Keep up with the latest developments and legal issues in the telecommunications and emerging technology sectors, with exclusive access to a comprehensive collection of telecommunications law news,...
By Perry Cooper
Sept. 21 — Google must face a revived motion for class certification brought by advertisers who allege the search engine lied about where their ads would appear.
Differences in potential individual restitution awards alone don't defeat class certification, Judge Richard A. Paez wrote Sept. 21 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Therefore, the lower court improperly denied certification based on its finding that determining which class members are entitled to restitution, and how much, would require individual inquiries that would predominate over class claims, the court said.
From 2004 and 2008, AdWords was Google's auction-based program through which advertisers would bid for Google to place their ads on websites. Advertisers could request that their ads appear along with search results for certain search terms, or on full content sites with keywords that matched the ad.
But Pulaski & Middleman LLC and other advertisers brought a putative class action against Google Inc. for allegedly misleading advertisers by failing to disclose that AdWords ads also appeared on parked domain pages (undeveloped domains without content) and error pages that included ads.
They sought restitution of money Google wrongfully obtained under California's Unfair Competition and Fair Adverting Laws. They proposed three methods of calculating restitution, all based on the difference between what advertisers actually paid and what they would have paid if Google had told them all of the types of sites where their ads might appear.
The district court refused to certify a class, finding that individual questions predominated over common questions on the issues of entitlement to restitution and the amount due to each class member. The class appealed.
The Ninth Circuit first took issue with the district court's holding that individual questions predominated as to whether each class member is entitled to restitution.
To state a claim for false advertising or promotional practices under the UCL or FAL, “it is necessary only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived,” the court said. “This inquiry does not require individualized proof of deception, reliance and injury.”
Thus, courts don't need to make individual determinations on entitlement to restitution—it's available on a classwide basis once the class representative has shown liability under the UCL or FAL, the court held.
Further, the Ninth Circuit said, circuit precedent establishes that damage calculations alone can't preclude certification.
In Yokoyama v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit held that the mere fact that different variables impact damage calculations doesn't defeat predominance. That case involved allegations that a life insurance company misrepresented the riskiness of annuities investments for seniors.
In Comcast, a putative antitrust class action, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs' proposed damages model fell short of establishing that damages were capable of measurement on a classwide basis. “Questions of individual damage calculations will inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class,” where a damages model doesn't measure only those damages attributable to the legal theory of harm, the Comcast court held.
But the Ninth Circuit has continued to apply Yokoyama's central holding since Comcast, the court here said. Therefore, the district court erred in not applying Yokoyama.
Judges A. Wallace Tashima and Gordon J. Quist, sitting by designation from the Western District of Michigan, also served on the panel.
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP in San Francisco represented the plaintiffs. Cooley LLP represented Google.
To contact the reporter on this story: Perry Cooper in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steven Patrick at email@example.com
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)