Roley v. Google, LLC
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2019 WL 1779974 (2019)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Google, LLC (defendant) created the “Local Guides” program, in which contributors could share photographs and review businesses in their communities. Google offered local guides benefits for participating in the program, including one free terabyte of data storage for guides who reached “Level 4” status. In April of 2016, Google emailed Andrew Roley (plaintiff) and invited him to become a local guide. Roley joined the program as a Level 3 guide after agreeing to the program’s terms and conditions, which provided that the benefits for guides were offered at Google’s discretion and were subject to change. On July 7, 2016, Google emailed Roley and said that it was changing the Level 4 benefit to 100 gigabytes of storage, but that guides who achieved Level 4 status within two weeks would still receive the originally promised terabyte. Roley achieved Level 4 status one week later and redeemed his free storage. Roughly two years later, Google told Roley that his free storage was ending and that he needed to start paying $10 per month for his terabyte. Google claimed that it told Roley about the two-year limit when he redeemed his free storage in 2016, but Roley disputed that claim. Roley sued Google in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging claims including breach of contract. Google moved to dismiss Roley’s complaint.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Freeman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.