-
Washington Court Dismisses Antitrust Claims Against Cloud Computing Company
01/13/2026On December 22, 2025, U.S. District Judge Tana Lin of the Western District of Washington dismissed, without prejudice, antitrust claims brought by plaintiff against a cloud computing company (the “Company”). Plaintiff alleged that the Company’s exclusionary practices prevented plaintiff from providing network optimization services to Company-hosted websites, leading to the failure of its business. In ruling on the Company’s motion to dismiss, the Court held that plaintiff’s allegations failed to establish a relevant product market for low-latency network optimization or that the Company stood a “dangerous probability” of monopolizing the cloud computing market.
Prior to 2022, plaintiff was a provider of network optimization services. Leveraging its network of internet exchange points, plaintiff could allegedly offer customers, website operators, services to support high-volume internet traffic in geographic regions around the world to improve latency (i.e., reduce the lag time between a user’s request and the platform’s response) as well as real-time protection against platform attacks, such as denial-of-service (“DDoS”) attacks that slow or disrupt customers’ web services. Defendant is the world’s largest cloud computing and hosting services company, holding 40% of the global cloud computing market in 2022. Website operators contract with the Company (or another cloud computing service) to host their website content and make it available to users. To enable user access, a customer’s data traffic must be transmitted via the Company’s network using an internet exchange network or the Company’s proprietary product, “Direct Connect.” Prior to 2022, the Company’s customers opting to use an internet exchange network had the option to use the Company’s public internet exchange points, or use those of a third party, like plaintiff, provided that the third party met the Company’s technical guidelines.
Plaintiff’s largest customer was Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic”), which created and operates the massive online multiplayer video game Fortnite on the Company’s cloud platform. In 2019, Epic and plaintiff entered into a Platform Access Agreement under which plaintiff would provide access to its internet exchange network and network optimization services to support Epic’s high-volume user traffic in certain territories. Thereafter, Epic sought to expand its reliance on plaintiff’s exchanges in other regions, including Europe. But the Company allegedly delayed and ultimately declined to permit additional network connectivity consistent with Epic’s request, and instead steered Epic toward the Company’s proprietary Direct Connect product. Over the next two years, plaintiff alleges that the Company shut out its competing optimization services by refusing to allow customers hosted on the Company’s cloud platform to use plaintiff’s exchange network. As a consequence of this refusal, plaintiff allegedly claims it lost its Epic contract and was forced to dissolve. The Second Amended Complaint pleads six causes of action, including attempted monopolization of the cloud computing market, monopolization and attempted monopolization of the market for low-latency network optimization services, state law monopolization theories, and state law tortious interference.
Judge Lin dismissed each of plaintiff’s antitrust counts premised on a “market for low-latency network optimization services on [the Company],” concluding that plaintiff failed to satisfy the Ninth Circuit’s test under Epic v. Apple to establish a single-brand aftermarket. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th 946, 975 (9th Cir. 2023). Recognizing that “a single-brand aftermarket derivative of defendant’s network,” may be a relevant market, to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead that: “(1) the challenged aftermarket restrictions are ‘not generally known’ when consumers make their foremarket purchase; (2) ‘significant’ information costs prevent accurate life-cycle pricing; (3) ‘significant’ monetary or non-monetary switching costs exist; and (4) general market-definition principles regarding cross-elasticity of demand do not undermine the proposed single-brand market.” While the Court found that plaintiff adequately alleged switching costs, plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege the first, second, and fourth elements. Absent allegations supporting a relevant market, Judge Lin dismissed these counts with leave to amend.
With respect to plaintiff’s claims of exclusionary practices in the cloud computing market, the Court agreed with plaintiff that the Company’s refusal to grant plaintiff continued access to interconnection services was sufficient to allege a refusal to deal in this market under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Aspen Skiing. Nonetheless, the Court dismissed this count for failure to allege specific intent to monopolize and a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power. Instead, the Court found that plaintiff merely alleged a general intent to monopolize. Moreover, the Court found that the Company’s purported 40% market share fell short of the necessary threshold to show the Company had a dangerous probability of success, given plaintiff’s failure to adequately allege that the Company’s existing rivals would be unable to expand output in response to an attempt by the Company to monopolize the cloud computing market. The Court concluded that plaintiff’s tortious interference claims were adequately pleaded and may proceed and granted leave to amend the remaining claims by January 21, 2026.
