Facts

Left Field Holdings is a Florida franchisee of Lime Fresh Mexican restaurants. It filed a class action suit against Google LLC on March 8, 2022, seeking to represent any U.S. restaurant for whom Google created an ordering button or storefront to generate orders. Specifically, Left Field Holdings' claims against Google included trademark infringement, counterfeiting, false association, and false advertising.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that Google's online ordering system was unfair and deceptive. According to plaintiffs, starting in 2019, Google changed how restaurants appeared in its search engine. Persons looking for a particular restaurant would not only be shown information about the restaurant but also a prominent blue box stating "Order Online." Clicking that button then led to an ordering interface featuring the restaurant's name. If customers placed an order, according to plaintiffs, defendant would route the order to a third-party delivery company that the restaurant partnered with. The order would be sent to the restaurant as if it had actually been placed originally with the delivery provider. Plaintiff argued that defendant placed this system without obtaining permission to do so from them, noting that its contracts with third-party delivery companies did not authorize defendant's ordering system online. Using this process, plaintiff contended that defendant "intercepted" thousands of orders that the customers would have otherwise place directly with the restaurant. Restaurants had to pay fees of as high as 30 percent to the delivery providers on those orders, some of which, according to plaintiff, was passed on to defendant.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant argued that their goal was to connect customers with restaurants they want to order from and the "Order Online" button made it easier for them to do so. Moreover, merchants are provided specific tools in which they could indicate their preference as to what happens to their online orders. Finally, defendants note that they receive no compensation for orders that have this feature.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, noting that the contested button was not false association or false advertising. Also, defendant's use of the restaurant's name was nominative fair use as there was no other way to identify the restaurant. Finally and importantly, the page featured defendant's logo prominently which undercut any theory that the page was misleading.