`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:1797
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`Hassan A. Zavareei (SBN 181547)
`Dia Rasinariu (pro hac vice)
`TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
`1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
`
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`
`(202) 973-0900; Fax (202) 973-0950
`hzavareei@tzlegal.com
`
`drasinariu@tzlegal.com
`
`Daniel S. Robinson (SBN 244245)
`Wesley K. Polischuk (SBN 254121)
`Michael Olson (SBN 312857)
`ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
`19 Corporate Plaza Drive
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`(949) 720-1288; Fax (949) 720-1292
`drobinson@robinsonfirm.com
`molson@robinsonfirm.com
`
`Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`
`Tina Wolfson (SBN 174806)
`Theodore W. Maya (SBN 223242)
`Bradley K. King (SBN 274399)
`Rachel R. Johnson (SBN 331351)
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
`Burbank, California 91505
`(310) 474-9111; Fax: (310) 474-8585
`twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
`tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
`bking@ahdootwolfson.com
`rjohnson@ahdootwolfson.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS
`IX-XIII OF THE SECOND
`AMENDED CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` DATE: January 31, 2022
`TIME: 10:00 a.m.
`JUDGE: Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald
`CTRM: 5A
`
`
`In re Ring LLC Privacy Litigation
`
`
`This document relates to: all cases
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 34 Page ID #:1798
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 2
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 3
`A.
`Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Does Not Apply. . 3
`B.
`Ring Owes Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs a Cognizable Duty of Care. ..... 9
`C. Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs Sufficiently Plead Their Privacy Claims. . 15
`1.
`Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs State a Claim for Invasion of
`
`Privacy. ................................................................................... 15
`2.
`Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs Also State a Claim for Public
`Disclosure of Private Facts. .................................................... 18
`D. Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs Have Standing to Assert UCL Claims. ..... 19
`E. Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs Adequately Plead Ring’s Unjust
`Enrichment. ....................................................................................... 22
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 34 Page ID #:1799
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`AF Holdings, LLC v. Doe,
` No. 5:12-cv-2048, 2012 WL 4747170 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2012) .......................... 8
`
`Archer v. United Rentals, Inc.,
`
`195 Cal. App. 4th 807 (2011) .............................................................................. 20
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................. 3
`
`Baltazar v. Apple, Inc.,
` No. 10-cv-3231, 2011 WL 588209 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2011) ........................... 22
`
`Barber v. Time, Inc.,
`
`159 S.W.2d 291 (Mo. 1942) ................................................................................ 16
`
`Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`
`570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) ....................................................................... 3, 5, 6
`
`Barrett v. Rosenthal,
`
`40 Cal. 4th 33 (2006) ............................................................................................ 4
`
`Bass v. Facebook, Inc.,
`
`394 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................................ 9
`
`Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC,
`
`544 U.S. 431 (2005) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................. 3
`
`Bigbee v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
`
`34 Cal. 3d 49 (1983) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Brents v. Morgan,
`
`299 S.W. 967 (Ky. Ct. App. 1927) ...................................................................... 16
`
`Caraccioli v. Facebook, Inc.,
`
`167 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .............................................................. 17
`
`Cason v. Baskin,
`
`20 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1944) .................................................................................... 16
`
`Castillo v. Seagate Tech., LLC,
` No. 16-cv-1958, 2016 WL 9280242 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016) .................. 14, 15
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 4 of 34 Page ID #:1800
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`County of San Bernardino v. Walsh,
`
`158 Cal. App. 4th 533 (2008) .............................................................................. 24
`
`Day v. AT&T Corp.,
`
`63 Cal. App. 4th 325 (1998) ................................................................................ 21
`
`Delfino v. Agilent Techs., Inc.,
`
`145 Cal. App. 4th 790 (2006) ................................................................................ 5
`
`Doe v. Kik Interactive, Inc.,
`
`482 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (S.D. Fla. 2020) ................................................................. 4
`
`Doe v. MySpace, Inc.,
`
`528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 5
`
`Doe II v. MySpace Inc.,
`
`175 Cal. App. 4th 561 (2009) ................................................................................ 5
`
`Duronslet v. Cnty. of Los Angeles,
`
`266 F. Supp. 3d 1213 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ............................................................... 23
`
`Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Group, Inc.,
`
`934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019) ....................................................................... 3, 4, 6
`
`Erie Ins. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`925 F.3d 135 (4th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................. 9
`
`Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC,
`
`521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 5, 7
`
`Fairfield v. Am. Photocopy Equip. Co.,
