Roley v. Google LLC

Background

Google’s Local Guides program rewarded users for contributions to Google Maps. After the program expanded, Google offered one terabyte of Google Drive storage to Local Guides who reached Level 4. Google later stopped offering that benefit. Andrew Roley received an email inviting him to join Local Guides. The email said that points could unlock benefits “like” one terabyte of Google Drive storage, but it did not state how many points were needed, identify Level 4 as the required achievement, or say that the storage would last forever.

Roley joined the program and later reached Level 4. When he redeemed the benefit, Google notified Local Guides that it would end after two years. Roley’s amended complaint asserted claims for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The court had certified a class for the breach-of-contract and conversion claims. Roley continued pursuing the fraud-based claims individually.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. At this stage, the court does not weigh evidence or decide witness credibility; it asks whether a reasonable factfinder could rule for the nonmoving party.

Breach of contract

The court granted Google summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim. Under California law, a breach-of-contract claim requires a contract, the plaintiff’s performance, the defendant’s breach, and resulting damage. A unilateral contract is accepted through performance rather than a return promise. An advertisement can create that kind of contract only when it uses clear and positive terms, requests a specific act, and would reasonably lead the recipient to conclude that performing the act would create a contract.

The court held that the Photo Impact Email, Enrollment Page, and Terms did not meet that standard. The email described the storage as a possible benefit using generalized and conditional language. It did not specify that a user had to reach Level 4 to obtain the storage. The Enrollment Page and Terms did not mention the storage benefit or the Level 4 requirement. None of those documents stated that the storage would last indefinitely. The court also relied on Roley’s testimony that he was unsure what he had to do to receive the benefit and did not believe the email guaranteed the listed benefits.

The court concluded as a matter of law that the documents did not create a unilateral contract and granted Google’s motion on that claim.

Conversion

The court also granted Google summary judgment on the conversion claim. Both sides agreed that the conversion claim depended on the breach-of-contract claim. Because the contract claim failed, the court held that the conversion claim could not proceed.

Individual fraud-based claims

The court denied Google summary judgment on Roley’s individual fraud, California Unfair Competition Law, and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims. Google argued that Roley could not prove justifiable reliance as a matter of law because the Terms said benefits were offered at Google’s discretion and subject to change, the Help Center disclosed the two-year limit, and Roley should have investigated the benefit’s duration.

Roley argued that the email and Terms did not disclose a time limit and that a jury should decide whether his reliance was reasonable. The court agreed that factual disputes prevented it from deciding as a matter of law that Roley’s reliance was unreasonable. California law generally treats the reasonableness of reliance as a fact question unless reasonable people could reach only one conclusion. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the fraud, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that Google’s motion for summary judgment was granted as to the breach-of-contract claim and the conversion claim, and denied as to the fraud claim, the Unfair Competition Law claim, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim.