**Ninth Circuit Chips Away at Individualized Damage Preclusion under Rule 23 Predominance – reversing Google’s District Court Win on Certification ** . . .
The Ninth Circuit has held in Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 12-16752, 2015 WL 5515617 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2015) that under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) and Fair Advertising Laws (FAL) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq there is no need for a court to make individual determinations regarding entitlement to restitution. In this case, Google was sued in the Northern District of California in relation to its ubiquitous AdWords advertising. Plaintiff alleged that it was unfair and misleading for Google to charge AdWords users for ads that were served up on error pages and parked domains (i.e. on pages with no real content). The district court denied certification holding that it could not simply assume that every AdWords member who had ads placed on error or parked pages derived no economic benefit from the ads. Rather, an individualized analysis was required that precluded class treatment. The Ninth Circuit panel disagreed. It held that under California’s UCL and FAL, the test is whether members of the public were “likely to be deceived” – thus an individualized inquiry is not required to achieve certification. In other words, the Ninth Circuit parsed between an entitlement to restitution (a common question) and what the restitution actually is (an individual question) and held that only the former was required at the certification stage. As such, the circuit panel held it was legal error for the district court to focus on individualized restitution. The court held that its ruling in Yokoyama v. Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2010) that damage calculations alone cannot defeat certification governed. The Ninth Circuit’s laser focus on “liability” and its warning to district courts not to conflate restitution calculations with liability inquiries (which can be traced back to the California Supreme Court In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009)) sets a difficult course for UCL and FAL defendants to navigate.Share this: