Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page1of36 Page ID#:1 Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP Brian J. Dunne (SBN 275689) bdunne(@piercebainbridge.com Dan Terzian (SBN 283835) dterzian(@piercebainbridge.com Max W.Hirsch (SBN 301872) mhirsch@piercebainbridge.com 355 S. Grand Ave., 44th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 (213) 262-9333 Counselfor Plaintiff Tulsi Now, Inc. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Tulsi Now, Inc., a principal 14 15 16 NE liability company, and Does 1-10, Defendants. Y Google, LLC, a Delaware limited Fe 13 V. fw 12 Complaint for Violationsof: A 11 Plaintiff, Case No. aA 10 campaign committee, First Amendment California Constitution Article I, Section 2 California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 51 Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Section 17200 Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Lanham Act — 15 U.S.C. § 1125 et seq. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 17 18 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 Complaint Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 2 of36 Page ID #:2 Plaintiff Tulsi Now, Inc. (“Tulsi” or the “Campaign”’), principal campaign committee for Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, brings this lawsuit against Defendant Google, LLC (“Google”) for serious and continuing violations of Tulsi’s right to free speech. Since at least June 2019, Google has usedits control over online political speech to silence Tulsi Gabbard, a candidate millions ofAmericans want to hear from. With this lawsuit, Tulsi seeks to stop Google from further intermeddling in the 2020 United States Presidential Election. INTRODUCTION 10 1. Welive in a time of unprecedented political upheaval and division in 11 the United States. Uncertainty and mistrust in American institutions—mostnotably, 12 the United States government—are at record highs. Everything from basic norms of 13 civility and compromise to the sanctity of American elections suddenly seems in 14 15 16 flux. Americans wonder how wegot here, and they want to know where we’re going. 2. Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that the race for the 2020 17 Democratic nomination for President of the United States is the most hotly con- 18 tested—and the mostpolitically open—in recent memory. Americans want to hear 19 fresh, diverse voices as they seek a new leader in this time of turmoil. Americans 20 need to hear those voices. 21 22 23 24 3. Tulsi Gabbard is one of those voices. Gabbard is a four-term United States Congresswoman, a Major with over sixteen years in the National Guard, and the first female combat veteran to run for President. 2 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 3of36 Page ID#:3 4, In the June 26-27, 2019 Democratic Party presidential debates, tens of millions ofAmericans got to hear Tulsi Gabbard’s voice forthe first time. And people liked what they heard: Gabbard quickly became the most searched-for Democratic presidential candidate on June 27-28. In the crucial post-debate period—atime whenpresidential candidates receive outsize interest, engagement, and donations— Americans around the country wanted to hear more from Tulsi Gabbard. 5. To speak to these Americans, Tulsi operated a Google Ads account(the Account”). A Google Ads account allowsa political candidate to speak directly to 10 people who wantto hear from her. For example, millions of people were searching 11 for information on Tulsi Gabbard on June 27-28, 2019. Through Google Ads, Tulsi 12 could instantaneously and directly speak to these people by linking them to her 13 webpage, which provides information about Gabbard’s background, policies, and 14 15 16 goals. 6. Orat least that is how things are supposed to work on Google’s search 17 platform—oneofthe largest forums for political speech in the entire world. In prac- 18 tice, however, Google plays favorites, with no warning, no transparency—and no 19 accountability (until now). 20 21 22 7. On June 28, 2019—at the height of Gabbard’s popularity among Inter- net searchers in the immediate hours after the debate ended, and in the thick of the 23 24 3 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 4of36 Page ID #:4 critical post-debate period (whentelevision viewers, radio listeners, newspaperreaders, and millions of other Americans are discussing and searching for presidential candidates), Google suspended Tulsi’s Google Ads account without warning. 8. For hours, as millions of Americans searched Google for information about Tulsi, and as Tulsi was trying, through Google, to speak to them, her Google Ads account wasarbitrarily and forcibly taken offline. Throughout this period, the Campaign worked frantically to gather more information about the suspension; to get through to someone at Google who could get the Account back online; and to 10 understand and remedythe restraint that had been placed on Tulsi’s speech—at pre- 11 cisely the moment when everyone wanted to hear from her. 12 13 14 15 16 9. In response, the Campaign got opacity and an inconsistent series of an- swers from Google. First, Google claimed that the Account was suspended because it somehowviolated Google’s termsof service. (It didn’t.) Later, Google changedits story. Then it changed its story again. Eventually, after several hours of bizarre and 17 conflicting explanations while the suspension dragged on, Google suddenly reversed 18 course completely and reinstated the Account. To this day, Google has not provided 19 a straight answer—let alone a credible one—as to why Tulsi’s political speech was 20 silenced right precisely when millions of people wanted to hear from her. 21 22 23 24 10. But in context, the explanation for Google’s suspension of the Account at exactly the wrong time is no great mystery: Google (or someone at Google) didn’t want Americansto hear Tulsi Gabbard’s speech,so it silenced her. This has happened 4 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page5of36 Page ID#:5 time and time again across Google platforms. Google controls one of the largest and most important forums for political speech in the entire world, and it regularly silences voices it doesn’t like, and amplifies voices it does. 11. And Google’s election manipulation doesn’t stop with its search plat- form. For example, Google’s email platform Gmail sends communications from Tulsi into people’s Spam folders at a disproportionately high rate. In fact, Gmail appears to classify communications from Tulsi Gabbard as Spam at a rate higher than other similar communications—for example, those from other Democratic pres- 10 11 idential candidates. There is no technical explanation for this disparity. 12. Google’s arbitrary and capricious treatment of Gabbard’s campaign 12 should raise concerns for policymakers everywhere about the company’s ability to 13 use its dominance to impact political discourse, in a way that interferes with the 14 15 16 upcoming 2020 presidential election. In this case, Google has sought to silence Tulsi Gabbard, a presidential candidate who has vocally called for greater regulation and 17 oversight of (you guessedit) Google. But this could happen to any candidate running 18 in any election. 19 13. With this lawsuit, Tulsi is fighting back. She will be heard. 20 14. By acting to silence Gabbard at exactly the moment when her speech 21 22 23 24 was most important, and most ready to be heard—andin the single most politically charged context in the United States, a presidential election campaign—Google violated the Campaign’s federal and State rights to free speech. 5 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 6of36 Page ID #:6 15. Throughits illegal actions targeting Tulsi Gabbard, Google has caused the Campaignsignificant harm, both monetary (including potentially millions of dollars in forgone donations) and nonmonetary(the ability to provide Tulsi’s important message with Americans looking to hear it). But even more pressing is the ongoing threat of targeted intermeddling in the 2020 United States presidential election by Google—an out-of-control tech giant looking to play favorites unless enjoined by this Court. 16. 10 for its illegal behavior, and damagesof no less than $50 million. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 The Campaign seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Google JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the First Amendment and Lanham Act claims whicharise under the laws ofthe United States. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the California state claims, which share a common nucleus of facts with the federal claims in this matter. 18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Google. Google is pervasively 19 present in California and in this judicial district, and is subject to general personal 20 jurisdiction throughoutthis State. 21 22 23 24 19. Venueis proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1), (b)(2), and (c). Google has a large office in Venice, California within this judicial district, which housesengineering, sales, and marketing operations for Google Ads, such that 6 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 7 of36 Page ID#:7 it is both a resident of this district for venue purposes with respect to this matter and a substantial portion of the events and actions giving rise to the claims in this matter took place in this judicial district. PARTIES 20. Plaintiff Tulsi Now,Inc. is a principal campaign committee for Tulsi Gabbard, a candidate for President of the United States. 21. Defendant Google, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Google regularly conducts 10 business throughout California and in this judicial district—for example,at its large 11 Venice, California offices, which house Google Ads engineering, marketing, and 12 sales operations. 13 22. 14 15 16 Thetrue names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Defendants Does through 10, inclusive, are presently unknownto Plaintiff, and for that reason these defendants are sued by suchfictitious names. 17 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each ofthe Doe defendants 18 is in some way legally responsible for the violations of law and injuries and harm 19 caused as alleged herein. If and when appropriate, Plaintiff will seek leave of court 20 to amend this complaint when the true names and capacities of said defendants are 21 22 known. 23 24 7 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 8 of 36 Page ID #:8 FACTS A. Tulsi Gabbard’s Background and Message 23. Tulsi Gabbard is a four-term United States Congresswoman, a Majorin the National Guard and military combat veteran of Iraq, and a skilled surfer. Gabbard is running for President of the United States as a member of the Democratic Party. 24. Gabbard’s presidential campaign is the culmination of a long career of public service and a desire to step up when called upon for duty. As a child, Gabbard’s parents would enlist her and hersiblings in “service days,” where the family 10 would pick up litter from beaches or prepare food for homeless families. At the age 11 of 21, Gabbard began serving in the Hawaii State Legislature. After the United States 12 was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001, Gabbard enlisted in the Army 13 National Guard, and served two deployments to the Middle East as a soldier. After 14 15 16 17 18 fighting in Iraq, Gabbard returned to Hawaii to serve on the Honolulu City Council. And today, Gabbard continues to serve—now as a fourth-term United States Congresswomanand as a Majorin the National Guard with sixteen years of service. 25. During her career in Congress, Gabbard has movedto limit the power 19 of big tech companies like Google and has fought to keep the internet open and 20 available to all. Gabbard has co-sponsored legislation that prohibits multi-tiered 21 22 23 pricing agreements for the privileged few, and she has spoken in favorof reinstating and expandingnet neutrality to apply to Internet firms like Google. 24 8 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 26. Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 90f36 Page ID #:9 Gabbard has repeatedly voiced her concerns about the power wielded by Google and other Big Tech firms on Twitter: & Tulsi Gabbard @ > @TuisiGabbard Absolute powercorrupts absolutely. agree with Senator Warren on the needto break up big tech companieslike Facebook, Google, Amazon. Will be introducing similar legislation in U.S. House. Elizabeth Warren @ @ewarren Curious why think FB has too much power? Let's start with theirability to shut down a debate over whetherFB has too much power. Thanksfor restoring my posts. 10 But I wanta social media marketplacethatisn't dominatedbya single censor. #BreakUpBigTechtwitter.com/viaCristiano/s... 11 3:14 PM- 12 Mar 2019 12 13 woe” 14 AspresidentI'll end the failed war on drugs, legalize marijuana, end cash bail, and ban 15 16 private prisons and bring aboutreal criminal justice reform. I'll crack down on the overreaching intel agencies and big tech monopolies who threaten our civil liberties and free speech 17 18 19 20 21 22 ¥ 27. Google is well aware of Gabbard’s policies and actions while in Con- gress—andofher plan to rein in Silicon Valley’s excesses as President. 23 24 9 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 10 of36 Page ID #:10 B. Tulsi Gabbard’s Google Ads Account 28. Tulsi Gabbard’s message is resonating with the American people. After the June 26-27, 2019 Democratic debate—when millions of Americans heard Gab- bard’s message for the first ttme—she was the single most searched-for candidate. And, she accomplished this despite having the third-lowest amount of speaking time. 29. In order to share her message with the American people, which hadal- ready been demonstrated to increase her popularity, the Campaign created a Google Ads account with Google. The Account was governed by terms of use. Among other 10 provisions, the terms provided that Google had the right to “reject or remove a spe- 11 cific Target, Ad, or Destination at any time for any or no reason.” 