Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 1 of 14
`
`
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`TIANA DEMAS (pro hac vice pending) (NY Bar No. 4210472)
`(tdemas@cooley.com)
`444 W. Lake Street, Suite 1700
`Chicago, Illinois 60606-0010
`Telephone:
`+1 312-881-6500
`
`COOLEY LLP
`MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127) (rhodesmg@cooley.com)
`JOSEPH D. MORNIN (307766) (jmornin@cooley.com)
`3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-4004
`Telephone:
`+1 415 693 2000
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`NCHE NOEL NTSE,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Defendant Nche Noel Ntse has been perpetrating a puppy fraud scheme to exploit
`
`the COVID-19 pandemic for personal gain, while taking advantage of unsuspecting and
`
`vulnerable victims. Defendant runs multiple non-delivery websites that deceive and defraud
`
`internet users in the United States. Some of these fraudulent websites purport to sell adorable
`
`puppies, and victims are tricked into believing the websites are legitimate because of their
`
`alluring photos of purebred puppies (see Figure 1), and compelling testimonials from supposedly
`
`satisfied customers. These photos aim to bait would-be victims into believing the puppies are real
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 2 of 14
`
`
`
`and that they are interacting with actual dog breeders. But Defendant does not actually sell
`
`puppies, and instead is running multiple international non-delivery scams with the intent to
`
`exploit the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting high demand for puppies in the U.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1.
`Image of “Available Puppies,”
`https://jerrysbassethoundhome[.]com/available-puppies/,
`retrieved on April 8, 2022.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant’s non-delivery scheme follows a similar script to many other online
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`scams where malicious actors pretend to be someone they are not to convince victims to part with
`
`18
`
`money for something they will never receive. Examples of other such scams include illicit
`
`19
`
`prescription drug scams, romance scams targeting widows and widowers, loan scams targeting
`
`20
`
`veterans, and investment scams targeting the elderly. These schemes rely on one-on-one
`
`21
`
`communications to lull victims into a false sense of trust after they have invested significant time
`
`22
`
`and energy communicating with people they think they have come to know. Defendant’s online
`
`23
`
`puppy scam is particularly nefarious because it not only relies on one-on-one communications,
`
`24
`
`but also exploits the joy of pet adoption, resulting in both emotional harm and financial loss.
`
`25
`
`3.
`
`Defendant has used several Google services, such as Gmail and Google Voice, via
`
`26
`
`dozens of fraudulent Google accounts, to communicate false promises to victims, register the
`
`27
`
`fraudulent websites with U.S. internet hosting companies, and request and receive payments, all
`
`28
`
`in violation of Google’s Terms of Service (“ToS”).
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 3 of 14
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Defendant’s fraudulent and illegal activities cause financial harm to Google,
`
`including by interfering with Google’s relationships with its users (and potential users), harming
`
`Google’s reputation, and forcing Google to expend substantial resources in excess of $75,000 to
`
`investigate and remediate Defendant’s harmful activities. Defendant’s exploitative and malicious
`
`sham pet adoption scheme abuses Google products to prey on vulnerable victims during an
`
`unprecedented pandemic.
`
`5.
`
`Google brings this action for breach of contract to protect victims from
`
`Defendant’s fraudulent scheme, disrupt Defendant’s activities, prevent Defendant from causing
`
`further harm, raise public awareness of these and similar online scams, and to recover damages.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Google is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California
`
`14
`
`94043.
`
`15
`
`7.
`
`Google is a leading technology company that operates numerous products,
`
`16
`
`platforms, and services, several of which are core to its business and relevant here:
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`(a) Gmail: Gmail is a free email service that is hosted on Google’s servers with
`
`more than 1.5 billion active users worldwide.
`
`(b) Google Voice: Google Voice is a free call management service that works on
`
`smartphones and the web so users can place and receive calls from anywhere,
`
`forward calls to any device, and have spam calls silently blocked. Google
`
`Voice numbers are linked to other Google accounts, usually Gmail.
