Case 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`
`
`Joseph M. Vanek (pro hac vice pending)
`jvanek@sperling-law.com
`Bruce Sperling (pro hac vice pending)
`bss@sperling-law.com
`Eamon Kelly (pro hac vice pending)
`ekelly@sperling-law.com
`Timothy Sperling (pro hac vice pending)
`tsperling@sperling-law.com
`SPERLING & SLATER
`55 West Monroe Street
`Suite 3200
`Chicago, IL 60603
`(312) 641-3200
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`Additional counsel on signature page
`
`
`Bonny E. Sweeney (Cal. Bar No. 176174)
`bsweeney@hausfeld.com
`Michael P. Lehmann (Cal. Bar No. 77152)
`mlehmann@hausfeld.com
`Bruce J. Wecker (Cal. Bar No. 78530)
`bwecker@hausfeld.com
`HAUSFELD LLP
`600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 633-1908
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Left Field Holdings, a Florida limited liability
`company, Left Field Holdings II, a Florida limited
`liability company, Left Field Holdings III, a Florida
`limited liability company, Left Field Holdings IV, a
`Florida limited liability company, Left Field
`Holdings V, a Florida limited liability company,
`and Left Field Holdings VI, a Florida limited
`liability company, on behalf of themselves and all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`company.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. __________
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION
`OF THE LANHAM ACT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`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 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Left Field Holdings LLC, Left Field Holdings II LLC, Left Field Holdings III LLC,
`Left Field Holdings IV LLC, Left Field Holdings V LLC, and Left Field Holdings VI LLC (collectively,
`“Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this action against Google
`LLC and allege as follows:
`
`I. NATURE OF ACTION
`Common law, and more recently federal law under the Lanham Act, have long
`1.
`recognized that businesses have a proprietary interest in their tradenames, reputations, and goodwill;
`and further, that businesses may not misrepresent the nature and characteristics of their businesses in
`commercial advertising. If it were any other way, businesses would have little incentive to build a brand
`name because unscrupulous second-comers could immediately steal, and exploit for themselves, the
`good name and reputation of first-movers. This case is about Google’s disregard of these long-standing
`principles, and its attempt to trade-off of the goodwill, reputations, and tradenames of thousands of
`restaurants throughout the United States for its benefit and the restaurants’ detriment.
`Consumers rarely remember a restaurant’s website, phone number, or address. So, when
`2.
`they want to place an order with a restaurant, they usually turn to Google—the world’s leading search
`engine.
`Prior to 2019, when Google received a user’s search for a restaurant, Google responded
`3.
`with a “search engine results page” that displayed three categories of information. These categories
`included: (i) information particular to the restaurant the consumer was then searching for, including the
`restaurant’s website, phone number, and address—which Google displayed on the right-hand side of
`the screen; (ii) a list of “natural” search results, generated from Google’s proprietary “search
`algorithm”—displayed on the left-hand side of the screen; and (iii) 2-3 paid advertisements of
`companies wishing to promote their own websites, brands, and service offerings—which Google
`displayed as “Ads” just above the “natural” search results. Google made money from this activity upon
`a user clicking on an advertisement and visiting the advertiser’s website.
`For much of the last decade, Google generated revenues from restaurant searches in this
`4.
`usual fashion without incident; but in 2019, Google dramatically shifted its tactics, giving rise to this
`complaint.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 3 of 35
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Specifically, in 2019, Google determined it could make even more money from its
`5.
`position as the destination-of-choice for consumers looking up restaurants by directing the user into one
`of two new environments that it dreamed up. The first was a website designed to capture an actual order
`for the restaurant’s food items, which Google then sold to third party food-delivery companies (herein,
`“Delivery Providers”), like Postmates, for fulfillment. In another scenario (when Google did not have
`a relationship with a Delivery Provider willing to accept orders for the restaurant’s food items), Google
`directed the user into yet another webpage it owned and controlled. Within this second page, Google
`presented the user with even more targeted (and profitable) ads than it displayed within its search engine
`results page and did so within a format even more likely to induce a paying click.
`But Google’s newest business models were not, and are not, lawful. First, Google never
`6.
