`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:1
`
`
`Richard D. McCune (State Bar No. 132124)
`rdm@mccunewright.com
`David C. Wright (State Bar No. 177468)
`dcw@mccunewright.com
`MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
`3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
`Ontario, California 91761
`Telephone: (909) 557-1250
`Facsimile:
`(909) 557 1275
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Henk Meyers
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`HENK MEYERS, Individually and on
`Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`ALPHABET, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., and
`GOOGLE ARIZONA LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1) Violation of California’s Unfair
` Competition Law
`2) Breach of Contract
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Henk Meyers (“Plaintiff”) brings this lawsuit on behalf of himself
`1.
`and all others similarly situated against Alphabet, Inc., Google, LLC, Google Payment
`Corp. (“GPC”), and Google Arizona LLC (“GAZ”) (collectively, “Google” or
`“Defendants”). Plaintiff brings this action because Google refuses to redeem Google Play
`gift cards in accordance with California law. Plaintiff seeks restitution, declaratory, and
`injunctive relief on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. All allegations
`herein are based upon information and belief except those allegations pertaining to
`Plaintiff or counsel. Allegations pertaining to Plaintiff or counsel are based upon, inter
`alia, Plaintiff or counsel’s personal knowledge, as well as Plaintiff or counsel’s own
`investigation. Furthermore, each allegation alleged herein either has evidentiary support
`or is likely to have evidentiary support, after a reasonable opportunity for additional
`investigation or discovery.
`Google Play is Google’s software application (a/k/a “app”) store, which
`2.
`allows users to download applications, electronic books, music, and the like to their
`mobile and computer devices. Google markets Google Play gift cards, which are
`redeemable towards one’s Google Play balance. Google markets these gift cards as “easy
`to redeem[,]” “never [e]xpire[,]” and can be used to “easily manage” spending on Google
`Play content.
`However, for many users, Google’s assurances that its gift cards are easy to
`3.
`use rings hollow. This is because contrary to the Company’s marketing, Google has
`erected barriers which can make card redemption difficult or even impossible.
`Specifically, in certain instances, when a cardholder attempts to redeem their
`4.
`card, instead of easily being able to utilize the card’s value to make a purchase, they are
`instead directed to fill out a form requesting detailed information about when and where
`the gift card was purchased, and required to supply receipts documenting that purchase.
`By requiring some Google Play card holders to complete a form and provide receipts,
`Defendants make redemption of such cards impossible. This is especially true when the
`1
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`gift card was used as it is intended to be, as a gift. In such instances the recipient would
`have no way of knowing the details of the card’s purchase. Moreover, even when gift
`card holders are able to overcome the obstacles presented by the form and supply all of the
`requested information, Google sometimes still refuses to redeem or provide refunds for
`gift cards.
`It appears that Google’s refusal to honor certain Google Play gift cards
`5.
`occurs because of an algorithm that Google uses to detect suspicious gift card activity and
`redemptions which snares bona fide Google Play gift card purchasers and holders in its
`wide net,1 effectively invalidating otherwise valid gift cards. Plaintiff’s experience is
`instructive: Plaintiff attempted to redeem lawfully purchased gift cards but instead of
`immediately being able to use the card’s value, he was instead met with a questionnaire
`and demands for documentary evidence concerning his purchase. Then, even after
`complying with Google’s requests, Plaintiff was refused redemption of the gift cards,
`leaving him with nothing except worthless plastic cards. Google’s arbitrary barriers to
`redemption likely dissuaded many gift card holders from redeeming their cards, either
`because they lacked the information requested or found it too burdensome, and many of
`those that did comply with Google’s demands, like Plaintiff, were still refused redemption
`of such cards, as evidenced by similar complaints lodged by other consumers. As a result
`of its practices, Google was able to pocket the funds spent on Google Play gift cards that
`should have been redeemable by these card holders.
`Google’s conduct runs afoul of California’s law governing the redemption
`6.