12 13 14 15 16 30. Gabbard opened the Account because Google operates oneof the larg- est forums for speech in the world. It operates the largest search engine in the world and the largest advertising platform. 31. Google has a monopoly overthe Internet search market. Over 88% of 17 all Internet searches in the United States occur on Google. Over 92% ofall Internet 18 searches worldwide occur on Google. Google averages at least 6 billion searches a 19 day. Google ads can reach people on YouTube, which is owned by Google.! They 20 can also reach people on the “Google Display Network,” a group of more than 2 21 22 23 24 ' The total number of people who currently use YouTube alone exceeds 1.3 billion people, and more than 30 million membersof the general public visit the platform every day. 10 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 11of36 Page ID#:11 million websites, videos, and apps where Google ads can appear. The Google Display Network reaches “90% of internet users worldwide,” with more thana trillion impressions served over 1 billion users every month. In short, Google controls the ability to be heard by a substantial portion of the country, and the world, on the Internet. 32. Simply put, Google’s services, including its search, search advertising, and email services, have become an important—indeed, necessary—forum for Americans’ exercise of their freedom of speech. On that subject, the United States 10 Supreme Court recently recognized that “the most important place[] (in a spatial 11 sense) for the exchange of views... is cyberspace — the ‘vast democratic forums of 12 the Internet.’” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017). 13 14 15 16 33. For all these reasons, the Campaign relied on Google—andon the Ac- count—to promulgate Tulsi Gabbard’s political message in the critical post-debate period in late June 2019. 17 C. Google Abruptly Suspends Tulsi Gabbard’s Google Ads Account 18 34. On June 28, 2019, right in the heart of a key post-debate campaigning 19 and fundraising period for Gabbard, the Campaign witnessed Internet searches for 20 Gabbard start skyrocketing in real time. Millions ofAmericans wanted to hear from 21 22 23 24 Tulsi Gabbard, and they went to Google to hear what she hadto say. 35. The Campaign wanted to speak to the millions of Americans asking about Gabbard through Google. It wanted to answer their questions about Gabbard, 11 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 12 o0f36 Page ID #:12 and to amplify Tulsi’s message. So the Campaign purchased ads to display when people searched Google for certain terms relating to Gabbard. 36. Except in late June 2019, on the exact day when millions ofAmericans turned to Google to learn more about Gabbard—onthe exact day when Americans made Tulsi Gabbard the most searched-for Democratic candidate on Google— Google abruptly suspended the Account. 37. On June 28, 2019, millions of Americans asked Google about Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi sought to answer them. But Google silenced her. 10 38. Despite the drastic nature of Google’s action—arbitrarily suspending 11 the advertising account of a major candidate for President of the United States the 12 day after a debate, at precisely the momentthat candidate was trending on Google— 13 Google never offered a real (or consistent) reason for suspending the Account. First, 14 15 16 Google said that the Account was suspended due to “problems with billing information or violations of our advertising policies.” Then Google said the Account was 17 suspended because Google “identified suspicious behavior in the paymentactivity 18 in your account.” Later, Google changed course again and said the Account was 19 “temporarily suspended to verify your billing information and policy compliance.” 20 Eventually, Google lifted the suspension with no real explanation, just an opaque 21 22 23 statement that Google had “re-reviewed your account and you can now useit to advertise.” 24 12 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 13 of 36 Page ID #:13 39. To this day, Google has yet to credibly explain why it suspended the Account—let alone at the precise moment that Gabbard was trending across Google’s search and media platforms. 40. But even though Google couldn’t explain why it was silencing Tulsi— a prominent Google critic—right as her presidential bid began picking up steam on Google, it certainly didn’t reverse course any time soon. Instead, for hour after hour, as people throughout the country searched for Tulsi Gabbard, and after the Campaign had promptly reached out to Google for explanation and reinstatement of the Ac- 10 count, the suspension continued. Over the course of several hours, Google simply 11 refused to engage with a major presidential candidate whom it had unilaterally si- 12 lenced, just as she was trending across the Internet. 13 14 15 16 41. Google’s suspension of the Account caused irreparable damage to the Campaign. Interest and searches for Gabbard during the post-debate timeframe had skyrocketed. Ads directing searchers to her campaign page would have brought Tulsi 17 Gabbard’s unique message to millions ofAmericans—and would have undoubtedly 18 increased the campaign donations Gabbard received. Presidential primary candi- 19 dates can receive millions of dollars in donationsin the hours shortly after a debate. 20 While the Account was suspended, Gabbard was incapable of communicating to vot- 21 22 23 ers through Google orits affiliated websites—by far the most effective, and important, method of communication in the Campaign’s arsenal. 24 13 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 42. Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 14 o0f36 Page ID #:14 Additionally, Gabbard has learned that email communications sent by the Campaignare classified as Spam by Google’s Gmail product at disproportionately high rates. Few Gmail users regularly check their spam folders. Many never do. Gmail’s Spam filter—which relies on secret algorithms designed and controlled entirely by Google—go out of their way to silence messages from the Campaign, further hindering Tulsi’s ability to convey her message to the American people. 43. These actions by Google did not just prevent Gabbard and the Cam- paign from reaching voters, they also hindered voters from associating with a candi- 10 date whose views matchedtheir own. In other words, as evidenced by the massive 11 search hits for Gabbard after the debate, voters were drawn to Gabbard and her 12 views, and attempted to associate with her politically online (online searches for 13 candidates regularly lead to donations, signing up for email lists, signing up to vol- 14 15 16 unteer, or at minimum engaging with those candidates’ websites and social media). But Google’s actions toward Tulsi—from suspending the Account to disproportion- 17 ately sending the Campaigns emails to Spam in Gmail—not only hinder Gabbard’s 18 message, they directly touched on the associational rights of likely voters as well. 19 D. 20 44. 