`bothered to obtain permission from the restaurants to sell their products online, and the Delivery
`Providers to whom Google passed orders were not (and are not) permitted, by contract, to license
`Google’s conduct. Second, Google purposefully designed its websites to appear to the user to be offered,
`sponsored, and approved by the restaurant, when they are not—a tactic, no doubt, employed by Google
`to increase orders and clicks. Third, Google lures consumers into its websites (to the exclusion of the
`restaurant’s actual website) through a classically deceptive practice, known as a “bait-and-switch.”
`Specifically, Google added a large “Order Online” button just below the tradename of the restaurant on
`its search engine results page so that consumers searching for the restaurant form the mistaken belief
`that the button will direct them to the restaurant, when that is not what the button delivers. Rather, it
`leads the consumer to Google’s new, unauthorized, and deceptively branded webpages.
`At issue in the case is precisely this sort of deceptive and unfair conduct. In one scenario,
`7.
`Google’s “Order Online” button leads to an unauthorized online storefront—one owned and controlled
`by Google—wherein consumers can place orders for the restaurant’s products, all under the restaurant’s
`tradename. Google prominently features the restaurant’s tradename at the top of the page, above the
`restaurant’s address and menu, to give the user the distinct impression that the storefront and products
`are authorized and sponsored by the restaurant, when they are not. And while it would be easy for
`Google to label its service as “Google’s unauthorized buying service,” Google does not dare do so. It
`knows that its website is more likely to generate orders when cloaked in the imprimatur of the restaurant.
`2
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 4 of 35
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Upon capturing an order from its illicit storefront, Google routes the order, unbeknownst
`8.
`to the restaurant, to a Delivery Provider with whom the restaurant otherwise has a relationship. The
`Delivery Provider sends the order to the restaurant, and charges the restaurant its typical substantial fee,
`just as if the order originated from the Delivery Provider’s own website or mobile application (when it
`did not). And then, of course, Google demands a cut-of-the-action, which the Delivery Provider happily
`pays to Google. But, as mentioned previously, Google never obtained permission from the restaurant
`to sell the restaurant’s products and services, or to use the restaurant’s tradename within its website.
`Google’s conduct damages the restaurant, because, among other reasons, had the restaurant received
`the order directly, it would have avoided the Delivery Provider’s hefty fees altogether.
`In yet another scenario—when Google does not have a Delivery Provider willing to
`9.
`accept its illicit orders—Google’s software causes its “Order Online” button to link into another
`deceptive webpage owned and controlled by Google. This second webpage includes links to competing
`Delivery Providers—such as Doordash, Grubhub, and Postmates—all of whom pay Google a fee upon
`the customer being diverted away from the restaurant and into their websites. But, like the storefront,
`Google deliberately misbrands the webpage so that the user forms the mistaken belief that the webpage
`and services are sponsored and approved by the restaurant, when nothing could be further from the
`truth. The restaurant never approved of Google’s website, nor agreed to sponsor any of the Delivery
`Providers in a dedicated webpage branded as the restaurant. The Delivery Providers, after all, are the
`restaurant’s competitors.
`In either case, Google’s motive is simple: increase orders and clicks by deliberately
`10.
`confusing consumers into entering and interacting with its websites by prominently featuring Plaintiffs’
`and class members’ tradenames next to its button and within its webpages. But, like everyone else,
`Google cannot use the restaurant-class members’ hard-earned tradenames without their approval, much
`less to suggest associations and sponsorships that do not exist; nor can it engage in false advertising by
`misrepresenting the nature and characteristics of its own commercial activities and those of its
`advertisers.
`Google’s use of Plaintiffs’ and class members’ tradenames in connection with its
`11.
`unauthorized button and webpages violates Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The Section provides, in
`3
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`
`relevant part, “[a]ny person who…uses in commerce any word, term, name, [or] symbol, or any
`combination thereof…which (A) is likely to cause confusion…or to deceive as to the affiliation,
`connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to…sponsorship, or approval of his
`or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (B) in commercial advertising or
`promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of his or her or
`another person’s goods, services or commercial activities…shall be liable in a civil action by any person
`who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.” 15 U.S.C § 1125(a)(1)(A) and
`(B).
`
`On behalf of a nationwide class of restaurants subjected to Google’s deceptive practices
`12.
`and misappropriation of their goodwill and tradenames in connection with Google’s button and
`webpages, Plaintiffs bring this action to enjoin Google and to seek redress for Google’s deceptive and
`unlawful conduct.
`
`II. PARTIES
`Plaintiff Left Field Holdings LLC is a Florida limited liability company which operates
`13.
