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.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

eOnline Global Inc. v. Google LLC

Published: Jul. 5, 2019 | Result Date: May 15, 2019 | Filing Date: Oct. 8, 2016 |

Case number: 5:16-cv-05822-EJD Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Edward J. Davila

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mark W. Poe
(Gaw Poe LLP)

Randolph Gaw
(Gaw Poe LLP)

Samuel S. Song
(Gaw Poe LLP)

Victor Meng
(Gaw Poe LLP)


Defendant

Jeffrey M. Gutkin
(Cooley LLP)

Michael G. Rhodes
(Cooley LLP)

Audrey J. Mott-Smith
(Cooley LLP)

Kyle C. Wong
(Cooley LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Eonline Global Inc. filed suit against Google LLC, in relation to a contract for online advertising.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that Google terminated its advertising accounts and withheld more than $400,000 of unpaid funds. Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that Google was liable for breach of contract, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant alleged that it sent plaintiff warnings that its ad placement on mobile sites violated Google's standard. Additionally, Google sent more than a dozen warnings to plaintiffs. Defendant contended that it credited the $400,000 to the plaintiffs plus its share of the revenue from the ads on plaintiff's websites and an additional $221,000 back to the advertisers who had been charged from the ads running on plaintiff's websites. Defendant alleged that by creating websites specifically to run ads and by filling those websites with intentionally deceptive content, plaintiffs frustrated the purpose of the agreement.

Result

The court granted defendants motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment.


#132213

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

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