`and expiration of gift cards. Under California’s Gift Card Law, a gift card issuer like
`Google must ensure that its gift cards are “redeemable in cash for its value, or subject to
`replacement with a new gift [card] at no cost to the purchaser or holder.” Cal. Civ. Code §
`1749.5(b). Additionally, the statute makes it unlawful to sell a gift card with an expiration
`
`
`1 As used herein, “purchaser” refers to consumers who purchased Google Play gift cards
`themselves. “Holders” refers generally to those who were the recipients of these gift cards
`and subsequently possessed these gift cards.
`2
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`date and that gift cards “are valid until redeemed or replaced.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.5(c).
`By barring redemption of these otherwise valid gift cards, Google has violated
`California’s Gift Card Law. In turn, this violation is actionable as a standalone cause of
`action under the unlawful and unfair prongs of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Bus.
`& Prof. Code § 17200 (the “UCL”).
`Additionally, Google’s terms and conditions governing these gift cards
`7.
`incorporate California’s Gift Card Law requiring redemption of these cards.
`Consequently, Defendants’ violation of California’s Gift Card Law also serves as a
`material breach of contract.
`On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff thus seeks
`8.
`restitution of the value of his Google Play gift cards within the statute of limitations period
`and a public injunction to enjoin Defendants from harming the general public by requiring
`Google to refund or redeem Google Play gift cards for valid and bona fide gift card
`holders and purchasers.
`PARTIES
`II.
`Plaintiff Henk Meyers is a resident of California. Plaintiff purchased the
`9.
`following Google Play gift cards: (1) a $50 gift card on October 26, 2020; and (2) a $10
`gift card on November 10, 2020.
`10. Defendant Alphabet, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its
`principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Alphabet, Inc. is the parent
`company of Google, LLC and several Google subsidiaries, and trades on NASDAQ under
`the ticker symbol “GOOGL.”
`11. Defendant Google, LLC is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its
`principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Google, LLC is a subsidiary of
`Alphabet, Inc., and, inter alia, markets and sells digital media such as music, magazines,
`books, movies and television programs in its online store, Google Play.
`12. Defendant GPC is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal place
`of business in Mountain View, California. GPC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google
`3
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:5
`
`and maintains consumers’ redeemed Google Play gift cards through GPC’s Google Play
`balance. GPC maintains the Google Play balances of users, including the balance
`attributable to redeemed Google Play gift cards.
`13. Defendant GAZ is incorporated in Arizona and maintains its principal place
`of business in Delaware. GAZ issues the Google Play gift cards.
`14. There exists, and at all times herein mentioned existed, a unity of interest and
`ownership between the named Defendants such that any corporate individuality and
`separateness between the named defendants has ceased, and that the named defendants are
`alter egos in that they effectively operate as a single enterprise, or are mere
`instrumentalities of one another.
`15. At all material times herein, each defendant was the agent, servant, co-
`conspirator, and/or employer of each of the remaining defendants; acted within the
`purpose, scope, and course of said agency, service, conspiracy, and/or employment and
`with the express and/or implied knowledge, permission, and consent of the remaining
`defendants; and ratified and approved the acts of the other defendants. However, each of
`these allegations are deemed alternative theories whenever not doing so would result in a
`contradiction with the other allegations.
`16. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act, deed, or conduct of
`a defendant, the allegation means that the defendant engaged in the act, deed, or conduct
`by or through one or more of its officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives
`who was actively engaged in the management, direction, control, or transaction of
`defendant’s ordinary business and affairs.
`17. As to the conduct alleged herein, each act was authorized, ratified, or directed
`by Defendants’ officers, directors, or managing agents.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`III.
`18. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2). The
`matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value of
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`$5,000,000 and is a class action in which at least one Class Member is a citizen of a state
`different from the citizenship of Defendants.
`19. Venue is proper in this District because Defendants transact business;
`Plaintiff and similarly situated persons entered contracts with Defendants; and Defendants
`executed their unlawful policies and practices, which are the subject of this action, in this
`District.
