Google Replies to Arguments Against Dismissal in Google Play Gift Card Case

On Monday, Google filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss in the Central District of California against consumers in an ongoing battle over Google’s alleged failure to redeem Google Play gift cards.

Google started their reply by claiming that the plaintiffs’ opposition letter “fail[ed] to address, much less refute, dispositive facts and law raised in Google’s Motion.” The defendant first attacked the plaintiffs’ claim that they did not agree to a binding contract by buying Google Play gift cards, arguing that “Plaintiffs do not dispute that [Gift Card TOS] is a valid contract between them and Google, on which their claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are premised.” Google claimed that their TOS was “easily accessible through the referenced blue hyperlink” including the forum selection clause which states that all cases brought against them will go to the Northern District of California.

The defendant then claimed that the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claims should be dismissed since there is another adequate remedy at law: “the damage is the value of the gift card.” Google fired back at their supposed Gift Card Law violation, saying that the law “expressly excludes ‘any gift card usable with multiple sellers of goods or services’ from its provisions,” and reiterating that the Google Play gift cards fall under this exception even if they “must be redeemed through the Google Play store” first.

Google also questioned if plaintiffs are all bona fide Google Play gift card owners, claiming that this was never addressed in the amended complaint and therefore jeopardizing the legitimacy of their class action allegations.

The defendant is asking the court to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens without leave to amend or transfer to the Northern District of California, and strike the plaintiffs’ class allegations.

Google is represented by Cooley LLP.The plaintiffs are represented by McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.