`
`138 Cal. App. 2d 82 (1955) ................................................................................. 16
`
`Fields v. Twitter, Inc.,
`
`217 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ............................................................ 5, 7
`
`Folgelstrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
`
`195 Cal. App. 4th 986 (2011) ........................................................................ 20, 21
`
`Fraley v. Facebook, Inc.,
`
`830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................... 19, 20, 22
`
`FTC v. LeadClick Media, LLC,
`
`838 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2016) .................................................................................. 4
`
`Gardner v. Health Net, Inc.,
` No. 10-cv-2140, 2010 WL 11571242 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2010) ....................... 13
`
`Green v. Am. Online (AOL),
`
`318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003) .................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 5 of 34 Page ID #:1801
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Heeger v. Facebook, Inc.,
` No. 18-cv-6399, 2019 WL 7282477 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2019) ......................... 16
`
`Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc.,
`
`47 Cal. 4th 272 (2009) ........................................................................................ 15
`
`Herrick v. Grindr LLC,
`
`765 F. App’x 586 (2d Cir. 2019) ........................................................................... 5
`
`Herrick v. Grindr, LLC,
`
`306 F. Supp. 3d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ................................................................... 4
`
`Hill v. NCAA,
`
`7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica,
`
`918 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................. 5
`
`In re Ambry Genetics Data Breach Litig.,
` No. 20-cv-791, 2021 WL 4891610 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2021) ............................ 18
`
`In re Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litig.,
`
`402 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ............................................................ 9, 10
`
`In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litig.,
`
`791 F. Supp. 2d 705 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ................................................................ 20
`
`In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig.,
`
`956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................... 15, 23, 24
`
`In re Gen. Motors LLC CP4 Fuel Pump Litig.,
`
`393 F. Supp. 3d 871 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................................ 23
`
`In re Google Assistant Privacy Litig.,
`
`457 F. Supp. 3d 797 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ................................................................ 20
`
`In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litig.,
`
`806 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2015) ................................................................................ 16
`
`In re Google Referrer Header Priv. Litig.,
`
`465 F. Supp. 3d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .......................................................... 23, 24
`
`In re Sony Gaming Networks & Consumer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`
`996 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................. 10
`
`In re Zoom Video Communications Inc. Privacy Litigation,
`
`525 F. Supp. 3d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ............................................................ 7, 8
`
`Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC,
`
`817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2016) ................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 6 of 34 Page ID #:1802
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Kesner v. Super. Ct.,
`
`1 Cal. 5th 1132 (2016) ........................................................................................ 11
`
`Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
`
`29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003) ...................................................................................... 21
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct.,
`
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) ........................................................................................ 19
`
`Lemmon v. Snap, Inc.,
`
`995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021) ........................................................................... 3, 6
`
`Liberi v. Taitz,
` No. 11-cv-485, 2011 WL 13315688 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2011) ........................ 17
`
`Lopez v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`519 F. Supp. 3d 672 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ................................................................ 17
`
`Lopez v. Apple, Inc.,
` No. 19-cv-4577, 2021 WL 823122 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021) ........................... 20
`
`Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................... 22
`
`Mass. Port Auth. v. Turo Inc.,
`
`166 N.E.3d 972 (Mass. 2021) ............................................................................... 6
`
`McDonald v. Kiloo ApS,
`
`385 F. Supp. 3d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .............................................................. 16
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr,
`
`518 U.S. 470 (1996) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`Melton v. Boustred,
`
`183 Cal. App. 4th 521 (2010) ........................................................................ 13, 14
`
`Modisette v. Apple Inc.,
`
`30 Cal. App. 5th 136 (2018) .......................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Moss v. United States Secret Serv.,
`
`572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................. 3
`
`Novoa v. GEO Grp., Inc.,
` No. 17-cv-2514, 2018 WL 3343494 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2018) ......................... 22
`
`Parrish v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`
`463 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (C.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................... 24
