You're talking about the promissory part, but not the estoppel part. Estoppel is the court's action to intervene to prevent the defendant from evading its oblig

You're talking about the promissory part, but not the estoppel part. Estoppel is the court's action to intervene to prevent the defendant from evading its obligation. It has to be a valid promise that the defendants relied on to get the court to take the action of estoppel. If something seems like a dumb case mostly designed to enrich the plaintiff attorney on the face of it, it most likely is a dumb case mostly intended to enrich the plaintiff attorney. "Don't be evil" falls pretty neatly under the definition of an illusory promise because it is "indefinite or vague." Under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts: "Illusory promises; mere statements of intention. Words of promise which by their terms make performance entirely optional with the “promisor” whatever may happen, or whatever course of conduct in other respects he may pursue, do not constitute a promise." The fact that the plaintiff attorney did not mention the concept of an illusory promise does not bode well for its chances, because the judge will certainly bring it up, and the defense will also certainly bring it up. This should have been addressed directly, since it is the most obvious defense to this claim. There are other defenses as well that were not brought up and addressed, such as that the nonsense claims related to media articles had any bearing whatsoever on any alleged breach of contract. Notwithstanding this, "Don't Be Evil" should have never been in any official code of conduct; it should have stayed in the realm of puffery to avoid exactly this type of problem. This is why everyone hates lawyers and other assorted 'fun police' personalities. This was a lazily written complaint that did not really get into the important nitty gritty of why these particular employees were injured. Further, maybe this is one of those California things that lets you get out of arbitration, but these employees are almost certainly bound by an arbitration agreement. Not mentioning why you get to dodge the forced arbitration clause in your contract in the complaint is annoying to the court and will also make it less likely to survive the obvious motion to dismiss due to the binding arbitration requirement.