`
`(c) Google Search: Google Search is an internet-based search engine that allows
`
`users to search for publicly accessible documents and websites indexed by
`
`Google’s servers.
`
`(d) Google Ads: Google Ads is an online advertising platform through which
`
`advertisers can publish advertisements on various Google platforms, including,
`
`for example, Google Search and YouTube.
`
`3
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 4 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`8.
`
`Google strives to provide its users worldwide with safe and secure platforms.
`
`Google allocates substantial resources to prevent its services from being used to commit fraud. But
`
`even the most advanced systems cannot catch every single fraudulent communication, particularly
`
`where victims are lured to contact scammers outside of Google’s services. To confront this
`
`challenge, Google also solicits and receives reports of abuse of its services.1
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Nche Noel Ntse is a person who resides in
`
`Defendant
`
`Cameroon.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10
`
`10.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the cause of action alleged in this Complaint
`
`11
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because complete diversity exists between Plaintiff and Defendant,
`
`12
`
`and because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`13
`
`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant agreed to
`
`14
`
`Google’s US ToS, which require Defendant to submit to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`15
`
`12.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant used
`
`16
`
`Google’s services to carry out the unlawful activity, and Google’s headquarters are located in this
`
`17
`
`district. Additionally, personal jurisdiction over Defendant is proper because Defendant used web
`
`18
`
`hosting services located in San Mateo, California to facilitate the unlawful activity.
`
`19
`
`13.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the
`
`20
`
`threatened and actual harm to Google occurred in this district. Defendant’s use of web hosting
`
`21
`
`services located in San Mateo, California to enable Defendant’s unlawful activity provides an
`
`22
`
`additional basis for venue in this judicial district.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A.
`
`14.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Non-Delivery Scams Targeting American Consumers
`
`Over the last two years, there has been a dramatic increase in online scams and
`
`26
`
`fraud. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly contributed to this rise by causing many Americans
`
`27
`
`to switch from in-person to online purchases of goods and services. It also increased their social
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`1 See Reporting Abuse Incidents, https://support.google.com/a/answer/134413.
`
`
`4
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 5 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`isolation, leading people to seek ways to alleviate the loss of companionship normally provided
`
`by work, school, or socializing, like through pet adoptions.2
`
`15.
`
`According to the Better Business Bureau, 35% of all online shopping scams
`
`reported to it in 2021 were “pet scams.”3 Another study found that, from January through October
`
`of 2021, “there were 165% more puppy scams in the U.S. than during the same period in pre-
`
`pandemic 2019.”4 An AARP report explains that scammers, usually located abroad, “post fake
`
`litters online or pretend to be someone they’re not, usually an existing breeder,” and warns that
`
`victims “could send a ‘breeder’ money and never receive a puppy or follow-up communication.”5
`
`These scammers tend to post photos and videos of adorable puppies with prices that are too good
`
`10
`
`to be true and ask for payment upfront through wire payments, gift cards, or direct transfer apps.6
`
`11
`
`After receiving payment, the scammers often double down by inventing additional costs, such as
`
`animal quarantine fees and unexpected delivery fees.7
`
`
`2 See, e.g., Alice Kantor, Coronavirus triggers epidemic of cyber fraud, FINANCIAL TIMES (Apr.
`14, 2021), https://www.ft.com/content/30553ae9-cdfd-483c-a1ef-c04e3135f9da; Jordan
`Reynolds, 9 reasons digital fraud is on the rise, SECURITY (Nov. 12, 2020),
`https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/93912-reasons-digital-fraud-is-on-the-rise; Maggie
`Leonhardt, Online fraud attempts are up 25% in the US—here’s why, CNBC MAKE IT (Jun. 3,
`2021), https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/03/why-online-fraud-attempts-are-up-25percent-in-the-
`us.html.
`
`3 See, e.g., Purchasing a puppy online remains extremely risky, BBB warns holiday shoppers,
`BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU (Dec. 9, 2021), https://www.bbb.org/article/news-releases/26235-
`purchasing-a-puppy-online-remains-extremely-risky-bbb-warns-holiday-shoppers.
