Case 3:22-cv-01462-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
`BENJAMIN BERKOWITZ - # 244441
`bberkowitz@keker.com
`MICHELLE YBARRA - # 260697
`mybarra@keker.com
`CODY S. HARRIS - # 255302
`charris@keker.com
`KRISTIN HUCEK - # 321853
`khucek@keker.com
`GREGORY WASHINGTON - # 318796
`gwashington@keker.com
`LUKE APFELD - # 327029
`lapfeld@keker.com
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
`Telephone:
`415 391 5400
`Facsimile:
`415 397 7188
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`LEFT FIELD HOLDINGS, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`company,
`
`Defendant.
`
` Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 9(b)
`
`Date:
`September 29, 2022
`Time:
`2:30 p.m.
`Court:
`4; 17th Floor
`Judge:
`Hon. Vince Chhabria
`
`Date Filed: March 8, 2022
`Trial Date: Not Yet Set
`
`
`
`
`1882087
`
`
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`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-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 2 of 31
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................3
`A.
`Plaintiffs contract with Delivery Providers to fulfill online food orders. ................3
`B.
`Google Business Profiles and Food Ordering Feature .............................................5
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................8
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................9
`A.
`Google’s alleged conduct is protected as nominative fair use. ................................9
`B.
`Plaintiffs lack standing under the Lanham Act. .....................................................13
`1.
`Plaintiffs have alleged no injury to their reputation or sales. ....................14
`2.
`Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the proximate-cause requirement. .......................16
`C.
`Plaintiffs’ false advertising claim fails. .................................................................17
`Plaintiffs fail to allege a counterfeiting claim. .......................................................21
`D.
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................24
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`i
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`1882087
`
`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-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`1800 Get Thin, LLC v. Hiltzik,
`2011 WL 3206486 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2011) ..........................................................................10
`
`578539 B.C., Ltd. v. Kortz,
`2014 WL 12572679 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2014) ........................................................................13
`
`Alfasigma USA, Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.,
`
`2022 WL 899848 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2022) ...........................................................................17
`
`Alfasigma USA, Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.,
`525 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ...................................................................................20
`
`Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger,
`913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................10
`
`Architectural Mailboxes, LLC v. Epoch Design, LLC,
`2011 WL 1630809 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2011) ..........................................................................10
`
`Arcona, Inc. v. Farmacy Beauty, LLC,
`976 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2020) ...........................................................................................21, 22
`
`Ariix, LLC v. NutriSystem Corp.,
`985 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2021) ...........................................................................................19, 20
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................................8, 11
`
`Beachbody, LLC v. Universal Nutrients, LLC,
`2016 WL 3912014 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2016) ..........................................................................10
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG,
`819 F.3d 697 (4th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................13
`
`Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co.,
`292 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................9, 13
`
`Carrico v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco,
`656 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................9
`
`Carter v. Oath Holdings, Inc.,
`2018 WL 3067985 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2018) ...................................................................11, 23
`ii
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`1882087
`
`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-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`Charlotte’s Web, Inc. v. AAXLL Supply Co. LLC,
`2020 WL 6891876 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2020) ..................................................................14, 15
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Dexon Computer, Inc.,
`2021 WL 5848080 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2021) ...........................................................................19
`
`Clorox Company v. Reckitt Benckiser Grp. PLC,
`398 F. Supp. 3d 623 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .....................................................................................19
`
`Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. ComicMix LLC,
`256 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (S.D. Cal. 2017) ....................................................................................10
`
`Ely Holdings Ltd. v. O’Keeffe’s, Inc.,
`2019 WL 3779197 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2019) ....................................................................8, 19
`
`Gearsource Holdings, LLC v. Google LLC,
`2020 WL 3833258 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2020) ............................................................................18
`
`Genus Lifesciences v. Lannett Co., Inc.,
`378 F. Supp. 3d 823 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .....................................................................................19
`
`Gibson Brands, Inc. v. John Hornby Skewes & Co. Ltd.,
`2016 WL 7479317 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2016) .........................................................................22
`
`Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess, Inc.,
`868 F. Supp. 2d 207 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ......................................................................................21
`
`Hasbro, Inc. v. Asus Comput. Int’l, Inc.,
`2012 WL 13012663 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2012) .......................................................................12
`
`Kaloud, Inc. v. Shisha Land Wholesale, Inc.,
`741 Fed. App’x. 393 (9th Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................21
`
`Lasoff v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`741 Fed. App’x 400 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................18
`
`LegalForce, Inc. v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.,
`2019 WL 2088416 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2019) .........................................................................13
`
`Lexmark Inter., Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 118 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Sols., Inc.,