`a Lime Fresh franchise at a restaurant located at 9005 SW 72nd Place, Miami, Fl, 33156 (“Lime Fresh
`Dadeland”). Lime Fresh Dadeland opened in 2010. Lime Fresh Dadeland operates under the
`tradenames: Lime Fresh, and Lime Fresh Mexican Grill.
`Plaintiff Left Field Holdings II LLC is a Florida limited liability company which
`14.
`operates a Lime Fresh franchise at a restaurant located at 12516 SW 88th Street, Miami, Fl, 33186
`(“Lime Fresh West Kendall”). Lime Fresh West Kendall opened in 2012. Lime Fresh West Kendall
`operates under the tradenames: Lime Fresh, and Lime Fresh Mexican Grill.
`Plaintiff Left Field Holdings III LLC is a Florida limited liability company which
`15.
`operates a Lime Fresh franchise at a restaurant located at 8484 NW 36th Street, Miami, Fl, 33166 (“Lime
`Fresh Doral”). Lime Fresh Doral opened in 2014. Lime Fresh Doral operates under the tradenames:
`Lime Fresh, and Lime Fresh Mexican Grill.
`Plaintiff Left Field Holdings IV LLC is a Florida limited liability company which
`16.
`operates a Lime Fresh franchise at a restaurant located at 3275 NE 1st Avenue, Miami, Fl, 33137 (“Lime
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`4
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`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 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`Fresh Midtown”). Lime Fresh Midtown opened in 2018. Lime Fresh Midtown operates under the
`tradenames: Lime Fresh, and Lime Fresh Mexican Grill.
`Plaintiff Left Field Holdings V LLC is a Florida limited liability company which
`17.
`operates a Lime Fresh franchise at a restaurant located at 12000 Biscayne Blvd, Miami, Fl, 33181
`(“Lime Fresh North Miami”). Lime Fresh North Miami opened in 2020. Lime Fresh North Miami
`operates under the tradenames: Lime Fresh, and Lime Fresh Mexican Grill.
`Plaintiff Left Field Holdings VI LLC is a Florida limited liability company which
`18.
`operates a Lime Fresh franchise at a restaurant located at 1439 Alton Road, Miami Beach, Fl, 33139
`(“Lime Fresh South Beach”). Lime Fresh South Beach opened in 2018. Lime Fresh South Beach
`operates under the tradenames: Lime Fresh, and Lime Fresh Mexican Grill.
`Plaintiffs Lime Fresh Dadeland, Lime Fresh West Kendall, Lime Fresh Doral, Lime
`19.
`Fresh Midtown, Lime Fresh North Miami, and Lime Fresh South Beach shall be collectively referred
`to herein as Plaintiffs or Lime Fresh.
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its
`20.
`principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Its parent, Alphabet Inc., was number 9 on
`the 2021 U.S. fortune 500, with 2021 revenues of over $357 billion and net income of over $76 billion.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`III.
`This Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, as
`21.
`the action arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et seq. This Court has general jurisdiction
`over the defendant because it has systematic and continuous contact with this District and because its
`corporate principal place of business is within this District.
`The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)
`22.
`because this is a class action in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of
`interest and costs; in the aggregate, there are more than 100 members in the proposed class; and at least
`one class member is a citizen of a state different from the defendant.
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the defendant resides
`23.
`in this district, and because the wrongful conduct giving rise to this case occurred in and/or emanated
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`5
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`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 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`from this District. This case is a class action involving intellectual property rights and hence is subject
`to district-wide assignment pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order No. 44.
`IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`Plaintiffs, the Class and Delivery Providers.
`A.
`Plaintiffs and class members make up one of the largest industries in the nation.1 The
`24.
`class is comprised of restaurants located throughout the United States, all of whom have had their
`goodwill and tradenames misappropriated by Google as described herein. Upon information and belief,
`Plaintiffs and class members number in the tens of thousands. The identity of all such restaurants is
`known to Google and will be determined through discovery.
`Plaintiffs are a collection of “fast casual” restaurants operating in Florida under the
`25.
`“Lime Fresh” tradename. Although each named Plaintiff is a different physical restaurant and a separate
`legal entity, all are under common ownership and management. In their most recent fiscal year,
`Plaintiffs collectively generated over $11 million in revenue.
`Plaintiffs and class members offer their food products for on-premises dining, take-out,
`26.
`and/or delivery. Generally, takeout and delivery orders may be placed on a restaurant’s website and/or
`mobile application, but they may also be placed by phone, text, or in-person.
`In addition to these conventional sources of delivery and take-out orders, many Plaintiffs
`27.
`and class members signed agreements with various authorized Delivery Providers.
`Delivery Providers typically provide two interrelated services: First, they offer
`28.
`proprietary, independently branded websites and mobile applications (collectively, “platforms”) that
`allow consumers to place delivery and take-out orders with restaurants made available within their
`platforms. Second, the Delivery Providers offer scheduling and mapping technologies (usually within
`a proprietary app) to connect and route delivery drivers to consumers requesting delivery services for
`orders placed within the Delivery Providers’ websites and apps.
`
`
`Restaurants account for nearly 11 million jobs in the U.S. and 4% of GDP. See Charles Lew, As
`1
`(Apr. 20, 2020) https://www.forbes.com/sites/
`Restaurants Go, So Goes The Economy,
`forbesbusinesscouncil/2020/04/20/as-restaurants-go-so-goes-the-economy/?sh=177c298c40cc
`(last
`visited Dec.8, 2021).
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`6
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`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 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`
`
`In addition to the above-mentioned platforms and technologies, Delivery Providers often
`29.
`provide contracting restaurants additional tools and services so that the Delivery Provider may
`efficiently communicate orders received from their platforms in real-time to contracting restaurants.
`These additional tools and services are usually made available to contracting restaurants via a
`designated tablet or web interface.
`Before making a restaurant available within their platforms, most Delivery Providers
`30.
`first approach the restaurant to obtain their approval; and upon doing so, enter into a form merchant
`agreement with the restaurant. But not all Delivery Providers do so. Some Delivery Providers are known
`to include restaurants within their platforms without first approaching the restaurants for their approval.
`This activity has been the subject of several lawsuits, as well as state legislative changes.2
`A restaurant's motivation to partner with a Delivery Provider is almost never to make a
`31.
`profit on orders received from the Delivery Provider—Delivery Providers’ fees are simply too high,
`often exceeding 25% of the price of an order. Rather, a restaurant’s usual goal is to capture new
`customers that may later place orders with the restaurant outside of the Delivery Providers’ expensive
`platforms. But, as this complaint alleges, Google’s illicit button and webpages prevent these more
`profitable orders from materializing.
`Delivery Providers are expensive. For example, the Delivery Provider Postmates (now
`32.
`owned by Uber Eats) charges contracting restaurants between 6%-30% of each order.3 These fees are
`substantial relative to the typical profit margin within the restaurant industry. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
`and class members make little (if any) profit on orders received from authorized Delivery Providers.
`To avoid these substantial fees, Plaintiffs and class members vastly prefer to capture
`33.
`orders directly through their own order-taking websites and apps, over the phone, or in-person. By doing
`so, Plaintiffs and class members do not incur the 6-30% fee typically charged by the Delivery Providers.
`
`
`See Lynn Scott, LLC v. Grubhub Inc., No. 1:20-cv-06334 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2021); see also
`2
`City of Chicago v. DoorDash, Inc. and Caviar, LLC, No. 2021CH04328 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Ill. Aug.
`27, 2021); City of Chicago v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc. and Grubhub Inc., No. 2021CH04327 (Cir. Ct.
`Cook Cty. Ill. Aug. 27, 2021); see also Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22599 (eff. Jan. 1, 2021) (prohibiting
`a food delivery platform from arranging for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first
`obtaining an agreement with the food facility).
`See 1/18/2022 Uber agreement attached as Exhibit B.
`3
`7
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`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 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`
`Capturing an order via a restaurant’s website or app not only saves the restaurant money
`34.
`(because the restaurant avoids the Delivery Providers’ hefty fees), but also often fosters better customer
`relationships. Through their own custom websites and apps, restaurants may offer customer loyalty
`rewards and promotional programs—programs that drive increased customer engagement, and higher
`revenues and profits for the restaurants. Orders placed directly with restaurants also allow restaurants
`to maintain more control over the entire customer experience from order through delivery/pickup,
`ensuring a more seamless, accountable, and enjoyable consumer experience.
`Consumers too prefer to order directly with restaurants whenever possible. Numerous
`35.