`
` 4
`
` Matt Howerton, Getting a dog for Christmas? Beware, a new study says Texas is the No. 2 state
`for puppy scams, WFAA 8 ABC (Dec. 1, 2021), https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/
`getting-a-dog-for-christmas-beware-a-new-study-says-texas-is-the-number-2-state-for-puppy-
`scams/287-9ada3e6c-5fbc-4ad4-bce4-5440b4f44fbf.
`
` 5
`
` Katherine Skiba, Pet Scammers Peddle Pandemic Puppies That Don’t Exist, AARP (Nov. 16,
`2021), https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-2021/pet-scammers-pandemic-puppies.html
`
` See id.
`
` 6
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
` 7
`
`
`
` See id. (“[Scammers] left multiple victims empty-handed. That’s despite paying for the dogs as
`well as for subsequent fake costs fraudsters asserted had been incurred, including for a supposed
`need to quarantine animals because of coronavirus exposure.”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 6 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`16.
`
`Because only a small proportion of scammers are prosecuted,8 most victims are
`
`unlikely to see justice or recompense for the financial and emotional harm they suffer.
`
`B.
`
`17.
`
`Google’s Terms of Service and Related Policies
`
`Regardless of the Google service used, all Google users must agree to Google’s
`
`ToS.9 The particular version of the ToS to which a user is bound is based on the geographic
`
`region of the IP address from which the account is created. For example, users who create
`
`accounts from US-based IP addresses must consent to the US version of the ToS (“Google US
`
`ToS”).10
`
`18. Whenever Google updates its ToS, users are notified and must agree to the
`
`10
`
`updated terms to continue using Google’s services.
`
`11
`
`19.
`
`The Google US ToS require users to “comply with applicable laws” and prohibit
`
`12
`
`users from “misleading [or] defrauding . . . others.” See Ex. 1.
`
`13
`
`20.
`
`Google’s US ToS contain a choice of law and forum selection clause, which
`
`14
`
`provides: “California law will govern all disputes arising out of or relating to these terms, service-
`
`15
`
`specific additional terms, or any related services, regardless of conflict of law rules. These
`
`16
`
`disputes will be resolved exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County,
`
`17
`
`California, USA, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in these courts.” Ex. 1.
`
`18
`
`21.
`
`To use a consumer Gmail account—any email address that ends with
`
`19
`
`@gmail.com—users also must agree to Gmail Program Policies, which prohibit users from
`
`20
`
`“send[ing] messages to trick, mislead, or deceive other users into sharing information under false
`
`pretenses.”11 Gmail Program Policies also prohibit users from “impersonating another person,
`
`
`8 See U.S. D.O.J. Dep’t of Public Affairs, Cameroonian Citizen Extradited from Romania to Face
`Covid-19-Related Fraud Charges, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Apr. 27, 2021),
`https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/cameroonian-citizen-extradited-romania-face-covid-19-related-
`fraud-charges.
`
` See https://policies.google.com/terms.
`
` 9
`
`
`10 See https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en-US, attached as Exhibit 1. This exhibit includes
`the Google US ToS for 2017, 2020, and 2022—all of which contain the same choice of law and
`forum selection clauses and other provisions relevant to this Complaint.
`
`11 See https://www.google.com/gmail/about/policy/, attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`
`
`6
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 7 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`company, or entity with the intent to deceive or mislead” and from using Gmail “to promote,
`
`organize, or engage in unlawful activities.” Ex. 2.
`
`22.
`
`In addition to the Google ToS, Google Voice users must agree to the Google Voice
`
`ToS12 and the Voice Acceptable Use Policy,13 which prohibits using Google Voice “to engage in
`
`or promote illegal activities.” Ex. 4.
`
`C.
`
`Defendant Defrauded Googles Users and the Public Through Multiple Non-
`Delivery Scams
`
`23.
