Plaintiff, DJ Lincoln Enterprises, Inc., is a Florida publishing/marketing/sales company (“Plaintiff”). According to the Amended Complaint, through communications between the parties, Google induced Plaintiff to make changes to its website to conform with Google’s standards to optimize the number of visits to the website, which Plaintiff did at great cost and expense. Plaintiff contends it reasonably relied on Google’s promise that the changes to its website would improve the search results. According to Plaintiff, Google blacklisted Plaintiff and intentionally manipulated Google Search’s algorithms in a way that actually worsened the website’s search results. Plaintiff alleged Google did this because it uses Google Search and its other products and platforms to discriminate against and censor conservatives and their viewpoints to promote liberals and their viewpoints.
Plaintiff sued Google in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, bringing claims for: (1) violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”); (2) violating Florida’s RICO counterpart; (3) violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), (4) tortious interference with contractual and business relationships; and (d) fraud. The Amended Complaint sought $90,000,000 in damages.
On January 19, 2021, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (all claims) without prejudice, giving Plaintiff one further opportunity to amend.
FDUTPA – Because Plaintiff’s FDUTPA claim was grounded in alleged fraud, it was required to satisfy the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Plaintiff failed to meet the heightened pleading requirement by alleging in mere conclusory fashion that Google engaged in unfair methods of competition and unconscionable acts or practices. The Amended Complaint is unclear as to which factual allegations, if any, are intended to support those conclusory allegations. Plaintiff failed to explain how Google competed with any individual or entity unfairly, and failed to provide any authority to support classifying Google’s alleged actions as unconscionable.
Tortious Interference – Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim of tortious interference because it failed to identify any contract with which Google interfered, much less plead facts to show Google knew of that contract and intentionally interfered with it. Likewise, Plaintiff failed to identify any business relationship with which Google interfered. While tortious interference may be properly brought for interference with present or prospective customers, no cause of action exists for tortious interference with a business relationship to the community at large.
Fraud – Again, Plaintiff failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements under Rule 9(b) for pleading fraud. Plaintiff’s fraud claim partly relied on the alleged failure of Google to communicate certain information. However, a defendant’s knowing concealment or non-disclosure of material fact may only support an action for fraud where there is a duty to disclose. Plaintiff failed to allege any such duty.