On Monday, Google filed an administrative motion asking the Northern District of California to consider whether certain video game lawsuits alleging that apps sold in the Google Play store constitute illegal gambling should be related. The defendant claimed that the parties and circumstances in each case are similar and relating them will be judicially efficient.
The motion argued that Coffee et al. v. Google, is related to any or all of the following Northern District of California class-actions: Sparks v. Google LLC, et al.; Long v. Google LLC, et al.; Lords v. Google LLC, et al.; Bruschi v. Google LLC, et al.; and Andrews v. Google LLC.
Google claimed that these cases “concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event, and it appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges.” In particular, the instant action is before Judge Beth Labson Freeman, while three of the proposed related cases are before Judge Nathanael M. Cousins, one is before Judge Susan van Keulen, and one is before Judge William H. Orrick III.
According to Google, the proposed cases are substantially similar to Coffee because “the gravamen of each lawsuit is that certain video game content offered on the Google Play Store constitutes illegal gambling under various states’ laws.” Additionally, each lawsuit names Google as the main defendant, alleges Google is liable for providing the payment platform, and requests the imposition of liability on Google “as the platform or publisher of allegedly illegal video game content rather than on the respective developers who actually created such content.” Furthermore, the plaintiffs in the Sparks, Long, Lords, and Bruschi cases are “represented by the same attorneys.”
Google claimed that the lawsuits contain similar legal issues and are “based on essentially the same core set of alleged facts.” For example, one issue common to each of the cases is whether the Communications Decency Act Section 230 gives Google liability protections “for creating a platform to download video games and a payment tool to process purchases of virtual currency offered by third-party developers.” Google added that this court has already considered this for the Coffee case in response to Google’s motion to dismiss, thus it is “familiar with both the relevant law and key alleged facts.”
Another question related to multiple lawsuits is whether Google’s system for processing virtual currency payments on behalf of developers can give rise to an unjust enrichment claim, which is cited in the Coffee, Sparks, Long, Lords, and Bruschi actions. Additionally, Google noted the issue in Coffee and Andrews of whether the plaintiffs can “establish standing under California’s unfair Competition Law against Google.” Google said that the Andrews counsel “also represented to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that a lawsuit identical to the Andrews case bears significant factual overlap with a lawsuit substantially identical to the Coffee case.”
Google further claimed it is likely that during discovery other claims or items will substantially overlap across the cases. Consequently, Google argued that the court should “transfer the later filed case against Google LLC and Google Payment Corp. to this Court for further proceedings.”
Google is represented by Baker & McKenzie LLP.
