Action over Google Adwords

But Davila, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Wal-mart Stores v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011) (www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf), said the plaintiffs could not meet the commonality requirement because each of their claims are different. Each plaintiff paid a different amount for their advertising.

“While plaintiffs present a hypothetical 'but for' price for advertising on parked domains and error pages absent Google's alleged 'deception,' they overlook the reality of how advertising costs are actually determined in the AdWords system,” Davila wrote in his 25-page decision. “Where, as here, proof of restitution due each class member cannot be proved with relative ease, the court finds good reason to deny class certification.”

The ruling is a significant win for Google, according to Eric Goldman, an associate professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and director of the High Tech Law Institute.

“The court reaches a sensible conclusion,” Goldman says. “We can't make any assumptions that one set of clicks are more valuable than another set of clicks, and that is the dominant question in this case.”

Google was represented by attorneys from Cooley, with a team led by litigation Chair Michael Rhodes, who declined to comment. Officials from Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys from Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe; Saveri & Saveri; and The Kralowec Law Group.

This is just the latest win for Google related to the AdWords program. Last October, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas refused to certify two classes of advertisers who filed separate infringement suits against Google over AdWords. The complaints, filed in 2009, claim that Google sold search terms that included registered trademarks to advertisers who were not affiliated with or sponsored by the trademark holder.

Google has won another key victory in a lawsuit challenging its AdWords keyword advertising program.

In early January, Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of California declined to certify a purported class action, which alleges that the search engine engaged in deceptive and unfair advertising regarding Google AdWords.

The program lets advertisers place ads online, but the suit, filed in 2008, claims advertisers were improperly charged for spots on low-quality parked domain and error-page websites.

But Davila, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Wal-mart Stores v. Dukes , 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011) ( www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf ), said the plaintiffs could not meet the commonality requirement because each of their claims are different. Each plaintiff paid a different amount for their advertising.

“While plaintiffs present a hypothetical 'but for' price for advertising on parked domains and error pages absent Google's alleged 'deception,' they overlook the reality of how advertising costs are actually determined in the AdWords system,” Davila wrote in his 25-page decision. “Where, as here, proof of restitution due each class member cannot be proved with relative ease, the court finds good reason to deny class certification.”

The ruling is a significant win for Google, according to Eric Goldman, an associate professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and director of the High Tech Law Institute.

“The court reaches a sensible conclusion,” Goldman says. “We can't make any assumptions that one set of clicks are more valuable than another set of clicks, and that is the dominant question in this case.”

Google was represented by attorneys from Cooley, with a team led by litigation Chair Michael Rhodes, who declined to comment. Officials from Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys from Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe; Saveri & Saveri; and The Kralowec Law Group.

This is just the latest win for Google related to the AdWords program. Last October, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas refused to certify two classes of advertisers who filed separate infringement suits against Google over AdWords. The complaints, filed in 2009, claim that Google sold search terms that included registered trademarks to advertisers who were not affiliated with or sponsored by the trademark holder.