`consumer surveys demonstrate that when faced with an option, consumers prefer placing orders directly
`with a restaurant, rather than through third-party apps and websites (such as those offered by Delivery
`Providers).4
`Plaintiffs, like many class members, maintain a branded order-taking website at
`36.
`www.limefresh.com, where consumers can place delivery and take-out orders directly with Lime Fresh
`restaurants. All orders placed by consumers on the Lime Fresh website are routed to the specific Lime
`Fresh restaurant selected by the consumer upon check-out, and all revenues received for each order
`flow to the designated restaurant. For take-out orders, the customer picks-up the order directly from the
`restaurant, and the ordering process is costless to the restaurant. For orders requiring delivery, Plaintiffs
`entered into an agreement with a delivery service (DoorDash) on a fixed-fee basis at a fraction of the
`net-cost of the typical fee charged by Delivery Providers for the same order.5
`To increase brand awareness and encourage consumer demand, Plaintiffs and class
`37.
`members engage in advertising and marketing. In 2020, quick-service restaurants alone spent an
`
`
`4
`See, e.g., poppinpay, https://poppinpay.com/10-staggering-statistics-about-mobile-order-ahead-
`for-restaurants/ (last visted on Feb. 28, 2022); statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1170545/us-
`consumers-direct-vs-third-party-food-delivery-online-orders-coronavirus/ (last visited on Feb. 28,
`2022).
`5
`For each delivery order from Lime Fresh’s website, Plaintiffs pay their designated delivery
`service (i.e. DoorDash) a net fee of approximately $2 per order, versus $4-6 per order as charged by the
`typical Delivery Provider (20-30% of a typical $20.00 order is $4-6 per delivery order). For each take-
`out order, no fee is charged to Plaintiffs from the Lime Fresh’s website; versus a fee of $1.20-4 for
`similar orders processed by the typical Delivery Providers (6-20% fee of a typical $20.00 order is $1.20-
`4 per take-out order).
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`8
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`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 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`estimated $4 billion on advertising.6 These advertising expenditures contribute to the reputations and
`goodwill of Plaintiffs and class members—which is captured by their tradenames.
`38. While consumers will remember a restaurant’s tradename, products, and services, they
`rarely remember a restaurant’s phone number, address, or website URL. For that information,
`consumers today typically turn to an internet search engine; and that search engine is usually Google.
`However, beginning in 2019, when a consumer searched for a particular restaurant using
`39.
`Google’s search engine and/or mapping interface, Google began intentionally misdirecting the
`consumer away from the restaurant’s own website, physical address, and phone number, and into one
`of two different websites owned and controlled by Google. These websites are deceptively branded as
`being offered, sponsored, or approved by Plaintiffs and class members, when, they are not. Additionally,
`the method Google employs to induce consumers to enter into its websites is also deceptive and unfair.
`The particulars of Google’s illegal and deceptive conduct are described in detail in the following
`sections.
`Google’s illegal use of Plaintiffs’ and the class’s tradenames.
`B.
`Google is the world’s largest search engine. It maintains a whopping 90% market-share
`40.
`globally of all internet searches.7 Within the United States, Google’s market-share is only slightly less,
`maintaining an 87% share of all searches, including an 80% share of searches conducted on desktops,
`and a 94% share of searches conducted on mobile devices. Put simply, Google dominates the search
`engine market; and, thus, when someone wants to look up the phone number or website of a restaurant
`to order food, a Google search is virtually inevitable.
`
`
`6
`Going Mobile: QSR Ad Spend To Grow By $134 Million in 2020, Inside Radio (Jan. 28, 2020),
`http://www.insideradio.com/free/going-mobile-qsr-ad-spend-to-grow-by-134-million-in-
`2020/article_a86f1146-3c22-11ea-85c6-7b3ddbe1f6a4.html.
`StatCounter,
`https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-
`7
`america#monthly-200901-202111 (last visited Feb. 28, 2022)
`9
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`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 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`
`41.
`
`At www.google.com, a user can enter a search term or phrase into a text field.
`
`Figure 1: Google’s Search Engine and Search Text Field. (Captured approximately 1/10/2021)
`
`Upon a user submitting a search term or phrase, Google uses proprietary technology to
`42.
`search an index of websites available on the world-wide-web for relevant and responsive results before
`presenting the results to the user in what is often referred to as a “search engine results page” (herein
`referred to as the "SERP”).
`The SERP is a webpage designed, developed, and hosted by Google. Depending on the
`43.
`search term or phrase entered by the user, Google may present different SERP configurations to the
`searching-user. Typically, however, the SERP is comprised of two sections, with a third section
`displayed once Google determines the user is searching for a particular business. The first section is a
`list of “natural,” non-paid, responsive search results. This list is generated by Google’s proprietary
`“search algorithm,” and is typically presented to the user on the left-hand side of the user’s browser
`window.
`The second section is a list of paid advertisements responsive to the user’s search term
`44.
`or phrase, generated by yet another one of Google’s proprietary algorithms. This algorithm takes
`account of the amounts competing businesses “bid” to have their business and website featured as an
`advertisement just above the “natural,” non-paid, search results for the particular search term or phrase
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`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 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`(a/k/a, a “keyword”). To minimize consumer confusion, Google’s usual practice is to identify each
`advertisement placed within this section as an “Ad.”
`The third section, referred to herein as a “Business Information Box,” is a section that
`45.
`only appears under certain conditions—when Google determines that the user is searching for a
`particular business. This section appears on the right-hand side of the user’s screen. Within the Business
`Information Box, Google displays information particular to the business that Google determines the
`user is likely searching for, including: the business’ tradename, address, hours of operation, phone
`number, and links to the business’ website, and directions.
`
`Business
`Information
`Box
`
`Ad
`
`Ad
`
`Natural
`Search
`Results
`
`Figure 2: Exemplar of SERP showing “Ads,” Natural Search Results, and Business Information Box. (Captured approximately
`1/10/2021)
`
`At issue in this complaint is a change Google recently implemented (in 2019) with
`46.
`respect to the SERP and the Business Information Box that Google presents to users following a user’s
`search for a specific restaurant. For purposes of this complaint, the Business Information Box pertinent
`to the restaurant industry is referred to herein as the “Restaurant Information Box.”
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`11
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`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 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`
`Specifically, beginning in 2019, when a user searched for a restaurant, Google began
`47.
`presenting the consumer with a Restaurant Information Box that not only included information
`particular to the restaurant the user was then searching for, but also a large blue button entitled “Order
`Online,” that Google placed just below the restaurant’s tradename.8
`
`Search Results
`
`Restaurant
`Information Box
`
`The “Order
`Online” Button
`
`Figure 3: Google’s SERP and Restaurant Information Box (Captured approximately 9/4/2020)
`
`48. When the same search is performed on a mobile device (or a smaller screen), the
`“Restaurant Information Box” is presented to the user in-line with the search results, rather than on the
`right-hand-side of the users’ browser window. Exhibit A provides an exemplar of the mobile
`experience. As reflected therein, the features of the mobile experience are substantially similar to the
`desktop experience highlighted in the screenshots shown throughout the complaint.
`The Restaurant Information Box was invented, designed, and developed by Google and
`49.
`is hosted by Google.
`The Restaurant Information Box is consistent in design, components, and features, as
`50.
`alleged herein, for each restaurant within the class.
`
`
`8
`Upon information and belief, Google presents the Restaurant Information Box in response to
`other user queries. For example, if a user searches for “nearby restaurants” within Google’s search
`engine (at https://www.google.com) or mapping service (at https://www.google.com/maps), the results
`page will show a list of nearby restaurants along with a map displaying the location of each restaurant
`within a designated geographic area along with a list of the restaurants within the map on the left-hand
`side of the screen. When users click on a particular restaurant location within the map, or upon a
`particular restaurant within the list, they are presented with the Restaurant Information Box (or a slight
`variation thereof). Plaintiffs will ascertain all available means Google employs to direct users to the
`Restaurant Information Box, and/or its illicit Storefront and Landing Page when conducting discovery.
`12
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`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 3:22-cv-01462 Document 1 Filed 03/08/22 Page 14 of 35
`
`
`
`
`The Restaurant Information Box presents consumers with information pertinent to the
`51.
`restaurant Google identifies as matching the searched term or phrase entered by the consumer within
`Google’s search field.
`Along with other information, the Restaurant Information Box prominently displays
`52.
`images of the restaurant; the restaurant’s tradename, address, hours of operation, and phone number; as
`well a series of buttons (or links) that allow the consumer to: “Call” the restaurant, obtain “Directions”
`to the restaurant, or access the restaurant’s “