Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 21 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`John C. Hueston, Bar No. 164921
`jhueston@hueston.com
`Douglas J. Dixon, Bar No. 275389
`ddixon@hueston.com
`HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
`620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1300
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 229-8640
`
`Joseph A. Reiter, Bar No. 294976
`jreiter@hueston.com
`Michael K. Acquah, Bar No. 313955
`macquah@hueston.com
`William M. Larsen, Bar No. 314091
`wlarsen@hueston.com
`Julia L. Haines, Bar No. 321607
`jhaines@hueston.com
`HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
`523 West 6th Street, Suite 400
`Los Angeles, CA 90014
`Telephone: (213) 788-4340
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`Match Group, LLC; Humor Rainbow, Inc.;
`PlentyofFish Media ULC; and People
`Media, Inc.
`
`Brian C. Rocca, Bar No. 221576
`brian.rocca@morganlewis.com
`Sujal J. Shah, Bar No. 215230
`sujal.shah@morganlewis.com
`Michelle Park Chiu, Bar No. 248421
`michelle.chiu@morganlewis.com
`Geoffrey T. Holtz, Bar No. 191370
`geoffrey.holtz@morganlewis.com
`Minna Lo Naranjo, Bar No. 259005
`minna.naranjo@morganlewis.com
`Rishi P. Satia, Bar No. 301958
`rishi.satia@morganlewis.com
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`One Market, Spear Street Tower
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
`Telephone: (415) 442-1000
`Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
`
`Ian Simmons, pro hac vice
`isimmons@omm.com
`Benjamin G. Bradshaw, S.B. #189925
`bbradshaw@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`1625 Eye Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 383-5300
`
`Daniel M. Petrocelli, S.B. #97802
`dpetrocelli@omm.com
`Stephen J. McIntyre, S.B. #274481
`smcintyre@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`1999 Avenue of the Stars
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 553-6700
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Google LLC, Google Ireland Ltd., Google
`Commerce Ltd., Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., and
`Google Payment Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-02746-JD
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON MATCH’S
`MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 21 Filed 05/19/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-02746-JD
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
`ORDER ON MATCH’S MOTION FOR
`TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
`ORDER
`Judge: Hon. James Donato
`
`
`MATCH GROUP, LLC, a Delaware
`corporation; HUMOR RAINBOW, INC., a
`New York corporation; PLENTYOFFISH
`MEDIA ULC, a Canadian corporation; and
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`GOOGLE LLC; GOOGLE IRELAND
`LIMITED; GOOGLE COMMERCE
`LIMITED; GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC PTE.
`LIMITED; and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`Case No. 3:22-cv-02746-JD
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON MATCH’S
`MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 21 Filed 05/19/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Plaintiffs Match Group, LLC; Humor Rainbow, Inc.; Plentyoffish Media ULC; and People
`Media, Inc. (“Match”) and Defendants Google LLC; Google Ireland Limited; Google Commerce
`Limited; Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.; and Google Payment Corp. (“Google,” and together with
`Match, the “Stipulating Parties”), through their respective attorneys of record and without waiving
`any arguments, rights, claims, or defenses except as expressly provided below, hereby stipulate to
`the following:
`On May 9, 2022, Match filed a Complaint against Google (ECF No. 1), and on May 10,
`2022, Match filed a Motion For Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 12).
`Consistent with the Court’s guidance at the May 12, 2022, status conference, the Stipulating
`Parties have met and conferred on the issues presented by the Motion For Temporary Restraining
`Order (ECF No. 19).
`NOW, THEREFORE, in order to avoid proceeding with the Motion For Temporary
`Restraining Order, the Stipulating Parties agree as follows (the “Agreement”):
`1.
`Google agrees that, so long as this Agreement remains in effect and effective
`immediately, it will not remove, de-list, refuse to list, or otherwise make unavailable Match apps
`that were available in Google Play as of May 9, 2022 (see Exhibit A),1 including, but not limited
`to, rejecting, unreasonably delaying, or refusing to distribute updates of such apps, from the Google
`Play Store on the basis that (i) the Match apps or updates offer in-app purchases of digital good or
`services through means other than Google Play’s billing system or (ii) Match is not paying fees to
`Google on in-app purchases made through means other than Google Play’s billing system. For the
`avoidance of doubt, Google reserves the right to enforce all other provisions of the Google Play
`Developer Distribution Agreement (DDA) and Google Play Developer Program Policies, and
`Match reserves all rights and defenses against such provisions and enforcement of the same.
`2.
`Match shall:
`a)
`pay into a mutually acceptable escrow account up to forty million US dollars
`($40,000,000.00) according to a funding schedule and agreement to be
`
`
`1 If Match seeks to modify Exhibit A, it shall provide reasonable notice to Google, and the
`Stipulating Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith to address the request.
