But Freeman ruled that “May suffered economic harm because of third-party scammers’ fraudulent inducement, not Google’s omission or misrepresentation.”
Additionally, May failed to show that Google had any duty to refund customers, after Google cited Target and Walmart policies to show that it’s common to refuse refunds.
Scam victims did not use gift card “as designed”
Freeman mostly sided with Google, deciding that the company engaged in no unfair practices, while noting that May had not used the gift cards “in their designed way.” The judge also agreed with Google that May’s funds were not considered stolen at the time she purchased the gift cards, because May still controlled the funds at that point in time.
Additionally, May’s attempt to argue that Google has technology to detect scams failed, Freeman wrote, because May couldn’t prove that Google deployed that technology when her particular scam purchases were made. Even after May argued that she reported the theft to Google, Freeman wrote, May’s complaint failed because “there is no allegation that Google had a duty to investigate her report.”
Ultimately, May’s complaint “identifies no public policy suggesting Google has a duty to refund the scammed victims or that the harm of Google’s conduct outweighs any benefits,” Freeman concluded.
In her order, Freeman provided leave to amend some claims in the next 45 days, but Ars could not immediately reach May’s lawyer to confirm if the complaint would likely be amended. However, the judge notably dismissed a claim seeking triple damages because May’s complaint “failed to show a likelihood that May will be a victim of gift card scams again given her awareness of such scams,” which may deflate May’s interests to amend.
That particular part of the ruling may be especially frustrating for May, whose complaint was sparked by a claim that she never would have been victimized if Google had provided adequate warnings of scams.
Google did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.