21 22 23 24 Google’s Political Support of Its Policy Champions Google’s stated mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” According to Google, “people around the world turn to Search to find information, learn about topics of interest, and make important decisions.” Consistent with this mission, Google provides a forum for 14 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 15of36 Page ID #:15 members ofthe public to interact, share ideas, and engage in important topics across the country and the globe. 45. But this mission is not executed equally. Google does nottreat all po- litical viewpoints equally. The company hasbeen criticized by many onthe right for censoring content that favors conservative viewpoints. However, Google’s favoritism of political and policy ideas is more nuanced andself-serving. Simply put, Google supports viewpoints, political causes, and candidates that favor its policy positions over those that do not. 10 46. For example, Google-affiliated donors gave $817,855 to Barack 11 Obama’s presidential candidacy in 2008, which ranked sixth amongall donations to 12 Obama’s campaign. In 2012, that number was $804,240, which rankedthird. Google 13 did not even rank in the top twenty donors for Obama’s Republican opponents in 14 15 16 either election. The Obama Administration’s close ties to Google are now wellknown: During Obama’s two termsin office, Google officials met with the White 17 House on more than 427 occasions, while at least fifty-three officials moved between 18 Google and the White House and vice versa. Not surprisingly, the Obama Admin- 19 istration championed manyof the top policies on Google’s wish list, while Obama’s 20 Federal Trade Commission closedits antitrust investigation of the company without 21 22 23 24 any meaningful sanctions. 47. The disparity grew even morestark during the last presidential election. Google employees gave $1.3 million to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, 15 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 16 of 36 Page ID #:16 compared with $26,000 to the Trump campaign. What’s more, Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Alphabet (Google’s parent company), counseled Clinton on strategy during her presidential campaign, and financed Civis Analytics, a startup which provided data and other technology for her campaign. Robert Epstein, a social psychologist and Internet researcher, argues persuasively that Google’s pro-Clinton search bias may have shifted as many as 2.6 million votes to Clinton during the 2016 election. 48. After President Trump won the election, an internal Google video 10 leaked showing Google’s co-founder Sergey Brin, its CEO Sundar Pichai, and other 11 high-ranking Google officers speaking, with dismay, about Trump’s election victory. 12 Their alarm may have been well-founded: In May of this year, Trump’s Department 13 of Justice announced it was exploring whether to open a case against Google for 14 15 16 potential antitrust violations. 49. Now that Google is facing increased antitrust scrutiny, Google has 17 made common cause with the conservative Koch Foundation, funding several con- 18 servative groups in the Koch network to publish op-eds, studies and white papers 19 opposing antitrust investigations of Big Tech. 20 21 22 23 50. Public information shows that Google manipulates its advertising poli- cies and perhapsevenits search results based on political concerns and policy goals. For example, during Congressional debate in 2018 over the Stop Enabling Sex Traf- 24 16 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 17 of 36 Page ID #:17 fickers Act (SESTA)—legislation that would hold online services liable for knowingly assisting or facilitating online sex trafficking—Google search results consistently returned links to content opposed to the legislation. Google strongly opposed the measure. Even today, the top result when searching for “SESTA” remainsa link to http://stopsesta.org, sponsored by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group which Google supports financially. 51. More recently, Google employees engagedin an internal lobbying cam- paign to block Breitbart from Google’s advertising program. Aspart of this internal 10 lobbying campaign, one Google employee pressed that “[t ]here is obviously a moral 11 argument to be made [to blocking Breitbart] as well as a business case.” While it’s 12 not entirely clear what “business case” the Google employee wasreferring to, it’s 13 important to note that Breitbart has been among Google’s staunchestcritics, alleging 14 15 16 that the company routinely censors conservative viewpoints. 52. While there is no law against a company’s employees engaging in po- 17 litical activity, Google is no ordinary company.Asa result of its power, it helps to 18 run elections with its search results and ad offerings, including exercising unilateral 19 control over nearly all Internet search and search advertising—perhapsthe single 20 most important platform through which presidential primary candidates communi- 21 22 23 cate with potential voters, and vice versa. Quite simply, Google could unilaterally and decisively end a presidential candidate’s bid for office if it chose to—for exam- 24 17 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 18 of36 Page ID #:18 ple, by tweaking its search algorithm to disfavor the candidate; or blocking the candidate from its ad platforms; or keeping the candidate’s communications from getting to interested voters who use Gmail for email communications. 53. And, in fact, the above is exactly what Google has done,andlikely will continue to do, to disfavor the presidential candidacy of Tulsi Gabbard, one of the few independent voices within the Democratic party and vocal critic of Google. Google has manipulated its search advertising, and likely its email filtering, to disfavor Gabbard. What is next, if not enjoined by a Court? 10 E. The Government’s Inexcusable Inaction in Cedingthe Internet to Google 54. Notably, Google did not ascend to its position as a central arbiter of 11 12 13 political speech in a vacuum. Instead, the United States government’s inexcusable 14 inaction has ceded control of the Internet—a public forum for all to express their 15 opinions—to private companieslike Google. 16 17 18 19 20 55. The United States government knowsthat the Internet is integral to en- suring a free and democratic country. The governmentalso knowsthat private companies such as Google have been censoring and limiting those freedoms. 