GoKawiilIn this article OPENAI.FG
META Follow your favorite stocks CREATE FREE ACCOUNT
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, district judge of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, attends a panel discussion at the annual American Bar Association (ABA) Antitrust Spring Meeting in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2025. Drew Angerer | Afp | Getty Images
It's been a crazy four months for Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The judge in the Northern District of California spent late April and much of May in her downtown Oakland courtroom, overseeing the high-profile battle between Elon Musk and Sam Altman. Now, the 61-year-old Gonzalez Rogers is gearing up for week two of a trial that could go a long way in determining the fate of Meta's advertising business, as California Attorney General Rob Bonta leads a coalition of state AGs in litigating what's being hailed as social media's "Big Tobacco moment." In between the two trials, Gonzalez Rogers was named chief judge of the court, 15 years after being nominated to serve there by then-President Barack Obama. She replaced Judge Richard Seeborg, who held the role for five years, and takes over at a time when tech companies are bigger and more powerful than ever and artificial intelligence is driving more high-stakes fights into the courtroom. The district includes San Francisco, where OpenAI is headquartered, as well as all of Silicon Valley, home to Meta and most of its technology peers. For Gonzalez Rogers, the job is the capstone of a 35-year legal career in California, where she began in private practice before being appointed to the Alameda County Superior Court in 2008 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Known to many as YGR, Gonzalez Rogers has developed a reputation for her no-nonsense attitude. "I would describe her as a pistol," said Steve Berman, a managing partner at Hagens Berman who served as co-lead counsel against Big Tobacco in the 1990s and has litigated against Apple before Gonzalez Rogers in several cases. "If lawyers give her bulls---, she just goes after them."
watch now
A native of Houston, Gonzalez Rogers did her undergraduate work at Princeton and received her law degree from the University of Texas. She then joined law firm Cooley in 1991, becoming the firm's first Latina associate. During her time as a state judge, she caught the attention of then-Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat. Feinstein, who died in 2023, later recommended Gonzalez Rogers' nomination to the federal bench to President Obama.
History with Apple
Before the recent cases involving Meta and Musk, Gonzalez Rogers was well known by those who follow Apple. In 2012, she inherited Pepper v. Apple, an early antitrust challenge to the App Store. IPhone owners alleged Apple forced them to buy apps through its store alone, allowing the company to charge a 30% commission and push prices higher. Gonzalez Rogers initially dismissed the case, though the Supreme Court later took it up and ruled that consumers could sue the company. Around the same time, Gonzalez Rogers oversaw an antitrust case, involving allegations that Apple unfairly blocked users from playing music from sources other than iTunes and shut out competitors. Apple was victorious. But her most notable Apple trial took place five years ago, in a case against Epic Games. In 2020, Epic activated its own payment option inside Fortnite, bypassing Apple's payment system and its 30% commission. Epic sued Apple after the iPhone maker removed Fortnite from the App Store, accusing the company of illegally controlling the way apps were distributed and payments were processed on iPhones. After a three-week bench trial in 2021, Gonzalez Rogers largely sided with Apple, finding that Epic had failed to prove Apple was an illegal monopolist. She also determined that Apple's "anti-steering" rules violated California competition law and ordered the company to allow developers to direct users to outside payment options.
watch now
But that wasn't the end of it. Last year, Gonzalez Rogers said Apple willfully violated the injunction, writing in a court filing that the company's vice president of finance "outright lied" to the court about when the company had decided to levy a 27% fee on some purchases linked to its App Store. "Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies," Rogers wrote, saying that she considers Apple to "to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court." Rogers referred the matter to U.S. attorneys to investigate whether to pursue criminal contempt proceedings, though a prosecution never emerged.
... continue reading