Based on anonymous user data, Google’s waiting time display provides information on how long a customer has to wait on average for an available table. However, the fact that this display does not always reflect the actual waiting time is shown by the case of a brewery in Tegernsee, whose landlord filed a complaint against the display.
Google took the waiting time display for Tegernseer Bräustüble offline in July 2019
The landlord had been trying to get Google to take the waiting time display offline since 2017, which Google finally did in July 2019.
However, the landlord lacked certainty that the function would continue to be blocked for the Tegernseer Bräustüble, but Google did not accept service of process on its German subsidiary in Hamburg and referred to its headquarters in the USA.
Date at Munich Regional Court I canceled
The Regional Court of Munich I had scheduled a hearing for 28.8.2019, which has now been canceled at short notice. The reason for this was the submission of a declaration of discontinuance and undertaking regarding the waiting time display by Google.
A success for Tegernseer Bräustüble, but this case also shows how difficult it can be for small and medium-sized companies to defend themselves legally against Google and the like.
Misleading waiting time displays not an isolated case
This is also not an isolated case. According to the Bavarian Hotel and Restaurant Association, there are around 20-30 other cross-industry cases complaining about Google’s misleading waiting time display.
Proper service of process remains open
The Munich I Regional Court will no longer have to answer the question of proper service of process.
However, the Baden-Württemberg consumer advice center had already filed a lawsuit against Microsoft at the Munich Regional Court in 2017.
There, too, Microsoft had deemed the service of process on its German subsidiary to be inadmissible.
After the Regional Court of Munich I initially ruled in favor of Microsoft, the service of process was deemed admissible by the Higher Regional Court of Munich in the second instance (OLG Munich, judgment of 2 March 2017, Ref.: 6 U 2940/16).