Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 22-15899 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Best Carpet Values, Inc. and Thomas D. Rutledge initiated a class action lawsuit against Google, LLC. The plaintiffs argued that Google, through its Search App on Android phones, displayed their websites in a way that occupied valuable space for which Google should have paid. They contended that Google received all the benefits of advertising from the use of that space. The plaintiffs made state-law claims for trespass to chattels, implied-in-law contract and unjust enrichment, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
The court reviewed questions certified by the district court for interlocutory review. In response to the first question, the court ruled that the website copies displayed on a user's screen should not be protected as chattel, concluding that a cognizable property right did not exist in a website copy. As a result, the plaintiffs’ trespass to chattels claim was dismissed.
Addressing the third question, the court held that website owners cannot invoke state law to control how their websites are displayed on a user's screen without being preempted by federal copyright law. The court determined that the manner in which the plaintiffs’ websites were displayed fell within the subject matter of federal copyright law. It also found that the rights asserted by the plaintiffs’ implied-in-law contract and unjust enrichment claim were equivalent to the rights provided by federal copyright law. Thus, the plaintiffs’ state-law claim was preempted by federal copyright law.
Given these findings, the court did not address the other certified questions. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in denying Google’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss.
Court Description: California Law The panel reversed the district court’s denial of Google, LLC’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ putative class action asserting California state-law claims arising from Google’s placement of search results on copies of their websites.
Plaintiffs challenged the way Google displayed websites in Search App on Android phones from March 2018 to April 2020. Plaintiffs argued that by displaying frame and half-page digests, Google occupied valuable space on the websites of class members that Google should have paid for because it obtained all the benefits of advertising from use of that space. The district court certified for interlocutory review four questions that were potentially dispositive of the case.
Addressing plaintiffs’ trespass to chattels claim and the first certified question, the panel held that Kremen v. Cohen, 37 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003), should not be extended to protect as chattel the copies of websites displayed on a user’s screen. An application of Kremen’s three-part test led to the conclusion that a cognizable property right did not exist in a website copy. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ trespass to chattels claim must be dismissed.
Addressing plaintiffs’ state-law implied-in-law contract and unjust enrichment claim and the third certified question, the panel held that website owners cannot invoke state law to control how their websites are displayed on a user’s screen without preemption by federal copyright law. The panel applied a two-part test to determine whether plaintiffs’ state-law claim was preempted by the Copyright Act. Applying step one, the manner that plaintiffs’ websites were displayed fell within the subject matter of federal copyright law. Applying step two, the rights asserted by plaintiffs’ implied-in-law contract and unjust enrichment claim were equivalent to the rights provided by federal copyright law. In addition, plaintiff’s state-law claim did not carry “an extra element” as compared to a federal copyright claim. Accordingly, the panel concluded that plaintiffs’ state-law claim was preempted by federal copyright law.
Because the first and third question were dispositive, the panel did not reach the two remaining certified questions. The panel reversed the order denying Google’s motion to dismiss, and remanded with instructions to dismiss.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.