56. For years, the government has knownthat companies like Google are a 21 threat to speech. For example, in 2012, the Federal Trade Commission staff found 22 that “Google has unlawfully maintained its monopoly over general search and search 23 24 advertising, in violation of Section 2, or otherwise engaged in unfair methods of 18 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 19 of36 Page ID #:19 competition, in violation of Section 5 [of the Federal Trade Commission Act].” The FTCstaff based its conclusion on three illegal acts by Google, one of which specifically related to Google’s “restrictions” on “managementof advertising campaigns.” FTC staff recommendedfiling a complaint against Google. Yet the government hid the conclusionsand declined. 57. Other disturbing data points about the power wielded by Google and other major tech companieslike Facebook have emerged in recent years. In the early 2010s, the FCC rightly considered whethernet neutrality regulations, which sought 10 to provide equal access to the Internet by governing Internet Service Providers, 11 should also be extended to apply to Internet content platforms like Google. 12 13 14 15 16 58. However, during the Trump presidency, the FCC has not only declined to extend net neutrality protections to apply to Internet content platforms like Google, it has revoked those regulations that were already existing. See [n the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom, 33 F.C.C. Rcd. 311 (2018); United States Telecom 17 Ass’nv. FCC, 825 F.3d 674, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Companies like Google have more 18 leeway and ability than ever to bend the Internet to their will. 19 20 21 22 23 24 59. And Big Tech companies have used this unchecked power to meddle in political speech. For example, in March 2019, Facebook removed numerous advertisements placed by the presidential campaign of Senator Elizabeth Warren that called for the breakup of Facebook and other tech giants. Only after the media publicly exposed Facebook’s actions did it reverse course. 19 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 20 of 36 Page ID #:20 60. The government’s inexcusable inaction not only failed to stop, but ac- tively enabled, Google’s dangerousrise to poweroverpolitical speech central to our body politic. The United States government has ceded the forum for much ofAmerica’s core political speech—and for key aspects of our elections themselves—to Google. And Google has shownitself to be anything but neutral. 10 F. Google’s Interference with Election Advertising and Electoral Speech 61. In addition to Google’s overarching control over, and restrictions on, American political speech generally, Google has a unique and disturbing amount of 11 influence over—andinterest in—elections. In fact, through its search, search adver- 12 tising, and other monopolistic platforms, Google has almost total control over im- 13 portant aspects of election speech and election advertising. And Google is willing to 14 exploit its control—ascan be seen in Google’s targeting of Tulsi Gabbard,a political 15 opponent of the company, through the Account. 16 17 18 62. In fact, Gabbard’s Account is not the first election advertising that Google has interfered with. For example, in June 2018, Google announcedthatit 19 would no longersell political ads for local races in Washingtonstate. Yet in reality, 20 Google continued to sell such ads—thousands ofdollars’ worth, in fact—butonly to 21 certain campaigns. 22 23 24 63. Inshort, Google’s alleged ban on adsfor local races in Washingtonstate was selectively enforced. This misconduct ultimately resulted in the Washington 20 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 21 0f 36 Page ID #:21 State attorney general prosecuting Google, and Google settled case, agreeing to pay $217,000 to resolveits liability. 64. Google has established a clear trend of using its power over speech to favor certain political viewpoints over others. For example, since June 2019, Google has used its unique control over political advertising and election speech to try to silence Tulsi Gabbard, a presidential candidate who has spoken out against Google. 65. But Tulsi will not be silenced. Google is trying to change the outcome 10 of an American presidential election, and the government has been unwilling and 11 unable to do anything aboutit. This action seeks to changethat. 12 COUNT ONE (Violations of the First Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 66. The Campaign realleges and incorporates by reference each of the pre- ceding paragraphsasif fully set forth herein. 67. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the freedom of speech and association, and protects against viewpoint discrimination in the access and use of public spaces, quasi-public spaces, and limited public spaces. It also protects the rights of all Americansto freely associate with others. 68. Google creates, operates, and controls its platform and services, includ- 22 ing but not limited to Google Search, Google Ads, and Gmail as a public forum or 23 its functional equivalent by intentionally and openly dedicating its platform for pub- 24 lic use and public benefit, inviting the public to utilize Google as a forum for free 21 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 22 of 36 Page ID #:22 speech. Google servesas a state actor by performing an exclusively andtraditionally public function by regulating free speech within a public forum and helping to run elections. Accordingly, speech cannotbe arbitrarily, unreasonably, or discriminatorily excluded, regulated, or restricted on the basis of viewpoint or the identity of the speaker on Google’s platform. 69. Google’s actions, and the actions of its agents, deprive the Campaign of its constitutional rights. Google has restricted the Campaign’s speech and expressive conduct by adopting and applying subjective, vague, and overbroadcriteria (the 10 ‘Subjective Criteria”) that give Google unfettered and unbridled discretion to censor 11 speech for arbitrary, capricious, or nonexistent reasons. The Subjective Criteria fail 12 to convey a sufficiently definite warning to the Campaign (or the public) as to what 13 is prohibited or restricted and, as a result, they allow Google to censor speechat its 14 15 16 17 whim and based on subjective animus towards the speaker and/or her particular political or religious viewpoint. 70. Google applies the Subjective Criteria as a pretext to censor andrestrict 18 the Campaign’s speech, based not on the content of the speech but because of Tulsi 19 Gabbard’s identity and political viewpoints. Google has restricted the Account, but 20 has not restricted similar Google Ads accounts for other presidential candidates. 21 22 Google’s application of Subjective Criteria and corresponding restraints on the Cam- 23 24 22 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 23 of 36 Page ID #:23 paign’s speech is arbitrary and capricious, and/or is based on political or other animus towardsthe identity and viewpoints of the speaker(7.e., the Campaign), not the actual content of the speech. 