Law360 (November 20, 2025, 2:34 PM EST) -- Unlockd Media has become at least the second Google antitrust foe to seek the recusal of U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. over his close relationship with Google's vice president for litigation and discovery.

The now-defunct advertising app maker said Wednesday that the judge failed to disclose a longstanding friendship with the litigation VP, Cassandra Knight.

The friendship was documented in July in a Stanford Law School article, which noted that Judge Gilliam, of the Northern District of California, officiated at Knight's wedding in 2021 and that Knight spoke at Judge Gilliam's investiture ceremony about a decade ago.

These same revelations recently prompted video-sharing site Rumble to request Judge Gilliam's recusal in its antitrust suit against Google. Rumble's counsel reportedly learned about his connection to Knight in October.

" In addition to the same appearance-of-impropriety concerns raised in Rumble, Unlockd submits that this court's nondisclosure is particularly significant here because it continued presiding over this case — including through the entry of summary judgment in Google's favor — despite issuing recusal orders in other Google-related matters after Knight's arrival at Google," Unlockd said. "Unlockd and its counsel were unaware of this relationship until after the Rumble filing, and have moved without undue delay upon learning of the conflict."

Unlockd filed its lawsuit against Google in 2021. The company has alleged that Google's decision to ban it from the Google Play Store and AdMob, Google's advertising subsidiary, "was the direct cause of Unlockd's demise."

"Ultimately, Google succeeded in eliminating Unlockd as a competitor," it said in an amended complaint. "With existing partners backing out, new partners unwilling to commit and investors reluctant to supply more capital — all due to Google's actions — Unlockd was forced to file for bankruptcy and cease operations."

Judge Gilliam granted Google's request to dismiss the case earlier this year, saying in a February opinion that Unlockd "has offered no factual support from which the court could assume that harm to plaintiff is somehow tantamount to harm to this entire [digital advertising] market."

"Plaintiff's theory is also further undermined by its acknowledgment that similar products do continue to exist in the digital advertising market," he added.

Unlockd is appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit.

Counsel for the parties in this case did not immediately respond to Law360's request for comment Thursday.

Unlockd is represented by Allan B. Diamond, Justin B. Strother and Damion Robinson of Diamond McCarthy LLP, and by Nicholas A. Gravante, Jr., Philip J. Iovieno and Jack G. Stern of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP.

Google is represented by Michael Graham Rhodes, Alexander J. Kasner, Ashley K Corkery, Beatriz Mejia, Deepti Bansal and John C. Dwyer of Cooley LLP.

The case is Unlockd Media Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC et al., case number 4:21-cv-07250, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

–Additional reporting by Emily Sawicki. Editing by Karin Roberts.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.