Patel v. Alphabet Inc.

Background

Raj Patel’s sixth amended complaint named Alphabet Inc., XXVI Holdings, Inc., Google, LLC, Jigsaw, LLC, Sundar Pichai, and the United States as defendants. The complaint arose from Patel’s allegation that, in August 2022, he used Google Search to find information about the varna and caste of Rishi Sunak, but Google Search did not display that information. Patel alleged that Google had guaranteed, through a warranty clause, that it would provide broad access to information and that the failure to provide the requested information added to his existing mental-health problems.

The opinion describes the complaint as raising 18 claims. The listed claims included breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, negligent or equitable misrepresentation, constructive fraud, products liability, violations of the Indiana and federal Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, “res ipsa loquitur,” and “law merchant” claims.

Screening Standard

The court had previously allowed Patel to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and therefore screened the complaint. That statute requires the court to dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court explained that a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, including when it relies on fanciful factual allegations. The court also stated that dismissal for failure to state a claim is essentially the same as dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Court’s Analysis

The court found the sixth amended complaint frivolous. Most of Patel’s claims relied on the theory that Google promised not to make any information inaccessible to him. The court held that the alleged broad promise to provide any and all information without limitation was fanciful and implausible. The court stated that no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the defendants were liable on that theory.

The court alternatively considered a narrower theory that Google promised to provide Sunak’s varna and caste information. It held that Patel alleged no facts supporting that theory and therefore failed to state a claim that was plausible on its face. The court also noted that Patel had brought similar claims against Google and other search engines in other courts and that those claims had been rejected.

The court found the unjust-enrichment claim implausible because Patel did not adequately allege how Google was enriched or how he was injured. It rejected the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim because, according to the court, that statute applies only to government actors, while Google was not a government actor. It rejected the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim because that statute applies only to governmental entities and Google was not one. The two “law merchant” claims were also frivolous because they did not allege that Google violated any law.

Disposition

The court declined to give Patel another opportunity to amend. It found that he had repeatedly failed to cure the deficiencies, had already received three opportunities to amend, and that further amendment would be futile because the claims were frivolous. The order states that Patel’s sixth amended complaint was “DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.” Earlier in the opinion, the court also says that it “DISMISSES the SAC with prejudice.”