Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.
282 F.R.D. 384
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Google announced the Library Project in 2004, scanning millions of books from major libraries and providing snippets to users.
- Google did not obtain copyright permission for many scanned works, creating potential infringement issues.
- Authors Guild and AG Representative Plaintiffs filed a copyright class action in 2005 seeking injunctive and declaratory relief; after settlement negotiations, the ASA was proposed and preliminarily approved but later not finally approved.
- ASMP action involved photographers and illustrators asserting copyright in images within Google’s scanned books; associational and representative theories were at issue.
- In 2011–2012, motions to dismiss associational plaintiffs and for class certification were addressed; the court denied associational standing for some and granted class certification for the Authors Guild Representative Plaintiffs.
- The court treated associational standing as sufficiently established under Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm’n, and held Rule 23(b)(3) class certification appropriate for the Authors Guild actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether associational plaintiffs have standing | Associational plaintiffs satisfy Hunt prongs 1–2; third prong met. | Association members’ individualized interests require participation; third prong not satisfied. | Associational standing satisfied; third Hunt prong satisfied. |
| Whether class certification is proper under Rule 23(b)(3) | Class should be certified due to common questions and economies of scale. | Differences in ownership and possible individualized issues could defeat predominance. | Rule 23(b)(3) certification granted for the Authors Guild Representative Plaintiffs. |
| Whether the class satisfies Rule 23(a) prerequisites | Numerosity, commonality, and typicality satisfied. | Adequacy of representation potentially compromised by perceived author benefits. | 23(a) prerequisites satisfied; adequacy found. |
| Whether ownership complexities defeat common questions | Ownership can be established via public records; group claims remain valid. | Varying ownership interests may create individualized issues. | Ownership issues do not defeat predominance; group treatment permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing generally requires injury in fact)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (association standing and prudential limits)
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977) (three-part test for associational standing (prong 3 prudential))
- Brock, 477 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1986) (benefits of associational standing; adversarial vigor)
- Open Society Int’l, Inc. v. U.S. Agency for Int’l Dev., 651 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2011) (associational standing where limited individualized proof may be required)
- In re Nassau Cnty. Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2006) (predominance and common questions in class actions)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality and class-wide resolution standards)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (class action certification standards and settlement concerns)
- Cordes & Co. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 502 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2007) (Rule 23 predominance and class action efficiency)
- Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001) (typicality and common course of events)
- Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1997) (commonality and class representation)