`IV. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`A. California’s Gift Card Law
`20. Recognizing that companies were amassing large windfalls while consumers
`were left with valueless expired gift cards, California passed the Gift Card Law in 1996 to
`ensure that companies did not unfairly profit from gift cards at consumers’ expense.
`21. Specifically, when passing the Gift Card Law and its various amendments,
`the California Legislature recognized that “gift certificates ought to retain all the
`characteristics of cash itself and remain valid in perpetuity, assuming the continued
`existence in business of the retailer who issued the gift certificate” California Bill
`Analysis, A.B. 2466 Sen., 7/16/1996. “[E]xpired gift certificates dash the expectation of
`gift-givers and constitute an unfair windfall to retailers.” California Bill Analysis, A.B.
`2466 Sen., 6/11/1996. Indeed, “[t]he retailer has already received payment for the value
`of the certificate.” Id. And this windfall from consumers is significant: “$8.2 billion of
`value left on gift cards was not spent by consumers in 2006 alone.” California Bill
`Analysis, S.B. 250 Assem., 6/26/2007.
`22. Consequently, the Gift Card Law provides, “A gift certificate[,]” i.e., gift
`card, Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.45(a), “sold without an expiration date is valid until redeemed
`or replaced.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.5(c). The statute also makes clear that redemption
`must be “in cash for [the card’s] cash value,” or that the card be subject to replacement
`with a new gift certificate at no cost to the purchaser or holder. Cal. Civ. Code §
`1749.5(b). Related to this provision, it is unlawful to “sell a gift certificate to a purchaser
`that contains . . . [a]n expiration date.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.5(a)(1). Moreover, “[a]ny
`5
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`waiver of the provisions of this title is contrary to public policy, and is void and
`unenforceable.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.51.
`B. Defendants’ Gift Card Practices
`23. Google Play is an electronic application (or “app”) store that markets games,
`music, magazines, books, movies, and television programs. To purchase content on
`Google Play, Google Play gift card holders are required to have a Google Pay account.
`The Google Pay account is a mobile payment system developed by Google that allows
`users to store forms of payment such as credit cards, debit cards and gift cards. Google
`Play is lucrative for Defendants, generating approximately $17.3 billion in the first half of
`2020 alone. SensorTower, Global App Revenue Reached $50 Billion in the First Half of
`2020, Up 23% Year-Over-Year, https://sensortower.com/blog/app-revenue-and-
`downloads-1h-2020 (June 30, 2020).
`24. As part of the Google Play service, Google sells and markets gift cards to
`users in over 875,000 retail locations. Google Play, How Google Play Works: 2019
`Google Play Public Policy Report (2019).2 Google Play gift cards can only be used to
`purchase items on Google Play only. Google touts that these gift cards are “easy to
`redeem” and “never [e]xpire[.]” Google Play, One gift. Endless ways to play.,
`https://play.google.com/intl/en_us/about/giftcards/ (last visited Jan. 21, 2021). Google
`also touts that its gift cards allow Google Play users to “easily manage” their spending on
`Google Play content. Id. Indeed, many users buy gift cards for themselves, especially
`millennial consumers, for that exact reason. See Yahoo! Finance, Here’s Why Millennials
`Are Buying Gift Cards for Themselves, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-why-
`millennials-buying-gift-113000203.html (Sept. 2, 2016) (“Young adults continue to lead
`this mobile revolution and growing use of prepaid cards as a money management tool.”).
`
`
`
`2 Available at
`https://kstatic.googleusercontent.com/files/de5640816a4d4099f246b64864c038fee1eac9a
`9e944b3f31e993e9a315d9f49aa813f27b92be0fe1070f52975476b8fa15529cc2ec314bebc
`de73f91331f77e.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 8 of 20 Page ID #:8
`
`25. Google Play gift cards direct holders and purchasers to the following
`webpage for its terms and conditions: play.google.com/us-card-terms. Under the terms
`and conditions of the Google Play gift cards, the gift cards have no “expiration dates” and
`can only be redeemed with Google Play. Google Play, Google Pay Gift Card® And
`Prepaid Play Balance Terms Of Service (May 1, 2019). Moreover, “except as required by
`law[,]” the gift cards are not redeemable for cash. The terms and conditions explicitly
`state that “the laws of the State of California apply, without regard to principles of conflict
`of laws, and that such laws will govern these Gift Card and Credit terms and conditions.”
