Judge Dismisses Antitrust Claims Against Thomson Reuters in Legal Search Battle

This decision effectively puts an end to ROSS’s counterclaims, although the core copyright infringement claims filed by Thomson Reuters are still unresolved. The lawsuit, which dates back to 2020, centers on TR’s allegations that ROSS unlawfully copied legal materials from its Westlaw platform to train its AI-powered legal research tool. The copyright claims were initially scheduled for trial last month but were delayed, leaving that aspect of the case yet to be determined.

Antitrust Allegations Against Thomson Reuters

ROSS’s original counterclaim focused on accusations that Thomson Reuters had maintained a monopolistic grip over the legal research market by tying its Westlaw search tool to its extensive public law database, a strategy that ROSS argued violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The claim suggested that TR’s control over the legal research industry was achieved through anticompetitive practices, hindering smaller competitors like ROSS from accessing key legal materials without also purchasing TR’s search tools.

In 2022, U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark, who was then presiding over the case, dismissed part of ROSS’s antitrust claims but allowed the “tying” claim to proceed. Tying occurs when a company leverages control over one product to force customers to purchase a second, distinct product. ROSS’s theory was that Thomson Reuters sold its popular Westlaw caselaw database only in combination with its search tools, thus preventing consumers from purchasing the products separately.

However, per LawNex, this was before the evidence had been fully developed during discovery and depositions, leaving many of ROSS’s allegations unproven at that stage.

Judge Bibas Dismisses Tying Claims

Last Friday, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephanos Bibas, who took over the case from Judge Stark, issued a ruling granting TR’s motion for summary judgment on the tying claim. In his decision, Judge Bibas concluded that ROSS failed to provide adequate evidence to support its antitrust accusations.

According to LawNex, Judge Bibas explained that ROSS was unable to prove that the Westlaw caselaw database and the search tools were truly separate products or that there was a demand from consumers to purchase them separately. ROSS also failed to demonstrate that consumers had either bought or expressed interest in buying the products separately, or that TR had used its market power to intimidate them from doing so.

“ROSS claims that Thomson Reuters forces people to buy its Westlaw search tools if they want to use its caselaw database,” Judge Bibas wrote in his ruling. However, without sufficient evidence to show consumer demand or improper use of market power, the court found no grounds to support the allegation of an unlawful tying arrangement.

What’s Next for the Case?

While this ruling settles the antitrust portion of the lawsuit, the case is far from over. The ongoing copyright claims from Thomson Reuters against ROSS remain unresolved and are expected to play a crucial role in shaping the outcome of this high-stakes legal battle. According to LawNex, these claims center on the allegation that ROSS unlawfully used TR’s legal materials to develop and train its own AI-driven legal research platform, a dispute that has wide implications for the future of legal tech innovation.

Source: LawNex