Published
October 3, 2026
U.S. buyers of Google AI Pro and Google AI Ultra subscriptions were the proposed class in a lawsuit alleging Google advertised the Gemini plans against strikethrough “regular” prices that new subscribers were never charged. The plaintiff dismissed his own claims with prejudice on August 19, 2026, no class was ever certified, and there is nothing to file.
Allegations Only · Case Closed · No Settlement Fund
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Google LLC was never found liable, no class was certified, and the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice on August 19, 2026. There is nothing to claim. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Reyes v. Google LLC was a proposed class action over the way Google priced its two paid Gemini plans, Google AI Pro and Google AI Ultra, on its subscription page. Crosner Legal P.C. filed the complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court on April 7, 2026 (No. 26CV491319). Google removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 18, 2026, where it became Case No. 5:26-cv-04700.The case did not last long in federal court. On August 19, 2026, the plaintiff and Google filed a joint stipulation dismissing the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, with each side bearing its own fees and costs, and the court closed the case the same day. The dismissal covered only the plaintiff’s individual claims. No class was certified and there is no settlement fund or claim form. Google’s subscription page no longer shows struck-through prices.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
Status
Case Closed
Plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice August 19, 2026 · each side pays its own fees
Products
Google AI Pro · Google AI Ultra
Gemini subscription plans bought for personal use
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim
No certified class, settlement fund or claim form
What the Complaint Alleged
The complaint focused on the plan cards on Google’s Gemini subscription page. According to the complaint, AI Ultra was shown with $249.99 a month struck through beside an introductory price of $124.99 a month for three months, and AI Pro was shown with $19.99 a month struck through beside a free first month. The complaint listed several dates between May and December 2025 on which it said the same pairing appeared.The plaintiff’s theory was not that nobody ever paid the higher amounts. It was that the struck-through figures were presented as former prices even though, according to the complaint, a new subscriber could never actually sign up at them, because every new subscription came with a free or discounted introductory period. In the plaintiff’s telling, a “sale” that never ends is simply the normal price, and labeling it a discount misleads buyers about what they are saving and pushes them to buy sooner.
The named plaintiff alleged he subscribed to AI Ultra in June 2025 at the $124.99 introductory rate after seeing the $249.99 figure struck through, and that he would not have bought it then, or at that price, without the advertised discount. Google never filed an answer on the public docket, and none of these allegations was tested in court.
The Laws Involved
The complaint brought two claims under California law. The first was under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), which reaches business practices that are unlawful, unfair or fraudulent. For the “unlawful” part, the complaint relied on other rules it said Google broke, including the Federal Trade Commission’s Guides Against Deceptive Pricing (16 C.F.R. § 233.1), which treat an inflated former price set up to advertise a large reduction as deceptive, and California’s former-price statute (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17501), which bars advertising a former price unless it was the prevailing market price in the preceding three months or its date is clearly stated.The second claim was under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, which prohibits advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised and making false or misleading statements about the existence or amount of price reductions. The complaint said the plaintiff sent Google the written notice the Act requires before seeking damages, and that Google did not correct the practice within 30 days.
The complaint asked for restitution, damages, an order stopping the pricing practice, corrective advertising, and attorneys’ fees.
Who Was in the Proposed Class
The complaint proposed a nationwide class of people in the United States who, within the statute of limitations, bought a Google AI Pro or Google AI Ultra subscription for personal use at a discount from a strikethrough or advertised reference price on Google’s website or app, with a California subclass for buyers in that state. People who received a full refund were excluded. Because the court never certified either class, these definitions remained proposals and no subscriber became a class member.How the Case Moved Through Two Courts
In state court, the complaint was filed as a provisionally complex case, and on April 17, 2026 Judge McGowen signed an order deeming it complex, which sends a case to a specialized department for closer management. The plaintiff served Google on April 20. On May 18, Google removed the case to federal court and filed a notice of that removal in the Superior Court.The federal docket then shows routine early activity: appearances by Google’s lawyers, a case management scheduling order, a referral to a magistrate judge for discovery, and stipulations and orders on stipulations in June and July 2026. The public docket lists no answer, motion to dismiss or class certification motion. On August 19, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal and the federal case was terminated the same day.