`
`In or around September 2021, Google received an abuse report from AARP, a
`
`nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that serves and advocates on behalf of older Americans, and
`
`10
`
`whose mission is to empower people to choose how they live as they age. As part of that mission,
`
`11
`
`AARP alerts its members, government and corporate entities, and the general public about
`
`12
`
`common fraud schemes and tactics collected via the AARP Fraud Watch Network.
`
`13
`
`24.
`
`The report provided by AARP indicated that in August 2021, an individual
`
`14
`
`(“Victim 1”) who, at all relevant times, lived in South Carolina, was looking for a puppy online
`
`15
`
`and found the website familyhomebassetthounds[.]com. The report indicated that Victim 1 sent
`
`16
`
`an email from their Gmail account to familyhomebassethound@gmail[.]com (“Gmail Account
`
`17
`
`A”), listed on the website, to express interest in a specific basset hound puppy.
`
`18
`
`25.
`
`The report indicated that through correspondence with Gmail Account A and text
`
`19
`
`messages with the Google Voice number (954) 899-0315 (“Google Voice Number 1”), Victim 1
`
`20
`
`was instructed to pay for the puppy by sending $700 in electronic gift cards. Victim 1 bought the
`
`21
`
`gift cards and sent the gift card information to Google Voice Number 1. Victim 1 later received a
`
`22
`
`text from Google Voice Number 1 claiming that the delivery company, “Sunshine Express,”
`
`23
`
`needed an extra $1,500 to deliver the puppy. Victim 1 never received the puppy.
`
`24
`
`26.
`
`Google investigated the information from AARP and uncovered a network of
`
`25
`
`Google, Gmail, and Google Voice accounts connected to Google Voice Number 1 and Gmail
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`12 See https://support.google.com/voice/answer/9231816?hl=en, attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`13 See https://support.google.com/voice/answer/9230450?hl=en&ref_topic=9273222, attached as
`Exhibit 4.
`
`
`7
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 8 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Account A, which, on information and belief, are controlled by Defendant and used to conduct
`
`other similar non-delivery schemes. The connected accounts are linked by, among other things,
`
`subscriber email addresses or recovery email addresses, phone numbers, and login IPs. One of
`
`these connected accounts, jurgenchloe7@gmail[.]com (“Gmail Account B”) was created in
`
`November 2014, and its owner agreed to the Google US ToS (like many of the other connected
`
`accounts).
`
`27.
`
`Gmail Account B has the same phone number as several Google accounts with
`
`display names and recovery email addresses containing some variation of “Nche Noel Ntse.” One
`
`of the oldest accounts, nchenoel123@gmail[.]com, was created in September 2013 from an IP
`
`10
`
`address in Cameroon and has a phone number with the country code for Cameroon. Furthermore,
`
`11
`
`a Gmail account that logged in from the same IP address as Gmail Account A uses the name
`
`12
`
`“Nche Noel Ntse” in the billing address. A separate Gmail account that lists Gmail Account B as
`
`13
`
`its recovery email address also contains the name “Nche Noel Ntse” in the billing address. The
`
`14
`
`repeated use of variations of “Nche Noel Ntse” as the name for these related Gmail accounts—
`
`15
`
`including for Gmail Account B, which agreed to the Google US ToS—indicates that the person
`
`16
`
`behind the basset hound non-delivery scam is named Nche Noel Ntse and is based in Cameroon.
`
`17
`
`28. When Google investigated the AARP report about
`
`18
`
`familyhomebassetthounds[.]com, the website had been disabled. Google located an image of the
`
`19
`
`homepage for a similarly-named website, familybassethoundhome[.]com, on a website about
`
`20
`
`puppy scams.
`
`21
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2. Image of familybassethound[.]com webpage found at https://puppy-scammer-
`list.us/familybassethoundhome-com, retrieved on April 8, 2022.
`
`8
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 9 of 14
`
`
`
`29.
