1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, VIOLATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AND TORTIOUS INFERENCE WITH BUSINESS EXPECTANCY

123 LOCK AND KEY, LLC

NO.

Plaintiff,

vs.

GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation JOHN DOES 1 - 5,

PARTIES

1. 123 Lock & Key LLC (123) is a limited liability company in the State of Washington, in good standing, having done all that is requisite prior to filing suit.

2. On information and belief, Google Inc. (Go ogle) is a for profit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware.

3. John Doe(s) 1-5 are believed to be individuals or companies, residing or transactin business in King County, Washington

JURISDICTION & VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction because 123' s claims arise under Washington common and statutory law.

5. Venue is appropriate because Google transacts business in King County, and thus resides in King County, pursuant to RCW 4.12.025(1)&(3). Further, on information and belief, John Doe(s) 1-5 reside and/or transact business in King County, and the tort occurred and was suffered in King County.

COMPLAINT - 1

BAROKAS MARTIN & TOMLINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1422 BELLEVUE AVENUE

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 TELEPHONE (206) 62 I -1871

FAX (206) 621-9907

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

FACTS

1. Google is a website whereby individuals can search for content on the internet by typing in keywords. Upon an individual typing in a keyword, Google will search the internet for websites that are related to that keyword.

2. Google earns money by selling advertisements to other companies (Advertisers) on Google's website. When individuals type in a keyword, Google will not only search the internet for websites related to that keyword, but will also place an Advertiser's paid advertisement next to the results of this search. This is a very valuable tool for Advertisers because their advertisement is shown to an individual, who, presumably, is interested in goods or services that the advertising company offers. It is targeted marketing.

3. Google charges its Advertisers per "click." The model works as follows. i) An individual types in a keyword; ii) Google places the Advertiser's advertisement next to the search results; iii) The individual clicks on the advertisement and visits the Advertiser's website; iv) Google charges the Advertiser a certain amount for the brokering/inducing/causing the individual's visit to the Advertiser's website.

4. "Click-Fraud" is a well known phenomenon and an unfair and tortuous business practice. Click-Fraud is when a competitor of an Advertiser (Competitor) purposely types in keywords on Google's search engine causing the Advertiser's advertisement to appear. The Competitor will then maliciously click on the Advertiser's advertisement. This causes the Advertiser to incur a cost without receiving any benefit. The Competitor is not interested in the Advertiser's product or service, but only in causing the Advertiser to incur needless charges. Click Fraud is an unfair business practice, is used to intimidate Advertisers, and cause Advertisers to incur needless costs.

5. 123 is a locksmith company. 123 wanted to advertise on Google. 123 entered into contract with Google whereby Google would place 123' s advertisements next to individual searches that were related to locksmiths in Seattle. Individuals clicked on these advertisements and visited 123's website. 123 would pay Google per click/visit.

6. 123 entered into an agreement with Google whereby Google explicitly recognizes that Click Fraud occurs. The Agreement states "Customer understands that third parties may generate impressions or clicks on Customer's ads for prohibited or improper purposes, and Customer accepts the risk of any such impressions and clicks. Customer's exclusive remedy, and Google's exclusive liability, for suspected invalid impressions or clicks is for Customer to make a claim for a refund in the form of advertising credits for Google Properties within the time period required under Section 7 below. Any refunds for suspected invalid impressions or clicks are within Google's sole discretion."

COMPLAINT - 2

BAROKAS MARTIN & TOMLINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1422 BELLEVUE A VENUE

SEATTLE, WASH[NGTON 98122 TELEPHONE (206) 621-1871

FAX (206) 621-9907

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

7. 123 is a victim of Click Fraud. 123 has been advertising with Google since October 12, 2009. From October 2009 to March 2010, 123 received about 15 clicks a day. 123 conversion's rate (clicks to actual phone calls) was about 80%. Thus, the Google searches were legitimate consumers looking for a locksmith in the Seattle area.

8. Suddenly, without warning, in March 2010, 123 started getting charged for at least 100 to 150 clicks a day. In fact, 123 would often receive a flurry of clicks within a single minute. These clicks never converted into phone calls. Because of the Click Fraud, 123 was forced to cease advertising on Google.

9. 123 has presented this irrefutable evidence, in far more detail, with far more facts, and with substantiating evidence, to Google about the Click Fraud. Google refuses to recognize this evidence, which is, on its face, clear and irrefutable evidence of Click Fraud. Google has denied the 123' s claim for Click Fraud.

10. The law holds that a duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract.

This duty requires the parties to cooperate with each other so that each may obtain the full benefit of performance. Google's denial is a violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Further, if Google's contractual limitation is allowed to stand in this instance it is a deceptive and unfair act and practice affecting the stream of commerce.