The Santa Clara County docket, as last updated on August 8, 2026, still lists a case management statement the plaintiff filed there on August 3 and a further case management conference set for December 10, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. in Department 22. Those entries predate the federal closure, and the state docket reviewed for this page shows no remand order or new filing.
Why Was It Closed?
The case ended by agreement. On August 19, 2026, the plaintiff and Google filed a two-page Stipulation of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which lets parties end a case without a court order when everyone who has appeared signs. In it, the plaintiff and Google agreed to dismiss the action “with prejudice” “as to Plaintiff’s claims,” with each party bearing its own fees and costs. The filing is embedded below. What it means:- The plaintiff cannot refile. A dismissal with prejudice bars him from suing Google again over the same claims.
- Other subscribers are not bound. The dismissal was limited to the plaintiff’s own claims. Because no class was ever certified, the claims of other Google AI Pro and AI Ultra subscribers were never part of a judgment or release.
- No ruling on the merits. No motion to dismiss was decided and no class was certified, so the case did not end because a judge rejected the claims, and the stipulation contains no admission by Google.
- No class payout. Each side bearing its own fees and costs means there was no court-awarded fee and no class settlement.
- Google’s pricing page has changed. When OCA checked Google’s Gemini subscription page on October 3, 2026, it listed Google AI Pro at $19.99 a month and Google AI Ultra starting at $99.99 a month, with a $199.99 tier, and showed no struck-through reference prices. The complaint described $249.99 struck through for AI Ultra. Whether the change had anything to do with the lawsuit is not known.
Has It Been Refiled or Copied?
OCA found no refiled version of the case. Searches of federal dockets on CourtListener for Google AI Pro and Google AI Ultra pricing claims turned up no other case over the subscription prices, and no new filing appears on the Santa Clara County docket reviewed for this page. OCA also found no identical strikethrough-price lawsuit against another AI company. The complaint itself pointed to ChatGPT, Perplexity and SuperGrok as examples of plans sold at flat prices without reference prices.Related Cases
This case was separate from the Gemini Gmail privacy class action, which alleges Gemini smart features were switched on by default to read users’ messages. Subscription-plan marketing has drawn other AI suits too, including a pending case alleging Claude Max plans deliver less usage than advertised. Strikethrough-price theories like the one in this complaint also appear in retail cases such as the iRobot Roomba fake sales lawsuit.Questions
Why did the case end up in federal court?
The complaint was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court on April 7, 2026. Google removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 18, 2026, citing diversity jurisdiction, which is why the federal docket lists May 18 as its filing date.
Does the closure mean Google admitted anything?
No. The plaintiff and Google stipulated to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, with each side paying its own fees and costs. The stipulation contains no admission, no court ruled on whether the pricing was deceptive, and Google was never found liable.
What did the complaint say about ChatGPT, Perplexity and Grok?
To support its unfair-competition claim, the complaint contrasted Google’s pricing page with the plan pages for ChatGPT, Perplexity and SuperGrok, which it said list flat monthly prices without strikethrough reference prices. The complaint argued that this gave Google an unfair advantage.
Is this the same case as the Gemini Gmail privacy lawsuit?
No. The Gmail case is a separate privacy class action alleging Gemini smart features were turned on by default to read users’ email, chats and meetings. The Reyes case was only about how Google AI Pro and Google AI Ultra subscription prices were displayed.
Could the case come back?
Not for this plaintiff. The August 19, 2026 stipulation dismissed his claims with prejudice, which bars him from suing Google again over the same claims. The dismissal was limited to his own claims, and because no class was ever certified, it does not decide or release the claims of any other Google AI Pro or AI Ultra subscriber.
Sources
This page is based on the federal docket for Reyes v. Google LLC, No. 5:26-cv-04700 (N.D. Cal.) on CourtListener, including Google’s May 18, 2026 notice of removal and the original complaint attached to it, and the parties’ August 19, 2026 Stipulation of Dismissal (ECF No. 19); the Santa Clara County Superior Court docket for No. 26CV491319, as last updated August 8, 2026; and Google’s Gemini subscription page, checked October 3, 2026. The complaint is embedded below.Read the Stipulation of Dismissal
Read the Complaint
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Closed August 19, 2026 — plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice by stipulation
Case Title
Reyes v. Google LLC
Case Number
5:26-cv-04700 (removed from Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 26CV491319)
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Date Filed
April 7, 2026 (state court); removed May 18, 2026
Official Website
CourtListener Docket
