Google Goes After Online Food Ordering Company With Claims It Misled Restaurant Owners
The search giant accuses Kydia Inc., the company behind the BeyondMenu app and website, of tricking business owners into thinking it was affiliated with Google. It claims Kydia direct consumers to an online food-ordering platform that generated commissions.
May 23, 2018 at 04:55 PM
3 minute read
Google has sued the company behind the online food ordering service BeyondMenu, claiming that it has misled restaurant owners into thinking it's associated with the search giant.
In a complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by lawyers at Cooley, Google accuses Kydia Inc. of misleading business owners to get control of their restaurants' “Google My Business” listings to direct consumers to the BeyondMenu ordering platform.
A BeyondMenu representative reached by phone Wednesday directed a request for comment to the email address listed on the company's website. Officials at Rosemont, Illinois-based Kydia didn't immediately respond to an email message.
According to Kydia's website, it takes a 5 percent commission from orders placed through the BeyondMenu platform. Google claims that BeyondMenu representatives have purported to be affiliated with or endorsed by Google when reaching out to restaurants to market their platform. Google claims that BeyondMenu has taken advantage of the “Google My Bussiness,” or GMB, platform to direct orders through its platform to generate commission.
According to Google, BeyondMenu has collected information from restaurants who don't yet have a GMB account to pass Google's verification process. For restaurants that already have accounts, Google claims that BeyondMenu has convinced restaurant employees or owners to hand over Google-assigned PIN numbers to take over access and direct the restaurant's business listings to BeyondMenu-built sites to generate orders.
“Indeed, several restaurants have complained that BeyondMenu creates these autogenerated websites without the restaurant's authorization, and that the websites are of poor quality, display incorrect information, and divert consumers from the restaurant's real website,” wrote Google's lawyers at Cooley. “Restaurant owners or employees disclose information to defendant because they are led to mistakenly believe that they are communicating with Google, or with an entity that represents or is affiliated or associated with Google, the GMB service, or other Google services.”
Google is pursuing claims of trademark infringement, federal unfair competition and false designation of origin, and breach of contract based on BeyondMenu's alleged violation of GMB's terms of service. The suit seeks an injunction barring BeyondMenu from claiming any association with Google or using its trademarks. The suit also seeks a finding that BeyondMenu's infringement of Google trademarks was “deliberate, willful, fraudulent, and without extenuating circumstances.” Such a finding could entitle Google to three times the damages and attorney fees and costs associated with the lawsuit.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow We Won: BraunHagey’s $56M Trademark Win Over Molson Coors Upheld by 9th Circuit
8 minute read'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readJudge to Hear Arguments on Whether Google's Advertising Tech Constitutes a Monopoly
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Spends 3 Hours Explaining His Decision
- 2Morgan Lewis Closes Shenzhen Office Less Than 2 Years After Launch
- 3On The Move: Freeman Mathis & Gary Adds Florida Partners, Employment Pro Joins Jackson Lewis
- 4New Trouble for Allstate: National Class Action Targets Insurer
- 5Pam Bondi's Lobbying and Law Firm Revenue Disclosed
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250