`These provisions expressly incorporate by reference California law which requires that
`gift cards be redeemable in cash or subject to replacement with an equivalent card.
`C. By Employing An Algorithm That Invalidates Valid Gift Cards,
`Defendants Have Violated California’s Gift Card Law
`
`26. On information and belief, Google employs an algorithm that flags certain
`gift cards redemptions, requiring the card holder to fill out the form depicted below for
`more information:
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 9 of 20 Page ID #:9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`As depicted above, this form seeks a plethora of information including where the gift
`cards were purchased as well as images of the gift card and receipts for their purchase.
`This form and demand for documentary evidence is a far cry from the “easy” redemption
`process promised by Google. Rather, these additional hurdles make it much more difficult
`for the gift card to be redeemed. If the card were received as a gift, as is the ostensible
`purpose of the card, the typical holder would not have access to the information needed to
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 10 of 20 Page ID #:10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`fill out the form. In such cases, faced with a burdensome questionnaire and
`documentation demands, card holders may abandon the effort to use the card.
`27. Moreover, many cardholders who complied with Google’s demands to
`produce receipts and other documentary evidence, were still denied the ability to redeem
`their gift cards. For example, even after completing the attached form and supplying
`Google with his receipts, Plaintiff received the following message, “Thank you for your
`patience while we reviewed your account. We have noticed some inconsistencies with
`your account and the information you provided us; because of this we are unable to help
`you redeem these gift cards.”
`28. Likewise, other card holders who filled out the form suffered a similar fate,
`either receiving a similar denial message or no explanation for Google’s refusal to redeem
`the cards at all. See, e.g., Support.google.com,
`https://support.google.com/googleplay/thread/13484237?hl=en (last visited Jan. 19, 2021);
`Support.google.com, https://support.google.com/googleplay/thread/12417031?hl=en (last
`visited Feb. 9, 2021) (single thread listing hundreds of posts regarding redemption issue).
`Users complained, for example:
`• “Spent $110 on a google play gift card at a grocery store and the play store is
`asking for more info to redeem my gift card. I filled out a form, talked to
`‘support’ who tells me ‘an investigation team has to look into it’. I filled out
`the form 2 days 16 hours ago and not one response from anyone. This is not
`how I should be treated.”
`• “24 hours later after submitting images of my gift card and paid receipt to
`Google I still can't redeem the value of the card. This is unacceptable.”
`• “Same situation with a gift card from my girlfriend, by the sounds of it, I
`should just ask her to return it and ask for a refund.”
`• “Message says it needs more info in order to redeem gift card. I did all the
`steps required and it's been 3 days and still no response.”
`See also Support.google.com,
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 11 of 20 Page ID #:11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`https://support.google.com/googleplay/thread/9345224?hl=en (last visited Feb. 9, 2021)
`(“I have recently purchased 6 google play cards totaling 350.00$. none of them worked. I
`was told it was a security issue and they were investigating. I submitted receipts, photos
`of the cards and my id 5 days ago[.] They still can[,]t tell me what the problem is or when
`they will LET me spend MY money.”); Support.google.com,
`https://support.google.com/googleplay/thread/63513792?hl=en (last visited Feb. 9, 2021)
`(“Bought card says invalid and contacted Google about it only to get told that ‘my account
`has inconsistencies and they can't help me.’ The store won’t take it back. I’m not happy.
`Basically, wasted a bunch of money for nothing and Google will not help fix the issue.”).
