The barrier for a successful lawsuit is indeed very low, and based on my limited understanding, I think you will likely win when you demand that Google changes the picture on their website. They will likely also have to cover a part of your legal costs.
However if we are talking about monetary damages, those require hard proof of the damages and even then it is unlikely that they will have to pay all damages. Most lawyers I talk to usually recommend against suing for monetary damages.
Sure you could probably win a lawsuit. However what about the lost business you will incur until the lawsuit is done and Google decides to follow the court order?
But that assumes that Google would settle. Without that happening, you are looking at years before getting a result, thousands of dollars of attorney fees and a high likelihood that if they lost they would appeal.
This might be more of an emotional lawsuit than a logical one.
Any money spend on the lawsuit itself can be recovered as part of said lawsuit.
Also, Google will probably wind up paying more just for their legal team than you will AND have to pay in the end... if more people did this, they'd be much more likely to improve quality of service. LOTS of paper cuts.
Legal services can get involved just fine if you file suit. You'll just have to establish that Google owed a duty to you (by contract or otherwise) and that you were harmed by their breach of that duty.
Wow, for once I could be a class member in a lawsuit that I'd actually like to succeed. The only problem I foresee is measuring damages, but it's California, so it might be possible to get them up to a billion. It'll take at least that for Google to give a shit.
Of course there is risk involved in any formal legal action. But equally, a business is not above the law just because it has a lot of money, and having expensive lawyers doesn't magically mean you win every case.
With $100K in dispute, it would be surprising if no lawyer would even be willing to take the first steps, or if the cost of paying one to do so would be so outrageous that it wasn't worth considering if Google really were pulling a fast one.
See the part about "real damages." In a case, as such you could demonstrate the impact and estimate ongoing damages as a result of googles (in)action. Given the offset in size and likely irresponsible nature the amount google would have to pay would include your damages, lawyer fees as well as additional punitive damages. This is how common law is supposed to work.
NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Sure. Like most companies, Google settles plenty of lawsuits and only tries them when it has to or believes it has a high probability of winning. Precedent fear guarantees nothing. You could have said that about any number of cases that Google has settled.
There is zero chance that a law firm would take this pro-bono, regardless of the perceived marketing benefits, because it's simply too expensive.
It will not be financed by Google's enemies. If it's financed, it will be by a litigation financing company like Burford or Bentham IMF or something.
If Google refused to fix it, it might be different. But I expect that, if someone were to file a suit, not even trying to get it fixed wouldn't be seen as acting in good faith.
If would cost a lot of money to go up against the big G. The only people who win are the lawyers, I'll bet Google has lots of experience defending trademark lawsuits.
If Google were doing this at a large scale, the US Government or state government/s would usually be willing to sue them over it.
At a medium scale (in # of cases), you might find a law firm willing to take on a lot of cases, in exchange for a big cut. You can also choose to pursue your own situation individually.
At a small scale (just your case let's say, and a small'ish sum of money), you're going to mostly be limited to small claim's court, which can work perfectly well sometimes:
However if we are talking about monetary damages, those require hard proof of the damages and even then it is unlikely that they will have to pay all damages. Most lawyers I talk to usually recommend against suing for monetary damages.
reply