`658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) ...............................................................................................2, 21
`
`Maffick LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2021 WL 1893074 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2021) ...................................................................16, 20
`
`iii
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`1882087
`
`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-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`Monte Carlo Shirt, Inc. v. Daewoo Int’l (Am.) Corp.,
`707 F.2d 1054 (9th Cir. 1983) .................................................................................................22
`
`Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`804 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2015) .......................................................................................12, 22, 23
`
`Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, Inc.,
`638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................12
`
`New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publ’g, Inc.,
`971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Parks LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
`863 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2017).....................................................................................................18
`
`PC Drivers Headquarters, LP v. Malwarebytes Inc.,
`371 F. Supp. 3d 652 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .....................................................................................10
`
`Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles,
`279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................10, 11
`
`Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty,
`264 U.S. 359 (1924) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Salvati v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP,
`2011 WL 13217977 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2011) ........................................................................14
`
`Sebastian Int’l, Inc. v. Longs Drug Stores Corp.,
`53 F. 3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1995) ..................................................................................................22
`
`Shell Trademark Mgmt. BV v. Canadian Am. Oil Co., Inc.,
`2002 WL 32104586 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2002) .......................................................................23
`
`Somers v. Apple, Inc.,
`729 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,
`266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) .....................................................................................................8
`
`ThermoLife Int’l, LLC v. BPI Sports, LLC,
`2022 WL 612669 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2022) ..........................................................................14, 15
`
`ThermoLife Int’l LLC v. Sparta Nutrition LLC,
`2020 WL 248164 (D. Ariz. Jan. 16, 2020) ..................................................................14, 15, 17
`
`Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Tabari,
`610 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`iv
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`1882087
`
`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-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................8
`
`Welk Resort Grp. Inc. v. Reed Hein & Assocs., LLC,
`2019 WL 1242446 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2019) ...................................................................14, 18
`
`Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................2, 18, 20
`
`Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Gen. Cir. Breaker & Elec. Supply Inc.,
`106 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................21
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1114 ..............................................................................................................................1
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1127 ........................................................................................................................1, 22
`
`Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1) ................................................................................18
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 .................................................................................................................1, 2, 8, 19
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 .........................................................................................................................1, 8
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Jennifer E. Rothman, Initial Interest Confusion: Standing at the Crossroads of
`Trademark Law, 27 Cardozo L. Rev. 105, 124 (2005) ............................................................23
`
`Restatement (Second) of Torts § 892A ..........................................................................................15
`
`
`v
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`1882087
`
`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-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on September 29, 2022, at 2:30 p.m., or as soon
`thereafter as counsel may be heard, before the Honorable Vince Chhabria, Courtroom 5, 450
`Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) will and
`hereby does move this Court to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) filed
`by Plaintiffs Left Field Holdings I–VI and Everfresh Endeavors (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in its
`entirety and with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`12(b)(6) and 9(b).
`This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, the following memorandum of
`points and authorities, Google’s request for judicial notice filed concurrently herewith, and the
`declaration of Kristin Hucek with the exhibits attached thereto in support of the same, and on all
`pleadings and papers on file or to be filed in the above-entitled action, on the arguments of
`counsel, and on any other matters that may properly come before the Court for its consideration.
`The specific issues raised through Google’s motion to dismiss are as follows:
`1. Whether Google’s alleged conduct is protected under the doctrine of nominative fair use;
`2. Whether Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims for false advertising and false
`association under the Lanham Act;
`3. Whether Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act;
`and
`4. Whether Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114,
`1127.
`
`1
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`1882087
`
`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-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION 1
`This is a purported class action in search of a legal theory. Plaintiffs are owners and
`operators of Lime Fresh Mexican Grill restaurants in and around Miami, Florida, who seek to
`represent a nationwide class of nearly all restaurants in America. Plaintiffs initially filed this suit
`in March 2022, alleging that Google schemed with third-party delivery providers (“Delivery
`Providers”), such as DoorDash and Uber Eats, to dupe customers who use Google to search for
`Lime Fresh restaurants into ordering food using Google’s “Order Online” button. Plaintiffs
`alleged that when a customer clicked Google’s “Order Online” button, Google routed the order to
`a Delivery Provider and took a cut of the fees paid by Plaintiffs to the Delivery Provider—a
`baseless allegation that Plaintiffs abandoned after Google warned them that it was false. See
`Compl., ECF 1, ¶ 6.