11. John Does 1-5 malicious acts and omissions have cost 123 tens of thousands of dollars in damages. Google failure to honor, in good faith, its contract has also caused 123 thousands of dollars in damages.

First Claim - Breach of Contract (Against Google)

12. 123 realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 11 of this Complaint as if restated herein.

13. 123 and Google have a contract, complete with offer, acceptance and tender.

14.123 has presented irrefutable evidence that 123 is a victim of Click Fraud.

15. Google, in bad faith, refuses to acknowledge that Click Fraud has occurred.

16. Google refuses to credit 123' s account.

17. As a result of the acts and omissions of Google, 123 is entitled to costs, attorney fees and damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

COMPLAINT - 3

BAROKAS MARTIN & TOMLINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1422 BELLEVUE AVENUE

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 TELEPHONE (206) 621-1871

FAX (206) 621-9907

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Second Claim - Violation of the Consumer Protection Act (Against Google)

18. 123 realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Complaint as if restated herein.

19. 123 and Google entered into the Contract.

20. The Contract is deceptive in that Google's "sole discretion" means that Google can deny irrefutable Click Fraud with impunity and without recourse for those victims of Click Fraud.

2l. Google' s "sole discretion," which provides Google with the means and purported contractual right to deny irrefutable claims of Click Fraud is an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

22. The act or practice occurred in the conduct of Google's trade or commerce.

23. The act or practice affected the public interest.

24. 123 was injured in their business and property.

25. Google's act or practice caused 123's injury.

26. As the result of the acts and omissions of Google, 123 is entitled to costs, attorney

18 fees and damages, including exemplary damages, in an amount to be proven at trial.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Third Claim- Violation of the Consumer Protection Act (Against John Doe(s) 1-5)

27. 123 realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 26 of this Complaint as if restated herein.

28. John Does 1-5 are committing Click Fraud against 123 to cause 123 to incur needless cost to John Does 1-5 benefit and 123's detriment.

29. Click Fraud is an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

30. The act or practice occurred in the conduct of John Does 1-5's trade or commerce.

31. The act or practice affected the public interest.

COMPLAINT - 4

BAROKAS MARTIN & TOMLINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1422 BELLEVUE AVENUE

SEA TTLE, WASHINGTON 98 I 22 TELEPHONE (206) 62 I -1871

FAX (206) 621-9907

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

32. 123 was injured in their business and property.

33. John Doe 1-5's act or practice caused 123's injury.

34. Damages, including exemplary damages, costs and attorney fees are recoverable for said violations.

Fourth Claim- Tortuous Interference With Business Relations (Against John Doe(s) 1-5)

35. 123 realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34 of this Complaint as if restated herein.

36. 123 has a valid contract with Google and a business expectancy that Google will be able to generate sales by advertising 123 on Google websites.

37. John Does 1-5 are aware of Google's contract with 123 and 123's business expectancy.

38. John Does 1-5 are committing Click Fraud against 123 to cause 123 to incur needless cost to John Does 1-5 benefit and 123's detriment.

39. This is an intentional interference causing a termination of 123's business expectancy, in that, 123 can no longer advertise on Google web sites to generate business. 123 can not realize on this business expectancy because it is a victim of 123' s malicious and improper acts done for an improper purpose.

40. As the result of the acts and omissions of John Doe(s), 123 IS entitled to costs, attorney fees and damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Having fully set forth its causes of action, 123 prays for relief as follows

1. Declare that such acts of Google are a breach of contract and violation of consumer protection

2. Declare that such acts of John Doe(s) 1-5 are a violation of the consumer protection act and a tortuous interference with business expectancy.

3. Order injunctive and equitable relief enjoining John Doe(s) from committing any further Click Fraud against 123.

4. Award judgment in favor of 123 and against Google and/or John Doe in an

COMPLAINT - 5

BAROKAS MARTIN & TOMLINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1422 BELLEVUE AVENUE

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 TELEPHONE (206) 621-1871

FAX (206) 621-9907

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

amount to be proven at or before the time of trial.

5. Award 123 its costs, disbursements, damages, exemplary damages, prejudgment interest and attorney fees as allowed by law.

6. For other and further relief as the COUli may deem just, appropriate, or equitable under the circumstances.

BAROKAS MARTIN & TOMLINSON

COMPLAINT - 6

BA #38020

BAROKAS MARTIN & TOMLINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1422 BELLEVUE AVENUE

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 TELEPHONE (206) 621 - 1871

FAX (206) 621 -9907