Google can’t avoid class action just because damages are variable

Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 12-16752
(9th Cir.  Sept. 21, 2015)
From 2004-08, many advertisers used Google’s AdWords to bid
for Google to put their ads on websites. Pulaski sued under the California UCL
and FAL, alleging that Google misled them as to the types of websites on which
their advertisements could appear. Under Google’s auction system, the price of
a click varied based on several factors: other bidders’ maximum bids, the ad’s quality
score, and a “Smart Pricing” discount applied to the website where the ad was
placed.  This discount comes from a ratio
calculated by dividing the conversion rate for a lower-quality website by the
conversion rate of  Although
Google’s registration process only discussed Search Feed and Content Network
placement—the first where the ads varied by the nature of the user’s search,
and the second where the ads were determined by the content on the rest of the
website, such as—AdWords also ran on parked domain pages and error
After Google changed the AdWords program to let advertisers
exclude parked domain and error pages, Pulaski sought only the equitable remedy
of restitution. The district court held that common questions didn’t
predominate because of damages issues, rejecting Yokoyama v. Midland National
Life Insurance Co., 594 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2010).  The court of appeals reversed.
Pulaski proposed three different methods for calculating
restitution, all of which were based on a “but for” or “out-of-pocket loss”
calculation: the difference between what advertisers actually paid and what
they would have paid had Google informed them that their ads were being placed
on parked domains and error pages.  One
was based on the Smart Pricing discount ratio; a second method factored in the
lower bidding that would have occurred had advertisers been allowed to bid
separately on parked domains and error pages. A third method would provide full
refunds for clicks on ads placed on parked domains and error pages. Each method
would provide better results for different subgroups than the other methods.
The district court found that Rule 23(a) was satisfied in
terms of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation. However,
for Rule 23(b)(3) predominance, the district court found that ascertaining who
was even entitled to restitution would require individual inquiries, since “many
advertisers … have no legal claim to restitution because they derived direct
economic benefits from ads placed on parked domains and error pages.”  Individual questions would also arise in
determining the amount of restitution owed. 
Yokoyama held that damages
calculations alone cannot defeat class certification, but that case involved a
“workable method for calculating monetary recovery.” Here, the district court
held, plaintiffs lacked such a workable method, given differing costs for each
advertiser, each ad, and each click, overlaid with an auction process.
The court of appeals reversed. Entitlement to restitution
was a common question.  The UCL and FAL
are worded broadly; for false advertising claims, all a plaintiff must show is
likely deception, not “individualized proof of deception, reliance and injury.”
“[I]n effect, California has created what amounts to a conclusive presumption
that when a defendant puts out tainted bait and a person sees it and bites, the
defendant has caused an injury; restitution is the remedy.”
Google argued that class members were exposed to different
information and thus couldn’t be treated together.  Pulaski responded that the conduct at issue
was consistent: “all AdWords customers could select Search Feed pages, Content
Network pages, or both; parked domain and error pages were never mentioned in
AdWords’s sign-up materials; Google’s contracts with advertisers never
disclosed that Google would place their ads on parked domains and error pages …;
and Google’s materials answering frequently asked questions did not disclose ad
placement on parked domain and error pages.”   Because Pulaski’s claims were based on the
AdWords sign-up materials, “all of which were presented to putative class
members through the same online portal,” Google’s argument failed.

The UCL and FAL provide for restitution as a remedy.  Courts need not make individual
determinations about entitlement to restitution, which is available classwide
once there’s a threshold showing of liability.
What about damage calculations?  Yokoyama
held that “damage calculations alone cannot 
defeat  certification.”  Google argued that Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
— U.S.—, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), displayed Yokoyama,
but that case involved a failure to provide a damages model that could link the
plaintiff’s legal liability theory to only those damages attributable to that
theory.  Comcast didn’t overrule Yokoyama
as long as plaintiffs can show that their damages stemmed from the defendant’s
actions that created the legal liability. Other circuits have agreed.
Google then argued that Pulaski’s proposed method for
calculating restitution was “arbitrary,” but the court of appeals
disagreed.  Restitution is “the return of
the excess of what the plaintiff gave the defendant over the value of what the
plaintiff received.” Restitution aims “to restore the defrauded party to the
position he would have had absent the fraud,” and “to deny the fraudulent party
any benefits, whether or not for[e]seeable, which derive from his wrongful
act.”  In cases of deception, the
consumer buys a product that he or she pays more for than he or she otherwise
might have been willing to pay if the product had been labeled accurately.  This harm can occur even if the court views
the products as functionally identical (as with two wines from different
vintages), as long as the consumer wouldn’t. 
Thus, UCL and FAL restitution is based on what a purchaser would have
paid at the time of purchase had the purchaser received all the information.
California “requires only that some reasonable basis of
computation of damages be used, and the damages may be computed even if the
result reached is an approximation.” “[T]he fact that the amount of damage may
not be susceptible of exact proof or may be uncertain, contingent or difficult
of ascertainment does not bar recovery.”  Pulaski’s proposed method wasn’t
arbitrary.  It didn’t need to account for
post-purchase benefits, because the focus is the value of the service/what the
consumer would have paid at the time of purchase. 
Pulaski’s main method of calculating restitution for Google’s
placement of ads on lower-quality-than-expected web pages used Google’s Smart
Pricing ratio, “which directly addresses Google’s alleged unfair practice by
setting advertisers’ bids to the levels a rational advertiser would have bid if
it had access to all of Google’s data about how ads perform on different
websites.” Using a ratio that adjusts for web page quality “is both targeted to
remedying the alleged harm and does not turn on individual circumstances.” The
court therefore didn’t need to address the alternative methods.

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s