`Plaintiffs’ new theories are equally dubious. The Amended Complaint alleges that
`Google’s “Order Online” button—displayed in search results directly under the restaurant’s
`name, location, phone number, and website—“illegally divert[s] consumers” from the restaurant’s
`website by allowing them to place their order with Delivery Providers with whom the restaurant
`has contracted to fulfill online food orders. FAC, ECF 41, ¶ 98. Plaintiffs allege that in so doing,
`Google infringed Plaintiffs’ trademark and tradenames, violated the Lanham Act’s prohibition on
`false advertising and false association, and engaged in counterfeiting. Plaintiffs’ misguided claims
`fail for at least the following reasons.
`First, Google’s alleged conduct is protected under the nominative fair use doctrine. That
`doctrine protects a defendant’s use of a trademark to reference the mark holder and its products
`and services. That is precisely what Plaintiffs allege here: that Google uses Plaintiffs’ tradenames
`and trademark to identify Plaintiffs’ own food offerings and delivery options. Where, as here, “use
`of the trademark does not attempt to capitalize on consumer confusion or to appropriate the
`
`
`1 Throughout this brief, unless otherwise stated, emphases are added to quotations, and internal
`punctuation, alterations, and citations are omitted therefrom.
`1
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`1882087
`
`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-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`cachet of one product for a different one,” it “lies outside the strictures of trademark law” because
`it neither “implicate[s] the source-identification function that is the purpose of trademark law” nor
`“constitutes unfair competition.” New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publ’g, Inc., 971 F.2d 302,
`308 (9th Cir. 1992). Because Plaintiffs’ allegations demonstrate that Google’s alleged use is
`nominative, and therefore protected, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety.
`Second, Plaintiffs’ claims for false association and false advertising under the Lanham
`Act claims fail for the additional reason that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert them. Plaintiffs fail
`to allege facts showing that Google’s alleged conduct resulted in any injury to their reputation or
`sales, or that any consumer suffered “deception” that caused them to “withhold trade” from
`Plaintiffs. Lexmark Inter., Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 133-34 (2014).
`At most, Plaintiffs complain that some orders initiated with Google’s “Order Online” button may
`require Plaintiffs to pay Delivery Provider fees that they would prefer not to incur, even though
`Plaintiffs concede that they voluntarily entered into contracts with Delivery Providers that
`obligate them to do so. That is not a cognizable injury sufficient to establish standing under the
`Lanham Act.
`Third, Plaintiffs’ false advertising claim also fails because they have not alleged that
`Google made any material, false statement in commercial advertising that influenced consumers’
`purchasing decisions. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., 758 F.3d 1069,
`1071 (9th Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs’ only allegation in support of this claim—that “Google’s
`unauthorized and deceptive use of Plaintiffs’ and class members’ tradenames . . . is [] a false
`representation,” FAC ¶ 149—falls far short of Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard.
`Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim.
`Fourth, Plaintiffs’ counterfeiting claim is defective because Plaintiffs have not alleged
`that Google uses Plaintiffs’ mark on services identical to those covered by Plaintiffs’ registration
`in an attempt to pass itself off as Plaintiff. See Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Sols., Inc.,
`658 F.3d 936, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs do not allege that Google provides restaurant or
`takeout services; Google provides Internet search results linking to relevant businesses in
`
`2
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`1882087
`
`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-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 10 of 31
`
`II.
`
`
`response to Search and Maps queries. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ allegations confirm that Google uses
`their mark to accurately describe Plaintiffs’ own products and services. Because they cannot
`show likelihood of confusion, Plaintiffs’ counterfeiting claim fails as a matter of law.
`For these reasons, and as explained further below, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’
`complaint in its entirety.
`BACKGROUND 2
`A.
`Plaintiffs contract with Delivery Providers to fulfill online food orders.
`Plaintiffs Left Field Holdings I–VI, LLC operate a series of “fast casual” Lime Fresh
`Mexican Grill restaurants (“Lime Fresh”) in and around Miami, Florida, as franchisees of
`Plaintiff Everfresh Endeavors.3 FAC ¶¶ 13–20, 26. All of Plaintiffs’ Lime Fresh locations—Lime
`Fresh Dadeland, Lime Fresh Doral, Lime Fresh Midtown, Lime Fresh South Beach, and Lime
`Fresh West Kendall—“are under common ownership and management.” Id. ¶¶ 13–18, 26. The
`Amended Complaint does not allege that the Left Field Plaintiffs hold any registered tradenames
`or trademarks but identifies Everfresh as the owner of “LIME FRESH MEXICAN GRILL,” a
`service mark consisting of standard characters “without claim to any particular font, style, size, or
`color.” FAC, Ex. C, ECF 41-3.
`Plaintiffs maintain a branded order-taking website at www.limefresh.com (the “Lime
`Fresh website”), where consumers can place delivery and take-out orders from Plaintiffs’
`restaurants. See FAC ¶ 38. Orders can be placed directly from the Lime Fresh website using an
`“Order Direct Online” or “Order Takeout or Delivery” button, or by clicking on links to available
`third-party food delivery companies for the selected Lime Fresh location:
`
`
`
`
`
`2 For the purposes of this motion only, Google treats Plaintiffs’ allegations as true.
`3 “Plaintiffs” refers collectively to Plaintiffs Left Field Holdings I–VI, LLC and Plaintiff
`Everfresh Endeavors. “The Left Field Plaintiffs” refers specifically to Plaintiffs Left Field
`Holdings I–VI, LLC, and “Everfresh” refers to their franchisor, Everfresh Endeavors.
`3
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`1882087
`
`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-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`See Decl. of Kristin Hucek in Support of Google LLC’s Request for Judicial Notice (“Hucek
`Decl.”), Ex. 1. Plaintiffs refer to these third-party food delivery companies, like Postmates,
`DoorDash, Grubhub, and Uber Eats, as “Delivery Providers.” FAC ¶ 5. Plaintiffs do not fulfill
`delivery orders placed through the Lime Fresh website themselves. Rather, Plaintiffs allege that
`they have “entered into an agreement with a delivery service (DoorDash)” to do so. Id. ¶ 38.4
`Under DoorDash’s terms of service, merchants like Plaintiffs agree to permit DoorDash to use
`their trademarks and business names. See Hucek Decl. Ex. 9 at ¶¶ 5.3.1, 16.29. “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.” FAC ¶ 38. Despite alleging that they “vastly prefer to capture orders directly through
`their own order-taking websites and apps,” id. ¶ 35, nothing on the Lime Fresh website reflects
`Plaintiffs’ apparent preference. See Hucek Decl. ¶ 2.
`According to Plaintiffs, Delivery Providers typically offer two services: (1) “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;” and (2) “scheduling and mapping technologies . . . to connect and route delivery
`
`
`4 In a single sentence of their 36-page complaint, Plaintiffs allege that in one instance, the
`“Landing Page” for one of their restaurants included a link to Caviar, a Delivery Provider with
`whom Plaintiffs allege they “do not have a relationship with.” See FAC ¶ 110(c). (DoorDash
`acquired Caviar on October 31, 2019, which predates the screenshots included in the Amended
`Complaint. See id. & Fig. 11; https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/
`1512673/000119312519281289/d785633dex991.htm.) In any event, Google also provides
`restaurants with information on how to remove links to Delivery Providers, as well as how to set
`their own preferred links. See Hucek Decl. Ex. 8.
`4
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`1882087
`
`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-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`drivers to consumers.” FAC ¶ 30. Plaintiffs contend that restaurants rarely partner with a Delivery
`Provider “to make a profit” because their “fees are simply too high”; instead, Plaintiffs speculate
`that “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.” Id. ¶ 33.
`Plaintiffs concede, however, that they pay Delivery Provider fees even for orders placed
`on the Lime Fresh website. See FAC 38 n.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.”). Although Plaintiffs allege that they have entered into “signed agreements with various
`authorized Delivery Providers,” id. ¶ 29, they fail to specifically identify any provider other than
`DoorDash—even though the Lime Fresh website links to and invites customers to order from
`multiple others. See Hucek Decl. Ex 1 (showing “Delivery options” linking to Uber Eats,
`Postmates, DoorDash, and Grubhub). Other than DoorDash, Plaintiffs nowhere identify the fees
`they incur for orders fulfilled by Delivery Providers. Nor do Plaintiffs allege that they are charged
`the fees that Delivery Providers “typically charge[]” and that are cited in the Amended
`Complaint. See FAC ¶¶ 29, 33–35.5
`
`B.
