Thus, during the class period, advertisers did not know in advance exactly where their ads would appear.Īdvertisers paid a particular price to Google each time an Internet user “clicked” on their displayed ad. Afterwards, using an auction-based algorithm, AdWords determined the online placement and price of the ad. They also selected which Google-defined categories of websites they wanted to display the ad. To participate, advertisers entered Google-defined variables into the AdWords interface on Google's website, including the maximum price per ad they would be willing to pay and their overall budget. Through AdWords, internet advertisers provided advertisements to Google and its third party website-owner partners. This case concerns Google's AdWords program, an auction-based program through which Google served as an intermediary between website hosts and advertisers. We therefore reverse the denial of class certification and remand for further proceedings. Pulaski argues that the district court erred in failing to follow Yokoyama. It then explained that determining which class members are entitled to restitution and what amount each class member should receive would require individual inquiries that “permeate the class claims.” In denying certification, the court reasoned that it was not bound by our decision in Yokoyama v. The district court held that on the claim for restitution, common questions did not predominate over questions affecting individual class members.
Pulaski appeals the district court's denial of class certification. Hereafter, “Pulaski” refers collectively to Pulaski & Middleman, LLC and the other named plaintiffs, JIT Packaging Inc., RK West, Inc., and Richard Oesterling. The only relief the putative class now seeks is the equitable remedy of restitution. After Google changed certain features of the AdWords program, Pulaski, upon filing a Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, abandoned the claim for injunctive relief.
The putative class initially sought injunctive and restitutionary relief. Pulaski & Middleman, LLC and several other named plaintiffs (“Pulaski”) brought this putative class action under California's Unfair Competition and Fair Advertising Laws, alleging that Google misled them as to the types of websites on which their advertisements could appear. Quist, Senior District Judge for the U.S.īetween 20, many online internet advertisers used Google, Inc.'s (“Google”) AdWords program, an auction-based program through which advertisers would bid for Google to place their advertisements on websites. Wong, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA Heather Meservy, Cooley LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant–Appellee.Īppeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Edward J. Rhodes (argued), Whitty Somvichian, and Kyle C.
Jonckheer, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.