`
`The above screenshot of familybassethoundhome[.]com (Figure 2) contains the
`
`same language as a still-active puppy scam website, jerrysbassethoundhome[.]com (Figure 3),
`
`which is hosted by Dynadot, a domain name registrar and web hosting service based in San
`
`Mateo, California. On information and belief, Dynadot generally requires a court order before it
`
`will disable fraudulent websites.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3. Image of jerrysbassethoundhome[.]com homepage found at
`https://jerrysbassethoundhome[.]com/, retrieved on April 8, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 10 of 14
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Like the website reported by Victim 1, jerrysbassethoundhome[.]com offers
`
`puppies for sale at a cost of $700, complete with heartwarming pictures and purported
`
`“testimonials” from real and satisfied customers. By clicking the “buy” button in Figure 4 below,
`
`website visitors are led to a webform that requests their full name, email address, phone number,
`
`puppy name, and message.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4. Image of “Available Puppies,”
`https://jerrysbassethoundhome[.]com/
`available-puppies/, retrieved on April 8, 2022.
`
`31.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant operates jerrysbassethoundhome[.]com. The
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`contact information for the webmaster of jerrysbassethoundhome[.]com, i.e., the person
`
`21
`
`responsible for creating or maintaining the website, is a Gmail account that logged in from the
`
`22
`
`same IP address as familyhomebassethound@gmail[.]com (Gmail Account A).
`
`23
`
`32.
`
`Even as some of Defendant’s websites are suspended, new scam websites crop up,
`
`24
`
`evidencing a concerted effort to defraud and an ongoing harm to Google and to the public.
`
`25
`
`Recently, Google discovered a Google Ads account that ran an Ads campaign promoting
`
`26
`
`familyhomebassethound[.]com. The same Google Ads account was used to run an Ads campaign
`
`27
`
`for emilypuppyfarm[.]com, as well as the other domains listed in Exhibit 5. Publicly-available
`
`28
`
`records reveal that emilypuppyfarm[.]com was registered on March 27, 2022 with Namecheap, a
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 11 of 14
`
`
`
`domain name registrar and web hosting service based in Phoenix, Arizona. The recency of this
`
`site shows that Defendant will continue to perpetrate fraud and abuse Google’s services unless
`
`stopped. Google suspended the related Ads account and has requested that the website be taken
`
`down.
`
`Figure 5. Image of maltipoofarmhome[.]com webpage, retrieved on January 5, 2022.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant also ran maltipoofarmhome[.]com (Figure 5, above), a website that
`
`purported to sell Maltipoo puppies for $700 and used nearly identical language to the basset
`
`hound websites. The webmaster email for jerrysbassethoundhome[.]com attempted to run a
`
`Google Ads campaign to promote maltipoofarmhome[.]com, which indicates common control
`
`over the two sites. In late October 2021, Google suspended the Google Ads account for payment
`
`fraud before any ads were served. Before it was taken down, Maltipoofarmhome[.]com was
`
`hosted by Namecheap.
`
`34.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant also controlled moonrocksmand[.]com, a
`
`website that purported to sell marijuana and prescription opiate cough syrup. The “Call Us”
`
`section of the website listed a Google Voice number ending in -5071, which is registered to a
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 12 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Gmail account that logged in from the same IP address as several Gmail accounts controlled by
`
`Defendant. Until April 7, 2022, when it was taken down at Google’s request,
`
`Moonrocksmand[.]com was hosted by Porkbun, a domain name registrar and hosting provider
`
`based in Portland, Oregon. On information and belief, moonrocksmand[.]com did not actually sell
`
`controlled substances and was yet another non-delivery scheme.
`
`35.
