On Tuesday, six entities that operate Lime Fresh franchises around Florida took aim at Google LLC, claiming that the world’s most popular search engine deceives consumers and harms eateries by misappropriating their tradenames and diverting customers to webpages that benefit Google and third-party delivery services. The Northern District of California lawsuit seeks to certify a nationwide class of restaurants subjected to Google’s allegedly deceptive practices that the restaurants claim violate the Lanham Act.
The plaintiffs explain that prior to 2019, Google displayed information to people who searched for restaurants online in a neutral manner. However, in 2019, the company allegedly “determined it could make even more money from its position as the destination-of-choice for consumers looking up restaurants by directing the user into one of two new environments that it dreamed up.”
The complaint describes one scenario in which Google directs searchers to its “online storefront,” a website that captures an order for the restaurant’s food items, which Google then sells to third party food-delivery companies like Postmates or Grubhub while taking a cut of the action.
Under the second scenario, and in situations where Google lacks a relationship with a third-party delivery service willing to facilitate orders from Google’s illicit storefront, the search engine directs the user to another webpage Google owns and controls. The complaint describes an “Order Online” button just below the tradename of the restaurant, leading consumers to mistakenly believe that the button will direct them to the restaurant. In fact, it leads consumers to a page containing links to third-party delivery sites’ webpages.
The complaint alleges that with the “Order Online” button, Google engages in a bait-and-switch, designed to bamboozle consumers while bumping its advertising revenue. It also alleges that Google’s webpages give the appearance that eateries endorse or sponsor the online showcase when in reality, Google is merely employing the tactic to increase orders and clicks. “Google never obtained permission from the restaurant to sell the restaurant’s products and services, or to use the restaurant’s tradename within its website,” the filing says.
The restaurants aver that they suffer harm in the form of lost business, higher costs and fees than had they obtained an order “in person, over the phone, or via the restaurants’ own order-taking websites,” and dilution and damage to their brand, reputation, and tradename. They seek injunctive relief as well as damages and are represented by Hausfeld LLP, Sperling & Slater P.C., and Keller Lenkner LLC.