`
`People v. Sarpas,
`
`225 Cal. App. 4th 1539 (2014) ............................................................................ 21
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 7 of 34 Page ID #:1803
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Razuki v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.,
` No. 17-cv-1718, 2018 WL 2761818 (S.D. Cal. June 8, 2018) ............................ 16
`
`Rosales v. Citibank, Fed. Sav. Bank,
`
`133 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (N.D. Cal. 2001) .............................................................. 22
`
`Ross v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
` No. 19-cv-6669, 2020 WL 9848766 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2020) ......................... 18
`
`Rowland v. Christian,
`
`69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968) .............................................................................. 10, 11, 13
`
`Shersher v. Super. Ct.,
`
`154 Cal. App. 4th 1491 (2007) ............................................................................ 21
`
`Shulman v. Grp. W Prods., Inc.,
`
`18 Cal. 4th 200 (1998) ........................................................................................ 19
`
`Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments,
`
`171 Cal. App. 4th 1004 (2009) ............................................................................ 16
`
`Stasi v. Inmediata Health Grp. Corp.,
`
`501 F. Supp. 3d 898 (S.D. Cal. 2020) ................................................................. 18
`
`Terpin v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
` No. 18-cv-6975, 2020 WL 883221 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2020) ........................... 13
`
`Troyk v. Farmers Grp., Inc.,
`
`171 Cal. App. 4th 1305 (2009) ............................................................................ 21
`
`Turo Inc. v. City of Los Angeles,
` No. 18-cv-6055, 2020 WL 3422262 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2020) ........................... 6
`
`Witriol v. LexisNexis Group,
` No. 05-cv-2392, 2006 WL 4725713 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2006) ......................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 8 of 34 Page ID #:1804
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Statutes
`
`47 U.S.C.
`
`§ 230 ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`§ 230(a)(3) ............................................................................................................. 8
`
`§ 230(c)(1) ............................................................................................................. 3
`
`§ 230(d) ................................................................................................................. 8
`
`§ 230(f)(2) ............................................................................................................. 4
`
`Other Authorities
`5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
`
`§ 1224 (2d ed.1990) ............................................................................................ 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 9 of 34 Page ID #:1805
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Because of Ring’s lax security protocols and deficient privacy protection,
`
`hackers gained access to the Ring devices and video feeds in Plaintiffs’ homes and
`shouted profanities, obscenities, and death threats at them and their families, including
`at their minor children. Hackers livestreamed many of these attacks online including,
`for example, on the “NulledCast” via the Discord distribution platform. These virtual
`home invasions—through devices that Ring marketed specifically to improve safety of
`family homes, and which Ring encouraged customers to use inside their homes—
`caused Plaintiffs and putative class members severe emotional distress, loss of privacy,
`and other harm. After losing its motion to compel arbitration against Non-Purchaser
`Plaintiffs, who are minor children and an elderly woman, Ring now moves to dismiss
`(Dkt. 142; “Motion”) all of Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ claims in the Second Amended
`Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Dkt. 132; “SAC”) based on legal arguments
`that have no merit.
`
`First, contrary to Ring’s argument, Section 230 of the Communications Decency
`Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230, does not bar Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ claims. Ring is
`not an interactive computer service provider and its products and services are nothing
`like the online social media, dating, and professional networking service providers to
`whom courts have granted immunity.
`
`Second, Ring’s denial that it owed Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs a duty of care, for
`purposes of their negligence claim, fails. The risk of harm to Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs
`was reasonably foreseeable and closely connected to Ring’s conduct. Ring promoted
`its products to Purchaser Plaintiffs in a manner that suggested their family members
`(i.e., Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs) would be protected.1 It is disingenuous for Ring now to
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Ring commercial featuring its founder, Jamie Siminoff, and Shaquille
`O’Neal stating
`that Ring devices protect
`its users’ homes and families,
`https://www.ispot.tv/ad/IGpO/ring-whole-home-security-for-the-whole-family-
`featuring-shaquille-oneal (last accessed Dec. 14, 2021).
`-1-
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 10 of 34 Page ID
`#:1806
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`claim that it could not foresee any harm to Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs when Ring
`advertised that its products were designed to protect those Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs.
`
`Third, Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs adequately allege Ring’s deficient security
`allowed hackers to access video feeds of Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs while inside their
`homes and subsequently broadcast those videos on the Internet. Accordingly, Ring’s
`argument that Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ privacy claims fail because third parties—not
`Ring—violated their privacy is without merit. Such conduct supports a claim for
`invasion of privacy.