`29. By refusing to allow redemption of the inappropriately flagged cards, Google
`ensured that the cards were worthless. In Plaintiff’s case, after he was refused redemption
`of his gift cards, he contacted Google to ask if he could get his gift cards refunded. A
`Google representative denied his request. Ultimately, this left Plaintiff and other bona
`fide purchasers and holders with defunct cards while Google unjustifiably retains the
`money spent on these gift cards.
`30. The failure to redeem or refund gift cards to bona fide gift card purchasers
`and holders runs counter to California’s Gift Card Law which requires all cards without
`expiration dates—e.g., Google Play gift cards—to be “valid until redeemed or replaced.”
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.5(c). Additionally, by failing to redeem, refund, or replace gift
`cards to Plaintiff and the Class, Defendants have also violated the provision of
`California’s Gift Card Law requiring all gift cards sold after January 1, 1997 to be
`“redeemable in cash for its cash value” or “subject to replacement with a new gift [card]
`at no cost to the purchaser or holder.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.5(b).
`V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`31. The preceding allegations are incorporated by reference and re-alleged as if
`fully set forth herein.
`32. Plaintiff brings this case, and each of the respective causes of action, as a
`class action.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 12 of 20 Page ID #:12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`33. The “Class” is composed of one of the following:
`All bona fide Google Play gift card purchasers and holders who were
`required to submit extraneous data to redeem a GooglePlay gift card,
`including users who were denied redemption of the gift cards.
`34. Excluded from the Class are: 1) any entity in which Defendants have a
`controlling interest; 2) officers or directors of Defendants; 3) this Court and any of its
`employees assigned to work on the case; and 4) all employees of the law firms
`representing Plaintiff and the Class Members.
`35. This action has been brought and may be properly maintained on behalf of
`each member of the Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
`36. Numerosity – The members of the Class (“Class Members”) are so
`numerous that joinder of all Class Members would be impracticable. While the exact
`number of Class Members is presently unknown to Plaintiff, and can only be determined
`through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes based on the plethora of online
`complaints that the Class is numerous.
`37. Upon information and belief, Defendants have databases, and/or other
`documentation, of consumers’ redemption attempts. These databases and/or documents
`can be analyzed by an expert to ascertain which of Defendants’ gift card holders and
`purchasers have been harmed by Defendants’ practices and thus qualify as a Class
`Member. Further, the Class definitions identify groups of unnamed plaintiffs by
`describing a set of common characteristics sufficient to allow a member of that group to
`identify himself or herself as having a right to recover. Other than by direct notice
`through mail or email, alternative proper and sufficient notice of this action may be
`provided to the Class Members through notice published in newspapers or other
`publications.
`38. Commonality – This action involves common questions of law and fact.
`The questions of law and fact common to both Plaintiff and the Class Members include,
`but are not limited to, the following:
`• Whether Defendants’ required gift card holders to submit additional information
`11
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 13 of 20 Page ID #:13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`to redeem gift cards which created a significant obstacle to redemption of the
`cards that were supposed to be easily redeemable;
`• Whether Defendants denied Plaintiff and other Class Members an opportunity to
`redeem their gift cards;
`• Whether Google employed an algorithm that flagged bona fide gift card
`purchasers and holders as suspicious;
`• Whether, in doing so, Defendants violated California’s Gift Card Law and,
`consequently, the UCL;
`• Whether Defendants breached the terms and conditions by refusing to redeem
`gift cards as required by California Law; and
`• Whether Defendants continue to violate the UCL by refusing to redeem, refund,
`or replace gift cards held by bona fide consumers.
`39. Typicality – Plaintiff’s claims are typical of all Class Members. The
`evidence and the legal theories regarding Defendants’ alleged wrongful conduct
`committed against Plaintiff and all of the Class Members are substantially the same
`because the algorithm used by the Defendants affects all of the Class Members. Further,
`Plaintiff and the Class Members have each been denied redemption of their gift cards.
`Accordingly, in pursuing his own self-interest in litigating his claims, Plaintiff will also
`serve the interests of the other Class Members.
