testing antitrust theories in this new landscape (though there have been many private disputes). But alleged violations of antitrust laws have played a substantial role in the few cases that have been filed, including cases where courts granted TROs blocking platform’s from terminating access. For example, see hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust LitigPeopleBrowsr v. Twitter; and cf. Stackla, Inc. v. Facebook Inc.

Disputes between platforms and ISVs, API developers, and scrapers often involve a variety of legal theories, including interference with contract, promissory estoppel, the CFAA, and more. But antitrust theories often set the tone for these disputes, particularly because the platform is usually much larger and more powerful than the developers and often provides related or directly competing products. Recent cases show that platforms should carefully weigh antitrust risk when deciding whether to modify or terminate access to their platforms.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Breaking up the Patent Monopoly for the Benefit of Batteries

The patent monopoly is at odds with the global need for battery storage technology. As the world mobilizes towards climate change solutions, companies with battery patents will face increasing pressure to share this critical...

Read More
News

Daily Journal Names Farella Lawyers Among Top IP Lawyers in California

Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that partners Jeffrey M. Fisher and James L. Day were named to the 2020 list of “Top Intellectual Property Lawyers” in California by the Daily Journal...

Read More
Publication

Tech Companies Should Strongly Consider Monetizing Their Patent Portfolios During the Economic Downturn

The COVID-19 pandemic and widespread shelter-in-place orders have hit every corner of the country’s economy, including tech companies of all sizes. Many tech companies have traditionally maintained large patent portfolios to enhance company value...

Read More
Publication

Monetizing University Patent Portfolios During the Economic Downturn

Colleges and universities may be leaving money on the table with under-utilized patent portfolios. The time is right, as the law has shifted in favor of patent owners, both in inter partes review litigation...

Read More
Publication

Protecting Your Internal Intellectual Property Investigation: Privilege and Work Product Under California and Federal Law

As California begins preparing to ease shelter-in-place restrictions, the state’s technology industry is facing the most challenging economic circumstances in recent memory. The state’s technology companies may place new demands on in-house intellectual property...

Read More
Publication

Artificial Intelligence Can’t Patent Inventions: So What?

The USPTO’s  recent landmark decision  ( 16/524,350 ) concluding artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be a named patent inventor perhaps sparked fears of super-robots inventing critical technologies that, alas, receive no patent protection. If an...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys, Practices Recognized by Chambers USA 2020

SAN FRANCISCO, April 23, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel announces that Chambers USA has recognized 12 lawyers and five practice areas in the legal directory’s 2020 edition. Individual Rankings: Tyler Gerking – Insurance: Policyholders...

Read More
News

Winston Liaw Selected as 2020 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Pathfinder

Read More
News

Farella Represents Adobe Inc. in Prevailing on Petition to Transfer Patent Case Out of Western District of Texas

SAN FRANCISCO, July 29, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel announces that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has granted its client Adobe Inc.’s writ of mandamus petition seeking to transfer a patent case from...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Named 2020 IP Stars by Managing Intellectual Property - Firm Recommended for Patent Litigation

Farella Braun + Martel’s James L. Day , Jeffrey M. Fisher , Eugene Mar , Stephanie P. Skaff and Roderick M. Thompson have been named IP Stars by Managing Intellectual Property in its 2020...

Read More