Google is contesting Unlockd Media’s motion to disqualify U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. from presiding over an antitrust lawsuit in the Northern District of California. Unlockd’s request is based on Judge Gilliam’s friendship with Cassandra Knight, Google’s Vice President for Litigation and Discovery. Google argues that this relationship does not necessitate recusal, emphasizing that Knight has not participated in the case and that mere friendship between a judge and a lawyer does not require disqualification. ([mlex.com](https://www.mlex.com/articles/2417959/google-opposes-recusal-in-unlockd-s-us-antitrust-case?utm_source=openai))
Unlockd filed its lawsuit in September 2021, alleging that Google’s actions, including banning the company from its app store and AdMob, led to its demise. Judge Gilliam dismissed Unlockd’s case in February 2025, deeming it based on “unsupported conclusions.” ([courthousenews.com](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ad-app-loses-antitrust-suit-against-google.pdf?utm_source=openai))
In a related matter, Rumble, a video-sharing platform, has also sought Judge Gilliam’s recusal in its antitrust case against Google, citing the same relationship with Knight. Google has opposed this motion as well, maintaining that the friendship does not warrant disqualification. ([tradingview.com](https://www.tradingview.com/news/reuters.com%2C2025%3Anewsml_L6N3X00HG%3A0-google-fights-rumble-s-bid-to-disqualify-us-judge-over-lawyer-friendship/?utm_source=openai))
These developments underscore the complexities of judicial impartiality and the scrutiny of personal relationships within high-profile antitrust litigation. The outcomes of these recusal motions could have significant implications for the proceedings and the broader discourse on judicial ethics in cases involving major technology firms.