71. Further, because Google’s actions impeded the Campaign’s ability to associate, at a crucial political moment, with voters whofeel similarly to Tulsi Gabbard on important issues, Google’s actions impinge on and violate the Campaign’s rights to free association and assembly. Google’s actions also violate the Campaign’s rights to free association and assembly by blocking potential voters’ access to infor- 10 mation and messages from Account. And Google’s actions were done with the intent 11 to deprive the Campaign—like other voices critical of Google—of their First 12 Amendmentrights. 13 14 15 16 72. No compelling, significant, or legitimate reason justifies Google’s speech-restricting actions towards the Campaign (e.g., suspending the Account; manipulating Gmail Spam algorithms to target communications from Tulsi). Even if 17 some interests did exist to justify Google’s suspension rules generally, the re- 18 strictions imposed on the Campaign’s speech are not narrowly or reasonablytailored 19 to further such interests. Given Google’s monopolistic control over the internet, the 20 Campaign hasnoalternative channel affording a reasonable opportunity to reachits 21 22 23 24 full intended audience. 73. Google’s discriminatory policies are not (and its discriminatory appli- cation of those policies is not) viewpoint neutral; they are unreasonable in time, 23 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 24 of 36 Page ID #:24 place, and manner; and they are unreasonable in relation to the nature, purpose, and use of the forum. They impose an unreasonable restraint on the Campaign’s protected political speech, motivated by impermissible discrimination against the Campaign’s identity and viewpoint. 74. Asa direct and proximate result of Google’s violations of the clearly established law of public forums, Gabbard and the Campaign have suffered and continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury in fact, including lost income, decreased viewership and engagement, and damage to brand and reputation, for which 10 11 there exists no adequate remedyatlaw. 75. Google’s wrongful actions were taken with oppression, fraud, or mal- 12 ice. These actions were arbitrary and capricious. And they were taken as part of 13 Google’s normal course of business, effectuated through both Google-designed al- 14 15 gorithms and Google employees and agents. COUNT TWO (California Constitution, Article I, section 2) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 76. The Campaign realleges and incorporates by reference each of the pre- ceding paragraphsasif fully set forth herein. 77. Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution protects the liberty of speech and association, especially in public, quasi-public, and limited public spaces. 78. Google has created and maintained a public forum for the public to ex- press and exchange viewsandideas, or in the alternative has created a quasi or lim24 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 25 of36 Page ID #:25 ited public forum. Google acts as a state actor because Google performs an exclusively and traditionally public function by regulating free speech and controlling the access of political candidates like Gabbard to their constituents, thereby controlling the circumstances of and speech within elections. Accordingly, speech in Google’s public forums cannot be arbitrarily, unreasonably, or discriminatorily excluded, regulated, or restricted on the basis of viewpoint or the identity of the speaker. 79. The content of the Account, which was designed to inform the voting public of Gabbard’s candidacy and encourageits support of her, constitutes political 10 11 speech and activity protected by Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution. 80. Google has restricted the Campaign’s political speech based on a pre- 12 text, and has used its terms of use and Subjective Criteria to discriminate against 13 Plaintiff. This censorship is not based on the content of the censored speech,or the 14 15 16 violation of any objective guidelines, but is instead based on Gabbard’s political viewpoint. Google hasrestricted the speech of the Campaign on its platforms, but 17 has not similarly restricted the speech of any other major Democratic candidate. 18 Google’s restriction of the Campaign is arbitrary and capricious and/or is based on 19 political, religious, or other animus towards the identity and viewpoints of the 20 speaker, not the actual content of the speech. 21 22 23 24 81. No compelling, significant, or legitimate reason justifies Google’s ac- tions. Even if such interests did exist to justify Google’s rules generally, the restrictions imposed on the Campaign’s speech are not narrowly or reasonablytailored 25 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 26 of 36 Page ID #:26 to further such interests. Given Google’s control of the Internet search and search advertising markets (as well as the pervasiveness of the Gmail platform), the Campaign has no alternative affording it a reasonable opportunity to reach its full intended audience. 82. Google’s discriminatory policies are not (and its application of these polices is not) viewpoint neutral. These discriminatory policies are unreasonable in time, place, and manner, and they are unreasonable in relation to the nature, purpose, and use of Google’s forums (e.g., Google Search and Google Ads). Google’s dis- 10 criminatory policies impose an unreasonable prior restraint on the Campaign’s pro- 11 tected political speech, motivated by impermissible discrimination against Gab- 12 bard’s identity and viewpoint. 13 14 15 16 83. Google’s wrongful actions were taken with oppression, fraud, or mal- ice. These actions were arbitrary and capricious. Google takes its wrongful actions as part of its normal course of business, effectuated through Google-designed algo- 17 rithms and Google’s employees and agents. And Google’s actions were done with 18 the intent to deprive the Campaign and California voters who want to hear from 19 Gabbard of their rights under the California constitution. 20 21 22 84. Asadirect and proximate result of Google’s violations of clearly estab- lished law regarding public forums, the Campaign has suffered, and continues to 23 24 26 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 27 of 36 Page ID #:27 suffer, immediate and irreparable injury in fact, including lost income, reduced exposure, and damage to brand, reputation, and goodwill, for which there exists no adequate remedy at law. COUNT THREE (California Unruh Civil Rights Act — Civil Code §§ 51, et seq.) 85. The Campaign realleges and incorporates by reference each ofthe pre- ceding paragraphsasif fully set forth herein. 86. 10 11 12 13 Google hosts business establishments under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 8§ 51 et seg. Google grants the public unrestricted access to Google Ads for commercial reasons that are at the core of their business model and the source of virtually all their revenue. 