`Fourth, Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs adequately allege they are entitled to restitution
`under the UCL, because they have a vested interest in their likeness and Ring’s security
`failures resulted in the loss of their likenesses. Such an injury is cognizable and
`sufficient to confer standing under the UCL. Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs also adequately
`allege their UCL claim under the “unlawful” prong because they assert violations of
`the California Constitution and common law privacy interests.
`
`Finally, Ring argues Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim fails
`because the SAC does not allege that Ring wrongfully acquired any benefit from Non-
`Purchasers. This is wrong, as Ring ignores Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ allegations of
`numerous theories in which Ring wrongfully acquired a benefit from them, including
`that Ring derives a monetary benefit, profit, and exposure from videos containing
`images of Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs, which it derives data from and uses for
`promotional and advertisement purposes and in use and/or advancement of its other
`services. Such a benefit is sufficient to support a claim for unjust enrichment.
`Accordingly, Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny
`Ring’s motion in its entirety.
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court must accept
`as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in the light most favorable
`to the plaintiff. See Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 967-68 (9th Cir.
`-2-
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 11 of 34 Page ID
`#:1807
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`2009). The court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff to decide
`whether they are plausibly entitled to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
`(2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). The “plausibility”
`requirement “simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that
`discovery will reveal evidence” supporting the plaintiff's legal claims. Id. at 556; see
`also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability
`requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that defendant has acted
`unlawfully.”).
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Does Not Apply.
`Ring asks this Court to expand Section 230’s reach far beyond what Congress
`intended and what the statute’s plain text allows. The Court should decline to do so.
`Section 230 provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer
`service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
`another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). “Though somewhat
`jargony, this provision shields from liability those individuals or entities that operate
`internet platforms, to the extent their platforms publish third-party content.” Lemmon
`v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2021) (emphasis added). Put simply,
`Ring can’t invoke Section 230 as a shield against liability here because it doesn’t
`operate an Internet platform and it doesn’t publish third-party content.
`To determine whether Section 230 applies—and thus immunizes a party from
`liability—courts apply the three-prong test set forth in Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d
`1096 (9th Cir. 2009). A defendant thus has Section 230 immunity if it is “(1) a provider
`or user of an interactive computer service (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a
`state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by
`another information content provider.” Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Group, Inc., 934
`F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Barnes, 570 F.3d at 1100-01).
`
`-3-
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 12 of 34 Page ID
`#:1808
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Ring does not satisfy these criteria. First, it is not an “interactive computer
`service.” Section 230 defines interactive computer service to mean “any information
`service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access
`by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that
`provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by
`libraries or educational institutions.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2). Ring does not operate a
`website that publishes other people’s articles or blog posts, or a social media website
`that publishes posts by third-party users. Ring also does not maintain an online
`marketplace where third-party users buy and sell products and services, nor does Ring
`maintain an online interface for third-party consenting adults to communicate with
`potential dating companions.
`These are the types of “prototypical services” that courts have held to be
`“interactive computer services” to which Section 230 applies. See, e.g., Dyroff, 934
`F.3d at 1097 (social networking website); FTC v. LeadClick Media, LLC, 838 F.3d
`158, 174 (2d Cir. 2016) (affiliate-marketing network website); Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40
`Cal. 4th 33 (2006) (finding defendant who posted but did not create offensive content
`on an online discussion group was a “user of an interactive computer service” protected
`by CDA Section 230); Herrick v. Grindr, LLC, 306 F. Supp. 3d 579, 588 (S.D.N.Y.
`2018) (interactive computer services are “networking sites like Facebook.com[] and
`online matching services like Roommates.com[,] . . . Matchmaker.com, [and
`Grindr].”); Doe v. Kik Interactive, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 3d 1242, 1244 (S.D. Fla. 2020)
`(interactive social media service falls within Section 230). The common thread among
`all of these cases is that Section 230 applies to platforms that allow for an interactive
`exchange of content between members of the public.
`Ring markets and operates a home-security product, not an Internet platform.
`That product is specifically advertised and sold to increase the privacy and safety of
`families and protect them against home invasion. This product isn’t designed to, and
`does not claim to, “publish” any content generated by any third party or allow for the
`-4-
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 13 of 34 Page ID
`#:1809
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`exchange of content among users. To the contrary, it is designed to be a personal,
`private product that allows families to keep an eye on their properties and families and
`shield themselves from danger and crime. But the defects in the design of this product
`and the deficient security protocols that Ring employed allowed hackers to breach the
`product, harass and threaten families and children, and stream footage of this egregious
`conduct on the Internet without the victims’ consent. In other words, Ring’s faulty
`home security products did the opposite of what they were marketed to do: Ring’s
`products decreased consumers’ privacy and security, exposed them to unlawful
`harassment, and directly facilitated virtual home invasions.
`Just because Ring operates in part through use of the Internet, or just because
`these hackers used the Internet to disseminate their offensive conduct, does not make
`Ring an “interactive computer service” as that term is used in Section 230. Far from
`the digital public squares held in previous cases to be interactive computer services
`because they allowed third parties to post content—such as ideas, products or services
`for sale, political opinions, or cultural perspectives2—Ring’s services were intended to
`be, and consumers and their families expected them to be, a closed security system that
`would not be vulnerable to unauthorized third parties gaining access into the private
`
`2 See, e.g., Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521
`F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (an interactive website where users connect to find
`roommates); HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 918 F.3d 676, 681 (9th
`Cir. 2019) (an interactive website where prospective renters connect with property
`owners for short-term rentals); Delfino v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 145 Cal. App. 4th 790,
`806 (2006) (an employer’s interactive email and internal message board system);
`Barnes, 570 F.3d at 1100-01 (a website with email services, news, online message
`boards, and other interactive features); Green v. Am. Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465, 470
`(3d Cir. 2003) (same); Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d 1116, 1128 (N.D. Cal.
`2016) (a social media platform where users interact through public and private
`messages); Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 419-21 (5th Cir. 2008) (same); Doe II
`v. MySpace Inc., 175 Cal. App. 4th 561, 573 (2009) (same); Herrick v. Grindr LLC,
`765 F. App’x 586, 590-91 (2d Cir. 2019) (an interactive dating website); Jane Doe No.
`1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12, 22 (1st Cir. 2016) (an interactive website where
`users posted and responded to ads for a variety of products and services).
`-5-
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 14 of 34 Page ID
`#:1810
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`accounts and homes of users and their families. See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 1-3. This is a far cry
`from the cases cited by Ring, in which the defendants operated social media or
`networking platforms that fell squarely within Section 230’s definition of an
`“interactive computer service.”
`Moreover, Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs are not seeking to treat Ring as a “publisher
`or speaker” of third-party content, Dyroff, 934 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Barnes, 570 F.3d
`at 1100-01); they are seeking to hold Ring liable for its product’s susceptibility to
`hacking that defeats the product’s purpose. Thus, under Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’
`theory of liability, Ring is not alleged to have published any information disseminated
`by a third party, and thus its liability does not turn on the content of the harassing
`communications by the hackers. See Lemmon, 995 F.3d at 1093 (“The duty to design
`a reasonably safe product is fully independent of Snap’s role in monitoring or
`publishing third-party content.”). Rather, Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs allege Ring sold a
`defective product that put consumers and their families at risk. Section 230 does not
`shield Ring from such a claim. See id. at 1091 (plaintiffs were not seeking to treat social
`media platform as a “publisher or speaker” of third-party content where the plaintiffs’
`“claim turn[ed] on Snap’s design of Snapchat”).3
`Ring cannot avail itself of Section 230 immunity for failing to live up to the
`promises of its safety and security features. In passing Section 230, “Congress sought
`to immunize the removal of user-generated content, not the creation of content . . . .
`Indeed, the section is titled ‘Protection for “good [S]amaritan” blocking and screening
`of offensive material’ and . . . the substance of section 230(c) can and should be
`
`
`3 See also Mass. Port Auth. v. Turo Inc., 166 N.E.3d 972, 979 (Mass. 2021)
`(“[I]mmunity under § 230 is not available to Turo because, rather than seeking to hold
`Turo liable as the publisher or speaker for its users’ content, Massport’s claims sought
`to hold Turo liable for its own role in facilitating the online car rental transactions that
`resulted in its customers’ continuing trespass.”); Turo Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, No.
`18-cv-6055, 2020 WL 3422262, at *8-9 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2020), rev’d on other
`grounds, 847 F. App’x 442 (9th Cir. 2021) (same).
`-6-
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 149 Filed 12/17/21 Page 15 of 34 Page ID
`#:1811
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21