`40. Adequacy – Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
`Class Members. Plaintiff has retained competent counsel experienced in class action
`litigation, and specifically consumer class action cases to ensure such protection. There
`are no material conflicts between the claims of the representative Plaintiff and the
`members of the Class that would make class certification inappropriate. Plaintiff and his
`counsel intend to prosecute this action vigorously.
`41. Predominance and Superiority – The matter is properly maintained as a
`class action because the common questions of law or fact identified herein and to be
`identified through discovery predominate over questions that may affect only individual
`12
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 14 of 20 Page ID #:14
`
`Class Members. Further, the class action is superior to all other available methods for the
`fair and efficient adjudication of this matter. Because the injuries suffered by the
`individual Class Members are relatively small compared to the cost of the litigation, the
`expense and burden of individual litigation would make it virtually impossible for
`Plaintiff and Class Members to individually seek redress for Defendants’ wrongful
`conduct. Even if any individual person or group(s) of Class Members could afford
`individual litigation, it would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which the individual
`litigation would proceed. The class action device is preferable to individual litigation
`because it provides the benefits of unitary adjudication, economies of scale, and
`comprehensive adjudication by a single court. In contrast, the prosecution of separate
`actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying
`adjudications with respect to individual Class Members that would establish incompatible
`standards of conduct for the party (or parties) opposing the Class and would lead to
`repetitious trials of the numerous common questions of fact and law. Plaintiff knows of
`no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this litigation that would
`preclude its maintenance as a class action. As a result, a class action is superior to other
`available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Absent a
`class action, Plaintiff and the Class Members will continue to suffer losses, thereby
`allowing Defendants’ violations of law to proceed without remedy and allowing
`Defendants to retain the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains.
`42. Plaintiff does not believe that any other Class Members’ interests in
`individually controlling a separate action are significant, in that Plaintiff has demonstrated
`above that his claims are typical of the other Class Members and that he will adequately
`represent the Class. This particular forum is desirable for this litigation because the
`claims arose from activities that occurred largely therein. Plaintiff does not foresee
`significant difficulties in managing the class action in that the major issues in dispute are
`susceptible to class proof.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 15 of 20 Page ID #:15
`
`43. Plaintiff anticipates the issuance of notice, setting forth the subject and nature
`of the instant action, to the proposed Class Members. Upon information and belief,
`Defendants’ own business records and/or electronic media can be utilized for the
`contemplated notices. To the extent that any further notices may be required, Plaintiff
`anticipates using additional media and/or mailings.
`44. This matter is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
`P. 23 in that without class certification and determination of declaratory, injunctive,
`statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution of separate actions
`by individual members of the Class will create the risk of:
`• inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the
`Class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties
`opposing the Class; or
`• adjudication with respect to individual members of the Class would, as a
`practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties
`to the adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their
`interests.
`45. Common questions of law and fact exist as to the members of the Class and
`predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is
`superior to other available methods of the fair and efficient adjudication of the
`controversy, including consideration of:
`• the interests of the members of the Class in individually controlling the
`prosecution or defense of separate actions;
`• the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already
`commenced by or against members of the Class;
`• the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in
`the particular forum; and the difficulties likely to be encountered in the
`management of a class action.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.: 2:21-CV-01767
`
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01767 Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 16 of 20 Page ID #:16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Violation of the UCL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Against All Defendants)
`46. The preceding allegations are incorporated by reference and re-alleged as if
`fully set forth herein.
`47. Defendants’ conduct described herein violates California’s UCL, Bus. &
`Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. The UCL prohibits and provides civil remedies for unlawful
`and unfair competition. Its purpose is to protect both consumers and competitors by
`promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services. In service of
`that purpose, the Legislature framed the UCL’s substantive provisions in broad, sweeping
`language. By defining unfair competition to include any “any unlawful, unfair or
`fraudulent business act or practice,” the UCL permits claims under