87. Despite their promises of neutrality and a diversity of viewpoints, 14 Google engagesin a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination in the provi- 15 sion of its services, including discriminating against and censoring the Campaign’s 16 speech based not on the content of the censored speech but on the Campaign’s po- 17 litical identity and viewpoint. Throughthe acts complained of herein, Google inten- 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 tionally denied, and aidedor incited in denying, the Campaign full and equal accommodations, advantages, privileges, and services by discriminating against it in administrating and suspending the Account. 88. A substantial motivating reason for Google’s conduct is Google’s sub- jective perception of the Campaign’s political identity and viewpoints, as well as those of others with whom the Campaign associated. Google’s discrimination 27 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 28 of 36 Page ID #:28 against Plaintiff is arbitrary, capricious, pretextual, and discriminatory. It is also wholly without any legitimate, reasonable business interest, as the content of the Accountis completely compliant with the letter and spirit of Google’s Terms of Use and Community Guidelines. Google is censoring and treating the Campaign andits Accountdifferently out of animus towards the Campaign’s identity and views. 89. Google’s wrongful actions were taken with oppression, fraud, and/or malice, effectuated both through Google-designed algorithms and through Google employees and agents (e.g., manual human review of the Account). Google articu- 10 lated a pretextual reason to suspend the Account, which was not supported by any 11 factual evidence. 12 90. 13 14 15 16 17 18 Asa direct and proximate result of Google’s unlawful discriminatory actions, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable injury in fact, including but not limited to lower viewership, lost potential campaign contributions, and harm to Gabbard’s Presidential election bid, for which there exists no adequate remedy at law. 91. Google’s violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act further entitle Plain- 19 tiff to recover statutory damages of up to three times the amount of actual damages 20 in an amountto be provenat trial, or a minimum of $4,000 per violation. 21 COUNT FOUR 22 23 24 (Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.) 92. The Campaign realleges and incorporates by reference each of the pre- ceding paragraphsasif fully set forth herein. 28 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 29 of 36 Page ID #:29 93. Google has committed acts of unfair competition, as defined by Busi- ness and Professions Code § 17200, by engaging in the practices described above. 94. Google’s policies and practices, and their application of the same to the Campaign, constitute unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices within the meaning of Business and Professions Code § 17200. Google’s policies, as well as their application, violate the policy and spirit of the Unruh Act, the Lanham Act, the California and United States Constitutions, and prior court decisions. Those actions are likely to mislead the public, and do mislead the public, about Plaintiff's 10 views and Google’s policies. Advertisers, the voting public, and politicians rely on 11 Google for an open marketplace of ideas and expression, and rely on Google to en- 12 sure that only accounts whichtruly violate policies get suspended. 13 14 15 16 95. There is no utility to the public for Google’s actions, where those re- strictions violate no laws or contractual terms of use andtreat Plaintiff and others similarly situated simply because of their perceived politics and identity of their 17 speaker. And to the extent that any utility to Google’s arbitrarily and discriminatorily 18 applied policies did exist, that utility is significantly outweighed by the harm they 19 impose on consumers and the public. Google has alternatives to this conduct that 20 would be less harmful to consumers, but does not adopt or apply them because of 21 22 their bias against the Campaign and others similarly situated. 23 24 29 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 96. Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 30 of 36 Page ID #:30 Asa direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer, immediate and irreparable injury in fact, including lower viewership, lost potential campaign contributions, and harm to Gabbard’s bid for the Presidency of the United States, for which there exists no adequate remedy at law. 97. Google’s wrongful actions were taken with oppression, fraud, and/or malice. COUNT FIVE (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) 10 11 12 13 98. The Campaign realleges and incorporates by reference each of the pre- ceding paragraphsasif fully set forth herein. 99. The Campaign and Google entered into written contracts in which 14 Google agreed to provide Plaintiff access, hosting, and advertising services to Plain- 15 tiff. Those contracts give Google vague, unfettered, and unilateral direction to re- 16 move, restrict, de-monetize, or de-emphasize content as Google seesfit. 17 18 19 20 100. Implied in those contracts is the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This is particularly true because, in those contracts, Google assumed for itself unilateral and unfettered discretionary control over virtually every aspectofits 21 relationship with the Campaign, control that Google has exercised at its whim, re- 22 peatedly and without notice to the Campaign, and without an opportunity for mean- 23 ingful discussion or appeal. To the extent that those discretionary powers are valid, 24 Google is obligated to exercise them fairly and in goodfaith. 30 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 31 o0f36 Page ID#:31 101. The Campaign did all or substantially all of the significant things required of it under its agreements with Google, or was excused from having to do those things. The Account did not violate the letter or spirit of any term in the Campaign’s contracts with Google. 102. Google was bound by the implied convent of good faith and fair dealing in their agreements, terms, and policies, not to engage in any acts, conduct, or omissions that would impair or diminish the Campaign’s rights and benefits from the parties’ agreements. Pursuant to the terms of those agreements, the Campaign was 10 supposed to have equal access to a wide audience to promote its messages and po- 11 litical ideas, and it was in reliance on Google’s mission statement that it chose 12 Google Ads. Instead, Google has, by the acts and omissions complained of herein, 13 intentionally and tortiously breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair 14 15 16 dealing by unfairly interfering with the Campaign’s rights to receive the benefits of those contracts. 17 103. The foregoing acts and omissions were engaged in by Google with the 18 knowledge that it was bound to act consistently with the covenant of good faith and 19 fair dealing. Those acts and omissions were not only failures to act fairly and in good 20 faith, but they were acts of oppression, fraud, and malice. 21 22 23 24 104. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Google, the Campaign has suffered and continuesto suffer, immediate and irreparable injury in fact, including lower viewership, lost potential campaign contributions, 31 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 32 of 36 Page ID #:32 and harm to Gabbard’s election bid for President of the United States, for which there exists no adequate remedyatlaw. COUNT (Lanham Act — 15 U.S.C. § 1125 et seq.) 105. The Campaign realleges and incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphsasif fully set forth herein. 106. Google is engaged in interstate commerce and competition through hosting, advertising, soliciting, and receiving revenue from advertising. 10 11 12 107. Google engages in a pattern and practice of promulgating knowingly misleading and deceptive advertisements, and of unfairly competing. For example, Google advertises itself as a forum for open expression by diverse speakers. Google 13 unfairly and deceptively misrepresents the nature, characteristics, and qualities of 14 Google’s services and commercial activities as an equal and diverse public forum. 15 Google likewise unfairly enhances the image and goodwill of its content, while de- 16 grading the Campaign by suggesting that the Account somehowviolatesits terms of 17 use. 18 19 20 108. Google’s false representations and unfair competition deceived, and had a tendency to deceive, substantial segments of Google’s audiences, including 21 potential advertisers like the Campaign, and the audience that viewsads. As a direct 22 and proximate result of Google’s actions complained of herein, the Campaign has 23 suffered, and continues to suffer, immediate and irreparable injury in fact, including 24 32 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 33 of 36 Page ID #:33 lower viewership, lost potential campaign contributions, and harm to Gabbard’s bid for President of the United States, for which there exists no adequate remedyat law. 109. Google’s wrongful actions were taken with oppression, fraud and/or malice. Google articulated a pretextual reason to suspend the Account, which was not supported by any factual evidence. COUNT SEVEN (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief) 110. The Campaign realleges and incorporates by reference each of the pre- 10 11 12 ceding paragraphsasif fully set forth herein. 111. An actual controversy exists between the Campaign and Google as to whether Google’s policies and procedures, and their application thereof, violate the 13 Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Lanham Act, and the United States and California Con- 14 stitutions. The correct interpretation is that Google’s policies and procedures, fa- 15 cially and as applied, violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Lanham Act, and the 16 Campaign’s speech and association rights under both the United States and Califor- 17 nia Constitutions. 18 19 20 112. Unless the court issues an appropriate declaration of rights, the parties will not know whether Google’s policies and procedures, and Google’s application 21 oftheir policies and procedures, comply with the law, including the Federal and State 22 constitutions, and there will continue to be disputes and controversy surrounding 23 Google’s policies and procedures and application thereof. 24 33 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 34 of 36 Page ID #:34 113. Unless the court issues an appropriate injunction, Google’s illegal and unconstitutional behavior will continue, harming both the Campaign and the general public, which has an overwhelming interest in a fair, unmanipulated 2020 United States Presidential Election cycle. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE,the Campaign prays for relief as hereinafter set forth below: 1. For a declaratory judgment that Google has violated the Campaign’s free speech rights, both facially and as applied, under the First Amendment to the 10 United States Constitution, and under Article I, section 2 of the California Constitu- 11 tion; 12 13 14 15 16 17 2. For an injunction requiring Google to (i) cease and desist capriciously restricting or otherwise censoring the Account, and (i1) from censoring or restricting the Campaign’s speech based on Google’s unfettered discretion, or the use or application of arbitrary, capricious, vague, unspecified, or subjective criteria guidelines; 3. For compensatory, special, and statutory damages in an amountto be 18 provenattrial, including statutory damages pursuantto, inter alia, Civil Code §§ 51, 19 51.5, 52, Civil Procedure Code § 1021.5, 15 U.S.C. § 1117, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983; 20 21 22 23 24 4, For a civil penalty of $2,500 for each violation pursuant to Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, 17206, and 17536; 5. For punitive damages and exemplary damages in an amount to be provenattrial; 34 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 \ 4 6. Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 35 of 36 Page ID #:35 For restitution of financial losses or harm caused by Google’s conduct and in an amountto be provenattrial; 3 7. For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; 4 8. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and ° 9. For any andall further relief that the Court deems just and proper. 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: July 25, 2019 Respectfully submitted, Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP By: 11 /s/ Brian J. Dunne Brian J. Dunne (SBN 275689) bdunne(@piercebainbridge.com Dan Terzian (SBN 283835) dterzian(@piercebainbridge.com Max W.Hirsch (SBN 301872) mhirsch@piercebainbridge.com 12 13 14 355 S. Grand Ave., 44th Floor 15 Los Angeles, California 90071 (213) 262-9333 16 Counselfor Plaintiff Tulsi Now, Inc. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 35 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC Case 2:19-cv-06444 Document1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 36 of 36 Page ID #:36 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Tulsi Now demandsa trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 and Local Rule 38-1. 4 5 Dated: July 25, 2019 Respectfully submitted, Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP 6 By: /s/ Brian J. Dunne (SBN 275689) bdunne(@piercebainbridge.com Dan Terzian (SBN 283835) dterzian(@piercebainbridge.com Max W.Hirsch (SBN 301872) mhirsch@piercebainbridge.com 10 355 S. Grand Ave., 44th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 (213) 262-9333 11 12 Counselfor Plaintiff Tulsi Now, Inc. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 36 Complaint — Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC