The judge&#x27;s argument makes sense to me, and seems right.<p>But I&#x27;d argue that the CAPTCHA itself is a greater benefit to the end user than the cost (not just Gmail or Google Maps). If Google had to stop using OCR CAPTCHA tomorrow, they would have to use an alternative, and frankly most of the alternatives are worse. Further still without the ability to hinder bots services like Gmail couldn&#x27;t exist.<p>Arguing that Gmail is a greater benefit than the CAPTCHA costs to complete is fine, but potentially leaves the gate open to sue later because someone finds a service which they claim doesn&#x27;t benefit the end user (e.g. paying a bill). Arguing that the CAPTCHA method itself has more benefit than cost completely destroys any future lawsuits.