`
`2
`Case No. 3:22-cv-02746-JD
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON MATCH’S
`MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 21 Filed 05/19/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`c)
`
`b)
`
`negotiated between Match and Google over the next 14 days;
`beginning July 1, 2022, and on a monthly basis thereafter until this
`Agreement is terminated, provide Google with a monthly accounting of all
`in-app digital goods and services2 purchased in the prior month using
`Match’s alternative billing system on Match apps installed through Google
`Play sufficient to permit Google to verify the fees Google claims it would
`have charged on transactions through Google Play’s billing system in a
`format to be mutually agreed to by the Stipulating Parties for purchases
`starting April 1, 2022; and
`maintain Google Play’s billing system as an option on all Match apps on
`which it was available as of May 9, 2022, subject to the same service fees
`applicable as of that date unless Google reduces those fees.
`3.
`Match agrees to work in good faith on further enabling Google’s Play’s billing
`system as an option for users of its apps so long as Google agrees to work in good faith to continue
`to develop additional billing system features that are important to Match.
`4.
`Match reserves and does not waive any claims or requests for relief asserted in its
`Complaint, including, but not limited to, its entitlement to the funds it places in escrow (as referred
`to in 2(a) above) or any defenses it may have to any claims or remedies Google could or may assert,
`including, but not limited to, those contemplated in Paragraph 5.
`5.
`Google reserves and does not waive any defenses, rights or claims for relief in
`response to the Complaint. Google also reserves and does not waive any of the terms of the DDA
`or any rights under or related to that agreement. Google expressly reserves the right to pursue any
`claims and remedies available under law or equity, including, but not limited to, for breaches of the
`DDA and to establish its entitlement to damages including, but not limited to, funds placed by
`Match in escrow (as referenced in 2(a) above).
`
`
`2 As asserted in its Complaint (ECF No. 1), Match disputes that its in-app purchases are “digital
`goods and services” as defined in the DDA. Notwithstanding and without waiving that argument,
`Match agrees that the accounting required under 2(b) will reflect purchases consistent with
`Google’s interpretation of that phrase.
`
`
`3
`Case No. 3:22-cv-02746-JD
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON MATCH’S
`MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 21 Filed 05/19/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`6.
`If, in any final judgment, Google’s recovery on its claims or remedies, if any,
`exceeds Match’s recovery on its claims or remedies, if any, and such difference is equal to or greater
`than the amount placed in escrow by Match, then Match shall consent to the release of the funds in
`escrow to Google and, if applicable, pay Google the difference between the funds in escrow and
`the amount awarded to Google in the final judgment pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure and any Court orders related thereto. If, in any final judgment, Google’s recovery on its
`claims or remedies, if any, exceeds Match’s recovery on its claims or remedies, if any, and such
`difference is less than the amount placed in escrow, then Match shall consent to release to Google
`the amount awarded to Google in the final judgment pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure and any Court orders related thereto, and the remaining funds in the escrow account shall
`be returned to Match. If, in any final judgment, Match prevails and Google has no recovery on its
`claims or remedies or Google’s recovery on its claims or remedies, if any, is less than Match’s
`recovery on its claims or remedies, then Google shall consent to the release of all funds in the
`escrow account to Match.
`7.
`This Agreement terminates on the earlier of:
`a)
`The date of a final judgment or other disposition of this action (Case No.
`3:22-cv-02746) at the trial court level.
`Sixty days after Google or Match notifies the other party that it is terminating
`this Agreement.
`8.
`Pursuant to this stipulation, the Stipulating Parties agree that the Motion for
`Temporary Restraining Order shall be deemed provisionally denied as moot without prejudice in
`light of the Agreement set forth herein. Match reserves and does not waive the right to pursue the
`relief sought in the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in the event the Agreement is breached
`by Google or terminated for any reason, and Google reserves any defenses thereto.
`9.
`The Stipulating Parties reserve all other claims, rights and defenses.
`
`
`b)
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`Case No. 3:22-cv-02746-JD
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON MATCH’S
`MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 21 Filed 05/19/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`Dated: May 19, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 19, 2022
`
`
`
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`Brian C. Rocca
`Sujal J. Shah
`Michelle Park Chiu
`Minna L. Naranjo
`Rishi P. Satia
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By:
`/s/ Brian Rocca
`Brian C. Rocca
`
`Counsel for Defendants Google LLC et al.
`
`
`
`HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
`John C. Hueston
`Douglas J. Dixon
`Joseph A. Reiter
`Michael K. Acquah
`William M. Larsen
`Julia L. Haines
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Douglas J. Dixon .
`Douglas J. Dixon
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Match Group, LLC;
`Humor Rainbow, Inc.; PlentyofFish Media
`ULC; and People Media, Inc.
`
`
`
`PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________________
` United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`Case No. 3:22-cv-02746-JD
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON MATCH’S
`MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`