`
`The above fraudulent websites, some of which are still operational, pose an
`
`immediate risk of harm to Google and to the public. The websites are deliberately designed to trick
`
`unsuspecting victims into believing they are buying real items and to lure them into sending money
`
`for these nonexistent puppies and products via electronic means. Ultimately, the victims receive
`
`10
`
`nothing in return. As discussed above, Defendant uses a network of Gmail and Google Voice
`
`11
`
`accounts to facilitate the scheme and communicate with victims, one of whom is based in South
`
`12
`
`Carolina. These communications necessarily involve interstate and foreign wires because
`
`13
`
`Defendant is based in Cameroon, the websites are hosted by providers in California, Arizona, and
`
`14
`
`Oregon, and Victim 1 is based in South Carolina. In sum, Defendant is engaged in a “scheme or
`
`15
`
`artifice to defraud or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
`
`16
`
`representations, or promises,” and uses interstate and foreign wires to effect that scheme, in
`
`17
`
`violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`D.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful activity caused significant harm to Google
`
`Defendant’s breaches of the Google ToS, Gmail’s Program Policies, and the
`
`20
`
`Google Voice ToS have caused substantial harm to Google and pose a continuing risk of harm to
`
`21
`
`other Gmail users and the public. Defendant has violated express prohibitions against unlawful
`
`22
`
`activity and misrepresentation in these terms by perpetrating fraud through the use of Gmail
`
`23
`
`accounts and Google Voice numbers.
`
`24
`
`37.
`
`Defendant’s breaches have injured Google by damaging the safety and integrity of
`
`25
`
`its platform, negatively impacting its users and potential users.
`
`26
`
`38.
`
`Google has suffered damages attributable to the efforts and resources it has used to
`
`27
`
`address this Complaint; investigate and mitigate Defendant’s illegal conduct; and attempt to
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 13 of 14
`
`
`
`identify, analyze, and stop Defendant’s fraudulent and injurious activities. Many of these
`
`damages are ongoing.
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Breach of Contract
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Google realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`Access to and use of Google services, including Gmail and Google Voice, is
`
`governed by Google’s ToS and related Google policies.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant agreed to and became bound by Google’s US ToS when Defendant
`
`used Gmail and Google Voice services.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`4.
`
`Google has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required of it in
`
`11
`
`accordance with Google’s US ToS.
`
`12
`
`5.
`
`Defendant’s violations of Google’s US ToS and related policies have directly and
`
`13
`
`proximately caused and continue to cause harm and injury to Google.
`
`14
`
`6.
`
`When Defendant agreed to and became bound by Google’s US ToS, both Google
`
`15
`
`and Defendant knew or could have reasonably foreseen that the harm and injury to Google was
`
`16
`
`likely to occur in the ordinary course of events as a result of Defendant’s breach.
`
`17
`
`7.
`
`Defendant’s actions caused Google to incur losses and other economic damages,
`
`18
`
`including, among other things, the expenditure of resources to investigate and remediate
`
`19
`
`Defendant’s conduct and damage to the safety and integrity of Google’s platform, impacting
`
`20
`
`Google’s users and potential users. Google has been damaged in excess of $75,000. The exact
`
`21
`
`amount will be proven at trial.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Google requests judgment against Defendant as follows:
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`1.
`
`Judgment against Defendant that Defendant breached their contracts with Google
`
`25
`
`in violation of California law.
`
`26
`
`2.
`
`Judgment entering a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendant and
`
`27
`
`their agents, servants, employees, successors, and assigns, and all other persons acting in concert
`
`28
`
`with or conspiracy with any of them or who are affiliated with Defendant from:
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02244-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 14 of 14
`
`
`
`a. Accessing or attempting to access Google’s services;
`
`b. Creating or maintaining any Google accounts;
`
`c. Engaging in any activity (or facilitating others to engage in any activity)
`
`that violates Google’s ToS or related policies; and
`
`d. Continuing to operate the websites listed in Exhibit 5 and creating or
`
`operating any new scam websites.
`
`3.
`
`Judgment awarding damages, including, but not limited to, compensatory,
`
`statutory and punitive damages, as permitted by law and in such amounts to be proven at trial.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Judgment awarding reasonable costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
`
`Judgment awarding awarded pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law.
`
`Other such relief that the Court deems just and reasonable.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Google respectfully requests a jury trial.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 11, 2022
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`
`By: /s/ Michael G. Rhodes
`Michael G. Rhodes
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`