Class Action

Google Class Action Defense Cases–Vulcan Golf v. Google: Illinois Federal Court Denies Class Action Treatment For Class Action Complaint Against Google Alleging Violations Of Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act

By Michael J. Hassen

Class Action Complaint’s Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act Claims do not Warrant Class Action Treatment because Rule 23(b)(3)’s Predominance Requirement for Class Action Certification not Met due to Individualized Issues Surrounding Trademarks or Personal Names Illinois Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Google and others alleging “a wide-ranging scheme whereby they receive ‘billions of dollars in ill-gotten advertising and marketing revenue’ by knowingly and intentionally registering, licensing and monetizing purportedly deceptive domain names at the expense of the plaintiff-mark owners.” Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (N.D.Ill. December 18, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. In part, the class action alleged that Google’s conduct violated the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA), id. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class action certification, id.; defense attorneys countered that class action treatment was not warranted because plaintiffs’ claims are not typical and because they are not adequate class representatives, see id., at 4, and because the predominance and superiority tests of Rule 23(b)(3) had not been met, see id., at 7. The district court rejected the first defense challenges, finding the requirements for class action certification under Rule 23(a) were satisfied. However, the district court concluded that Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirements for class action treatment had not been met. Accordingly, the court refused to certify the litigation as a class action.

With respect to the requirements for class action certification set forth in Rule 23(a), the district court easily found that numerosity and commonality had been satisfied. Vulcan Golf, at 4-5. Defense attorneys argued that plaintiffs’ claims were atypical and that they were not adequate class representatives “because intra-class conflicts exist.” Id., at 5. For reasons we do not detail here, the district court rejected the defense arguments and found that each of Rule 23(a)’s requirements for class action treatment had been met. See id., at 5-7. In sum, the federal court explained at page 7, “The representatives’ claims arise from the same course of conduct as the other class members and the class representatives have the same interests and have suffered the same injury as the putative class members.” It turned, therefore, to whether the class action requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) had been met.

Full post as published by Class Action Defense Blog on December 29, 2008 (boomark / email).