1 COOLEY LLP

WHITTY SOMVICHIAN (194463)

2 [email protected]
REECE TREVOR (316685)
3 [email protected]
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
4 San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
5 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222

6 REBECCA GIVNER-FORBES (pro hac vice forthcoming)

[email protected]
7 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004-2400
8 Telephone: (202) 842-7800
Facsimile: (202) 842 7899
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 GOOGLE LLC

11

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability Case No.

company,
15 COMPLAINT FOR:
Plaintiff,
16 v. I. BREACH OF CONTRACT
17 ETHAN QIQI HU, an individual; GMBEYE; II. VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. &
RAFADIGITAL LLC, a Mississippi limited PROF. CODE § 17200 et seq.
18 liability company; and DOES 1–20,
III. FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER
19 Defendants. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B)
20 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW COMPLAINT
SAN FRANCISCO
1 1. Plaintiff Google LLC (“Google”), by and through its attorneys of record, brings this

2 action against Defendants Ethan QiQi Hu; GMBEye; Rafadigital, LLC (“Rafadigital”); and Does 1–

3 20 to stop Defendants’ complex and misleading scheme to deceive consumers, business owners, and

4 Google by unlawfully manipulating Google’s industry-leading business listing services.

5 2. Over the past two years, Defendants—led primarily by a single individual, Ethan Qiqi

6 Hu—have abused Google products to create fake online listings for businesses that do not exist, and

7 to bolster them with fake reviews from people who do not exist. Defendants sell these listings, and

8 the inquiries from confused consumers who are lured in by them, to individuals and entities looking

9 to promote their businesses on Google platforms. Defendants deceive these small business owners

10 too, making unsubstantiated and impossible claims about their ability to guarantee a favorable position

11 in Google’s search results and implying preferential treatment or access with respect to certain Google

12 processes.

13 3. Google brings this action to put an end to Defendants’ fraudulent conduct and the

14 ongoing harm Defendants are causing to Google, Google users, and business owners.

15 PARTIES

16 4. Google LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of

17 Delaware with its principal place of business located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View,

18 California 94043.

19 5. Defendant Ethan QiQi Hu is an individual who resides in or near Los Angeles,

20 California.

21 6. Defendant GMBEye is a business entity of unknown form. According to its website,

22 www.gmbeye.com, GMBEye’s principal place of business is in Los Angeles, California, with ZIP

23 code 90029. Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that GMBEye is not a resident

24 of any other state within the United States. Mr. Hu is identified on GMBEye’s website as GMBEye’s

25 “[o]wner,” and on information and belief, Mr. Hu is GMBEye’s principal or sole officer and employee

26 and he operates GMBEye from its principal place of business in or near Los Angeles, California.

27

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1. COMPLAINT
1

9 7. Defendant Rafadigital is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the
10 state of Mississippi. Mr. Hu is listed as Rafadigital’s registered agent and manager in its filings with
11 the Mississippi Secretary of State and as the “[o]wner” of Rafadigital on its website, Rafadigital.com.
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 On information and belief, Mr. Hu is Rafadigital’s principal officer and employee as well as its owner,
24 and he operates Rafadigital from the company’s principal place of business in or near Los Angeles,
25 California.
26 8. Google does not know the true names and capacities of those defendants sued as Does
27 1–20 (the “Doe Defendants”) and therefore sues them under fictitious names. On information and
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
2. COMPLAINT
1 belief, some or all of the Doe Defendants are individuals or entities that post fraudulent reviews using

2 Google products at the direction of other Defendants. Google will amend this Complaint to allege the

3 true names and capacities of these Doe Defendants if and when they are ascertained.

4 JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT

5 9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C.

6 § 1121, as this is a civil action arising under the federal Lanham Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1051

7 et seq. (the “Lanham Act”). The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims pursuant to

8 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because all claims herein form part of the same case or controversy under Article III

9 of the United States Constitution.

10 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each Defendant is a

11 resident and citizen of California, where this Court is located, and further because each Defendant

12 consented to the jurisdiction of the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, by

13 agreeing to Google’s Terms of Service and the choice of venue provision therein, as discussed in more

14 detail below.

15 11. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and a substantial part of

16 the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District, including the harm that

17 Defendants caused Google and other individuals and entities in this District. In addition, Defendants

18 consented to venue in this District by agreeing to Google’s Terms of Service and the choice of venue

19 provision therein, as discussed in more detail below.

20 12. This action is properly assigned to the San Jose Division of this District under Civil

21 Local Rule 3-2(c) because Plaintiff Google is headquartered in Santa Clara County, which is served

22 by the San Jose Division.

23 GOOGLE’S BUSINESS PROFILE AND GOOGLE MY BUSINESS SERVICES

24 13. Among its other services, Google offers a search engine, Google Search, and a mapping
25 tool, Google Maps. Both Search and Maps contain “Business Profiles” with details of businesses,
26 service providers, and other places of interest. Business Profiles span an enormous variety of
27 businesses and professionals: restaurants, car mechanics, accountants, plumbers, dentists, hair salons,
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
3. COMPLAINT
1 law firms, government agencies, contractors, retail stores, amusement parks, and many other kinds of

2 goods or service providers.

3 14. With Search and Maps, users can explore and search for businesses in a given area. The

4 resulting Business Profiles display certain information about a business, including its street address,

5 hours, website, phone number, and so on. Business Profiles also display user-submitted reviews of

6 the associated business. It is important to consumers that this information be authentic and

7 accurate. Likewise, because consumers often use Business Profiles and user-submitted reviews to

8 identify businesses and decide which ones to patronize, many business owners—and especially small

9 business owners—find Business Profiles important for attracting and maintaining customers.

10 15. For several years, Google has offered businesses a suite of free tools to manage their

11 Business Profiles. These tools were previously known as Google My Business, and some users

12 adopted that term to refer to individual Business Profiles as well (as in, for example, “Our business’s

13 phone number and website appear on our GMB.”). Google changed the Google My Business name

14 to Google Business Profile in late 2021, though many businesses and consumers continue to refer to

15 Google My Business or “GMB.”

16 16. New Business Profiles may be created by businesses themselves, automatically created

17 by Google, or suggested by members of the public. To create a new Business Profile or claim an

18 existing Business Profile, a person must verify basic details about the business and that they are the

19 business’s owner or other authorized representative. Following this verification process, the person

20 becomes the profile’s “owner” and may edit that Business Profile, grant other users access to do so,

21 and use various other tools and features. For instance, verified business owners and their authorized

22 representatives can update their hours, address, or website, and they can add photos or promotional

23 offers.

24 17. Google offers businesses and their owners a variety of options to complete the

25 verification process. Many businesses verify their addresses by requesting a postcard with a

26 verification code that Google sends to their physical location. Some merchants, including those that

27 operate within a given service area and not from a single physical location at which they can receive

28 a postcard, may be able to verify their listing through other methods. These include, for example,
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
4. COMPLAINT
1 receiving a phone call or conducting a video call with a Google employee, during which the business

2 can confirm its legitimacy by displaying identifying features like sales inventory, tools of the trade, or

3 a physical storefront.

4 DEFENDANTS’ ADVERTISEMENTS AND FALSE CLAIMS

5 18. On their websites and on social media, Defendants purport to offer various search

6 engine optimization and related services concerning Google Business Profile and Google My

7 Business.

8 19. GMBEye’s website, GMBEye.com, advertises just one type of service: “Premium

9 Business Listing Verification” on Google. GMBEye.com’s homepage, shown below, prominently

10 displays such an advertisement.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
20. GMBEye expressly advertises that it can “[v]erify Google Business Without Postcard
25
For All services” and “categories.”1 Through GMBEye’s website, Defendants solicit merchants and
26
collect their information, such as their names, email addresses, business names, business websites,
27

28 1
www.gmbeye.com
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
5. COMPLAINT
1 what each merchant “hop[es] to achieve with a new GMB,” and what the customer’s business goals

2 are. GMBEye offers customers various packages of verification services, ranging from a “Basic”

3 package to the “Ultimate” package.2

10

11

12

13
21. The packages—and GMBEye’s fees—appear subject to change depending on the
14
number of Business Profiles a buyer seeks to verify and, presumably, the degree of effort involved for
15
GMBEye to evade Google’s verification requirements. For example, the “Basic” and “Pro” packages
16
encompass orders that are not in what Defendants term a “Hard Category.”3
17
22. GMBEye is replete with express and implied assurances that Defendants are able to
18
bypass the verification procedures that Google requires of most merchants, and also to ensure a
19
particular business listing is “at the top” of Google Search results—a misleading and false statement,
20
for no business or entity can guarantee such placement by Google’s Search algorithm.
21
23. Much of Defendants’ messaging suggests that GMBEye has preferential access to
22
Google or is otherwise uniquely positioned with respect to Google, allowing it to secure the “Premium
23
Business Listing Verification” that is unavailable to those who verify their businesses through
24
Google’s free processes. The implied message is that, due to this access or relationship, GMBEye can
25
“Fast Track Your Business Verification on Google,” according to the call-to-action at the top of its
26

