This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumers Legal Remedies Act
Unfair Competition

Gabriela Rojas-Lozano, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Google Inc.

Published: Mar. 5, 2016 | Result Date: Feb. 3, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:15-cv-03751-JSC Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Thomas G. Shapiro

Noah M. Schubert
(Schubert, Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP)

Patrick J. Vallely
(Shapiro, Haber & Urmy LLP)

Robert C. Schubert
(Schubert, Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP)


Defendant

Ragesh K. Tangri
(Durie Tangri LLP)

Joseph C. Gratz
(Durie Tangri LLP)

Michael H. Page
(Durie Tangri LLP)

Adam R. Brausa
(Durie Tangri LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff brought a class action against Google Inc. relating to its CAPTCHAS program, which requires website visitors to identify distorted words before accessing certain internet services. Its purpose is to ensure that the user is human. In this case, Rojas-Lozano used the program to sign up for Google's free Gmail service.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Rojas-Lozano contended that Google's reCAPTCHA program utilized two words. The first was used for security, but she claimed the second was used to assist Google with the digitalization of books because it "crowd sourced" the transcription of words that computers could not decipher. Rojas-Lozano claimed that Google violated the law by failing to disclose this purpose to the human user.

Plaintiff brought claims for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and quasi contract/unjust enrichment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Google contended that it was entitled to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Result

The court granted Google's motion to dismiss, concluding that plaintiff failed to allege that she relied on the alleged omission.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Aug. 17, 2015.


#108982

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390