IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D. Ohio: Google’s Shopping Ads program did not infringe T-shirt design copyrights, (Oct 15, 2026)

By Sherri M. Schroeder, J.D.

The court found that Weekend Warrior failed to state a claim for either direct or contributory copyright infringement due to lack of volitional conduct on Google’s part, among other things.

An Ohio federal district court has dismissed a complaint made by Weekend Warrior Clothing, LLC (WW), an online clothing company that sells T-shirts. WW alleged that merchants selling products that infringe on WW’s copyrighted designs take advantage of Google, LLC’s Shopping Ads program to sell their infringing items, so it sued Google alleging direct and contributory copyright infringement. When Google moved to dismiss the claims against it, the court concluded that WW failed to plausibly allege either claim. The court dismissed the direct infringement claim because WW did not plausibly allege that Google engaged in any volitional conduct. The court dismissed the contributory infringement claim because WW neither alleged Google induced or encouraged copyright infringement on its Shopping Ads platform, nor that Shopping Ads was incapable of substantial lawful use, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment (Weekend Warrior Clothing, LLC v. Google, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00668-DRC (S.D. Ohio Oct. 14, 2026)).

Program. When a user searches on Google’s search engine, “sponsored” products available for purchase may appear at the top of the list. For a product to appear on the first-to-be-seen sponsored list, the merchant pays for Google’s Shopping Ads program. The sponsored product advertisement shows a picture of the product, which is also a link to the merchant’s website where the product can be purchased. The image links used for the product are supplied by the merchant. Merchants using the service agree to its terms of service, including restrictions on advertising copyrighted content.

Infringement. WW alleged that "substantial quantities” of exact copies of some of its most popular copyrighted T-shirt designs were being displayed in Google’s Shopping Ads section, frequently before WW’s website. WW claimed that it notified Google on several occasions of the infringing products; Google sometimes responded that it would take down the infringing material, but it never did. Sometimes, Google allegedly did not respond at all. WW filed suit against Google for direct and contributory copyright infringement based on the display of the image of the infringing products. Google moved to dismiss because, under the server test, it did not store and then display a copy of WW’s designs, nor did it engage in any volitional conduct causing the infringement or contribute to any infringement.

Direct. The court dismissed WW’s claim of direct copyright infringement because it found WW did not plausibly allege that Google engaged in the volitional conduct necessary to show that Google caused the infringing display. WW argued that Google engaged in volitional conduct when it digitally located infringing works on its site based on the amount of money “paid by infringers, including known infringers.” The court, however, found that Google did not engage in volitional conduct because it did not participate in the selectin of the allegedly infringing products’ advertisements. The product data, including the images, was supplied by the third-party merchants. Google did not seek the data out or curate the available products or their data. Additionally, the third-party merchants hosted the actual allegedly infringing image on their own websites. WW’s argument that Google chose which products were shown to users in response to that user’s search “stretches the definition of selection too far into the automated-process space,” stated the court. “[T]he fact that at some point Google determined the sponsored results would always appear at the top of the page, thus ‘digitally locat[ing]’ them, does not transform the Shopping Ads program from an automated process into an active one,” opined the court.

Contributory. As to WW’s contributory copyright infringement claims, the court first noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Cox, in which the Court upheld a copyright holder’s ability to pursue contributory infringement claims even in the absence of an express statutory hook. Per the Court, contributory infringement occurs when the service provider “intended its service to be used for infringement,” which can be shown when a party affirmatively induces the infringement through specific acts or sells a service tailored to infringement that is not capable of substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses.

According to the court, in the case at hand, WW is seeking to do exactly what the Supreme Court rejected in Cox by holding Google accountable for allegedly possessing knowledge of infringement and failing to take adequate steps to stop it. However, Google’s activities did not fall within the two recognized categories of contributory infringement because Google neither induced infringement by others nor tailored it services to ease infringement, according to the court. “Weekend Warrior has not alleged Google ‘promot[ed], market[ed], [or] inten[ded] to promote’ infringement on its platform,” stated the court, quoting Cox. “Nor can Weekend Warrior deny that Google’s Shopping Ads program is ‘capable of substantial lawful use.’”

Although WW argued that merchants paid Google to showcase their products in the sponsored results section at the top of their search results and that Google promoted the infringing products by pushing them to those most likely to buy them, the court disagreed. “Google generally ‘promoting’ products in sponsored results does not equal Google ‘promoting’ Shopping Ad’s ability to be used for infringing purposes,” stated the court. “That is, Weekend Warrior has not alleged that Google somehow distinguishes between infringing and non-infringing products in Google’s automatic process to populate the sponsored results. It does not argue that out of the products submitted to Google’s Merchant Center, it somehow privileges the infringing ones.” Therefore, the court dismissed the contributory infringement claim because Ww had failed to provide any factual allegations suggesting that Google had the intent for users to download or stream copyrighted content when it designed its Shopping Ads service.

Conclusion. The court granted Google’s motion to dismiss the claims against it without prejudice because WW could potentially cure the deficiencies in its plea.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-00668-DRC.

Judge: Cole, D.

Attorneys: Keith Joseph Wesley (George LLP) for Weekend Warrior Clothing, LLC. Alexander Xavier Shadley (Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP) for Google, LLC.

Companies: Weekend Warrior Clothing, LLC; Google, LLC

MainStory: TopStory Copyright OhioNews GCNNews