27
2
Id.
28 3
Id.
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
6. COMPLAINT
1 homepage. The website also claims that GMBEye is the only service that “can [provide a] 30 day

2 guarantee [for verification in] all categories—including the notorious locksmith and garage repairs!”4

3 24. Some merchants are likely drawn to GMBEye’s promises of “[f]ast [t]rack,”

4 “[p]remier” verification in any category, unavailable to those who use Google’s free verification

5 procedures. GMBEye’s customers and prospective customers likely include both legitimate

6 merchants seeking a shortcut through Google’s procedures, as well as other scammers or bad actors

7 who abuse fake business listings; while the latter may quickly recognize GMBEye as a fellow

8 scammer, the former may not.

9 25. Elsewhere on the GMBEye website, in smaller chunks of narrative text, Defendants

10 explain that GMBEye’s unique position relies on “a proprietary process” through which it can

11 “immediately establish trust with Google, while other GMB methods try to ‘game the system.’” These

12 messages start to suggest that GMBEye has some special access to or knowledge of Google’s

13 procedures, rather than enjoying “fast track” permission or “premier” access granted by Google. But

14 the explanation nonetheless relies on GMBEye’s having a level of “trust with Google,” however

15 obtained, such that GMBEye does not need to “game the system.” Defendants do not, in fact, have

16 any preferential relationship with or access to Google to facilitate such services.

17 26. Further explanation on the GMBEye website boasts that Defendants can even verify

18 businesses “with [s]pammy names,” suggesting the service avoids Google’s measures to maintain

19 accurate and high-quality Business Profiles. Defendants similarly claim that “[m]ost verification

20 methods cant [sic] handle that because Google will suspend your listing but with our method you can

21 sustainability rank your GMBs with Spammy names helping you rank on Google in no time!”5

22 27. Other claims suggest, falsely, that GMBEye can assure a business top position in

23 Google Search. “Having your GMB name include the keyword you are ranking for it[ i]s one of the

24 best way[s] to [be] on top of google rankings . . . . [O]ur method makes it possible to have the exact

25 keyword you are ranking for in the GMB name, which hits all the Google Algorithm for a top ranking

26

27
4
Id.
28 5
Id.
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
7. COMPLAINT
1 GMB.”6

2 28. Notwithstanding these other services it purports to offer, GMBEye’s advertisements

3 and representations emphasize its unique position with respect to verification: “We are the only

4 provider tha[t] can provide GMB listing for any US/CA location in any category.”7

5 29. Rafadigital advertises somewhat different services than GMBEye, focusing on search

6 engine optimization and lead generation, but still with a focus on Google Search and Maps. “Elevate

7 to the Top of Google” was, until recently, featured in large, prominent font in the center of its

8 homepage.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 In a video embedded on Rafadigital’s website, Ragadigital describes itself as “an A-list SEO agency
18 that specializes in Google ranking.” As part of its services, Rafadigital claims to “improve your maps
19 listing by completing GMB profiles, claiming missing listings, encouraging reviews, and
20 standardizing NAP [i.e., name, address, and phone number].”8 Rafadigital’s advertising makes
21 dramatic and unachievable promises, such as that Defendants will ensure that a website “shows up #1
22 on Google” and that “[w]e rank your business on Google My Business (GMB) to be #1 on map
23 searches so you can out-perform local competitors.”9
24 30. Rafadigital’s website also advertises the company as specializing in “lead generation,”
25 a marketing process that identifies and obtains contact information for potential customers, known as
26
6
Id.
27 7
Id.
8
Id.
28 9
Id. (emphasis added).
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
8. COMPLAINT
1 “leads,” that a business can then pursue in hopes of making a sale. Rafadigital claims that it can “[g]et

2 high converting leads direct to your phone” “for all industries[.]”10

3 31. As recently as mid-2022, if a user clicked on a button on Rafadigital.com for more

4 information about “GMB Verification,” the site would redirect them to GMBEye.com, confirming

5 (along with Mr. Hu’s appearance on both websites) that Rafadigital and GMBEye are closely related.11

6 32. Concerned by Defendants’ advertisements and apparent sale of fraudulent verification

7 services, Google began to investigate their practices. Upon information and belief, since mid-2021,

8 Defendants have been continuously misleading Google users, making impossible claims to their

9 clients, and engaging in conduct that violates state and federal law and the contractual obligations

10 found in Google’s Terms of Service.

