Google LLC v. Pondit

Background

Google sued Proloy Pondit and Does 1-20, alleging that Pondit operated BigBoostUp.com and sold fake Google reviews. Google asserted claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and for breach of contract based on Google’s Terms of Service and its policy requiring reviews to reflect real experiences. Google alleged that accounts connected to Pondit posted more than one thousand fake reviews.

The court had authorized alternative service. Google stated that it served Pondit by text message and other electronic means on March 25, 2025, and filed proof of service. Pondit did not appear or respond. The clerk entered default against him on May 8, 2025, after which Google moved for default judgment.

Jurisdiction and Service

The court found subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It also found personal jurisdiction over Pondit because, according to Google’s allegations, he agreed to Google’s Terms of Service when creating Google accounts. Those terms included consent to personal jurisdiction in federal or state courts in Santa Clara County, California.

The court found service adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which permits court-directed service outside the United States when the method is not prohibited by an international agreement. The court relied on Google’s affidavit and its representations that messages and attached documents were successfully delivered.

Default-Judgment Analysis

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s seven-factor test for default judgment. It concluded that the factors, considered together, favored entering default judgment. The court treated the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true, except allegations concerning damages.

For the Unfair Competition Law claim, the court found that Google sufficiently alleged an unlawful business practice based on violations of federal guidance concerning endorsements and testimonials. It also found that Google adequately alleged economic harm from investigating Pondit’s conduct, supporting its ability to bring the claim.

For the breach-of-contract claim, the court found that Google sufficiently alleged a contract formed when Pondit agreed to the Terms of Service by creating a Google account; Google’s performance; Pondit’s breach through deliberately fake content; and resulting harm, including investigation costs and effects on Google’s credibility, goodwill, and user experience.

Google sought only injunctive relief in its motion, so no money was at stake. The court also found little possibility of a factual dispute and concluded that Pondit’s failure to appear was unlikely to result from excusable neglect, in part because service was proper and he apparently acknowledged the action in the media.

Recommended Injunction

The court found that Google was entitled to injunctive relief because continued fake reviews could cause irreparable injury that money would not adequately remedy. It concluded that the proposed injunction’s sections (a) and (b) were sufficiently specific and connected to the alleged conduct. Those provisions would prohibit Pondit, his agents, servants, employees, and persons acting in concert or participation with him from:

- creating, offering to create, or engaging others to create reviews on Google services that do not reflect authentic user experiences; and - offering to sell reviews on Google services, including Google Maps and Google Business Profiles.

The court found section (c), which would have broadly prohibited using Google accounts or accessing Google services in violation of any Google Terms of Service, overbroad. It therefore recommended denying that portion of the requested injunction.

Disposition and Procedure

The court ordered reassignment of the case to a district judge and recommended that Google’s motion for default judgment be granted in part. Specifically, it recommended that default judgment be granted in Google’s favor against Pondit on the Unfair Competition Law and breach-of-contract claims; that Google’s request for a permanent injunction be granted in part as to the two review-related prohibitions; and that Google’s request for a permanent injunction based on the broader Terms-of-Service provision be denied.

The document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation rather than a final district-judge ruling. It states that Google must serve Pondit with the report and recommendation and file proof of service within seven days, and that objections could be filed under the cited rules.