`Google Business Profiles and Food Ordering Feature
`Plaintiffs make clear that they rely on Google to direct consumers to their restaurants. As
`Plaintiffs allege, consumers “rarely remember a restaurant’s phone number, address, or website
`URL” and “typically turn to an internet search engine [that is] usually Google” for that
`information. Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiffs allege that “when Google determines that a user is searching for a
`particular business,” it displays information regarding that on the right-hand side of the user’s
`screen. Id. ¶ 47. For restaurants, this information appears in what Plaintiffs call the “Restaurant
`Information Box.” Id. ¶ 48. Along with images of the restaurant, the box displays “the
`
`
`5 For example, although Plaintiffs allege that Postmates charges “between 6%–30% of each
`order,” FAC ¶ 34, Plaintiffs nowhere allege what fees may apply to their contract with Postmates.
`Similarly, although Plaintiffs attach a copy of an Uber Eats contract, id., Ex. B, they nowhere
`allege that they have agreed to pay the fees set forth in that agreement, or whether they have
`negotiated different fees, as the agreement contemplates. See id. at section 5.2 (contemplating
`that the parties may agree to service fees different than those provided for in the contract).
`5
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`1882087
`
`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-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`restaurant’s tradename, address, hours of operation, and phone number,” as well as links or
`buttons that allow the user to call the restaurant, obtain directions to it, or access its website. Id. ¶
`54. This information is displayed in a consistent font and style. See id. ¶ 55, Fig. 4.
`
`Google obtains the information in various ways. It offers “Business Profile,” a free tool
`that allows restaurants to control the information Google displays about their business in response
`to queries on Google Search and Maps. See Hucek Decl. Exs. 2, 3. Restaurants that have verified
`their Business Profiles can edit their name, hours, phone number, website, whether they offer
`“Dine-in” or “Curbside pickup,” display their menu, and identify takeout and delivery options,
`including their preferred means of delivery. Hucek Decl. Exs. 3-5. For example, Lime Fresh
`Dadeland indicated through its Business Profile that it prefers online orders be placed through the
`Lime Fresh website, with that preference then displayed to consumers:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Hucek Decl. Ex. 5. In addition to receiving this information from restaurants directly, Google
`also compiles it from publicly available sources, such as a restaurant’s official website, or may
`receive it from the restaurant’s authorized Delivery Providers. Hucek Decl. Ex. 6.
`Plaintiffs allege that at some point in 2019, Google began placing an “Order Online”
`button in the Restaurant Information Box beneath restaurants’ tradenames, which directs
`consumers to one of two different webpages: the so-called “Landing Page” or “Storefront.”6 See
`
`
`6 Plaintiffs coined the terms “Order Online,” “Landing Page,” and “Storefront,” in their Amended
`Complaint. See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 63, 65, 102. Although this terminology is Plaintiffs’, and not
`Google’s usual nomenclature, Google adopts it in this motion for the Court’s convenience.
`6
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-CV-01462-VC
`
`1882087
`
`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-VC Document 44 Filed 08/15/22 Page 14 of 31
`
`
`FAC ¶¶ 55, 65, 102–104. Plaintiffs allege that the Landing Page “prominently displays” the
`restaurant’s “tradename, address, and images of the restaurant,” id. ¶ 105, as reflected below:
`
`Id. at ¶ 102, Fig. 10. The Landing Page also includes links to Delivery Providers, which users
`may click to be “directed (or linked) to the Delivery Provider’s website.” Id. ¶¶ 106–107.
`Plaintiffs contend that the Landing Page “is substantially similar in design, componentry, and
`features for all Plaintiffs and class members.” Id. ¶ 103.
`Alternatively, clicking the “Order Online” button directs users to the Storefront, where
`they “can place orders for the restaurant’s food items.” Id. ¶¶ 63, 65. The Storefront “prominently
`displays the restaurant’s tradename at the top of the website,” and “is substantially similar in
`design, componentry, and features, for all Plaintiffs and class members.” Id. ¶¶ 66, 68. The
`Storefront includes the restaurant’s physical and website address, and links to entities with whom
`the customer may place a delivery or takeout order. See id. at ¶ 65, Fig. 5 & Ex. A. These appear
`under the text “Place order with,” and include links to Delivery Providers, as well as the
`restaurant itself. Id. at Ex. A (reflecting cropped screenshots of Elephant & Castle mobile
`Storefront); Hucek Decl. Ex. 7 (screenshot of the Elephant & Castle desktop Storefront).
`Plaintiffs allege that a customer may place an order dire