11 33. Defendants’ offerings of Business Profile verification, preferred placement in Google

12 Search results, and lead sales violate their contracts with Google and the law. Their unlawful scheme

13 has three principal components: (1) fraudulent verification of nonexistent Business Profiles, (2)

14 posting fake reviews on Business Profiles, and (3) selling real businesses leads from unsuspecting

15 customers who seek services from the businesses listed on Defendants’ fake Business Profiles.

16 DEFENDANTS’ FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PROFILE VERIFICATION SCHEME

17 34. As noted above, Defendants advertise and sell fraudulently verified Business Profiles

18 for their own illicit gain by manipulating and abusing Google’s Business Profile tools and verification

19 services.

20 35. To do so, Defendants first create a Business Profile for a fake business, generally

21 accompanied by a fake website based on a simple template. Defendants typically associate these fake

22 businesses with Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) phone numbers whose area codes correspond

23 to the fake businesses’ supposed locations.

24 36. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been associated with over 350 fake

25 Business Profiles listings since mid-2021. Posing as a fake business’s owners, Defendants contact

26 Google, seeking verification. Defendants frequently verify their fake listings through video calls with

27
10
https://rafadigital.com/.
28 11
See https://web.archive.org/web/20220420112607/https://rafadigital.com/.
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
9. COMPLAINT
1 Google, as shown in the image below, taken from a June 23, 2021 video call with Google during which

2 Mr. Hu purported to be associated with a nonexistent chiropractor, Wilmington Chiro Health.

10

11

12

13

14 37. Defendants come to these calls armed with an elaborate set of props, which they use to
15 pass off their fake listings as real small businesses.
16 38. For example, on March 14, 2022, Defendants contacted Google to verify “Western Los
17 Angeles Garage Door Repair.” The individual masquerading as the business owner, who supposedly
18 serviced Los Angeles, California, showed the Google agent a tool bench area to mislead Google into
19 believing they were at their business location, a portion of which appears below:
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
10. COMPLAINT
1

10

11

12

13 39. When Defendants sought to verify “Pro Tree Service” in Houston, Texas, on March
14 22, 2022, they presented the same tool bench to Google to verify that fake listing:
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
11. COMPLAINT
1 40. The same area appeared again for “AS Budget Plumbers,” purportedly based in Davis,

2 California, when Defendants contacted Google to verify that fake listing on March 29, 2022:

10

11

12

13

14

15 41. As another example, Defendants have presented to Google what appears to be the same
16 set of essential oils below in order to verify multiple aromatherapy and reiki therapy listings.
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 42. Once Defendants successfully verify these dummy Business Profiles, they proceed to
26 either sell the listing or modify the fake business’s information to make the Business Profile more
27 desirable to potential buyers. At times, Defendants transfer control of fraudulently-verified Business
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
12. COMPLAINT
1 Profiles, updated to include an unverified real-world business’s business information, to their buyers.

2 43. Google has detected over a hundred such fraudulent revisions to the content of

3 Defendants’ fake Business Profiles. To give just a few illustrative examples:

4 a. Using the props above, Defendants verified the Business Profile for “Envy Hot

5 Stone Reikeist,” a fake reiki provider supposedly located in Davis, California.

6 Twenty-two days later, they modified the listing to reflect a completely different

7 business: “Rapid Plumber,” also in Davis.

8 b. Defendants created a Business Profile for “Santa Barbara Maid Service & House

9 Cleaners,” a fake housekeeping service in Santa Barbara, California, and 42 days

10 later changed it to “Gold Garage Door Repair,” also supposedly located in Santa

11 Barbara.

12 c. Defendants created a Business Profile for “Baltimore Spa Paradise,” a nonexistent

13 massage spa in Baltimore, Maryland. After verifying this listing, Defendants

14 transferred it to a new business, “1st Painters in Baltimore,” 30 days later,

15 preserving the Business Profile associated with Baltimore Spa Paradise but with a

16 new name and website, 1stpaintersinbaltimore.com.

17 d. Defendants transformed a fake chiropractor in Wilmington, North Carolina, into

18 “Pro Painters Wilmington NC,” whose website, propainterswilmingtonnc.com, is

19 virtually identical to the website for 1st Painters in Baltimore. Just eleven days

20 elapsed before this supposed chiropractor became a painter instead.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
13. COMPLAINT