Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:336
`
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`MICHELLE C. DOOLIN (179445)
`(mdoolin@cooley.com)
`4401 East Gate Mall
`San Diego, California 92121-1909
`Telephone: +1 858 550 6000
`Facsimile: +1 858 550 6402
`
`WHITTY SOMVICHIAN (194463)
`(wsomvichian@cooley.com)
`SHARON SONG (313535)
`(ssong@cooley.com)
`3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-4004
`Telephone: +1 415 693 2000
`Facsimile: +1 415 693 2222
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ALPHABET, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., and
`GOOGLE ARIZONA LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`HENK MEYERS and GLENN
`GINOZA, Individually and on Behalf
`of All Others Similarly Situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`ALPHABET, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., and
`GOOGLE ARIZONA LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:21-CV-01767 FMO (MAAx)
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`ITS MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT, TRANSFER
`VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE CLASS
`ALLEGATIONS
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Dept.:
`Judge:
`
`Complaint Filed: February 25, 2021
`
`
`10:00 a.m.
`August 5, 2021
`Courtroom 6D, 6th floor
`Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:337
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 2
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Should Be Dismissed Under Forum Non
`Conveniens or Transferred Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ....................... 2
`1.
`Google’s Forum Selection Clause Is Validly Incorporated
`Into the Gift Card TOS and Thus Enforceable ........................... 2
`The Forum Selection Clause Should Be Enforced
`Through Either Dismissal or Transfer ........................................ 6
`Plaintiffs Fail to State Their Claims Under Rule 12(b)(6),
`Requiring Dismissal .............................................................................. 9
`1.
`Plaintiffs’ UCL Claim Under All Three Prongs Is
`Precluded by an Adequate Remedy at Law ................................ 9
`The UCL and Breach of Contract Claims Fail Because
`Google Play Gift Cards Are Usable With Multiple Sellers...... 11
`The Fraud-Based UCL Claim Fails For the Additional
`Reason That it Does Not Meet Rule 9(b)’s Requirements ....... 13
`The Duplicative Claim for Breach of the Implied
`Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Fails ....................... 14
`Plaintiffs’ Class Allegations Concerning Bona Fide Google Play
`Gift Card Purchasers and Holders Should Be Stricken ...................... 15
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 16
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`DEFS.’ REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:338
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Actimmune Mktg. Litig.,
`No. C 08–02376 MHP, 2009 WL 3740648 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6,
`2009), aff’d, 464 Fed. App’x 651 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................. 13
`Adams v. I-Flow Corp.,
`No. CV09-09550 R(SSx), 2010 WL 1339948 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30,
`2010) ................................................................................................................... 10
`Alt. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas,
`571 U.S. 49 (2013) ........................................................................................... 1, 8
`Am. W. Door & Trim v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co.,
`No. CV 15-00153 BRO SPX, 2015 WL 1266787 (C.D. Cal. Mar.
`18, 2015) ............................................................................................................. 16
`Arena Rest. & Lounge LLC v. S. Glazer’s Wine & Spirits, LLC,
`No. 17-cv-03805-LHK, 2018 WL 1805516 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16,
`2018) ................................................................................................................... 14
`Brazil v. Dell Inc.,
`585 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .............................................................. 16
`Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc.,
`222 Cal. App. 3d 1371 (1990) ............................................................................ 15
`Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute,
`499 U.S. 585 (1991) ............................................................................................. 7
`Clippercreek, Inc. v. Intelligrated Sys., LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-01341-WBS KJN, 2020 WL 230179 (E.D. Cal. Jan.
`15, 2020) ............................................................................................................... 8
`Crum & Forster Indem. Co. v. Robb Rep. Media LLC,
`No. 20-CV-00127-LB, 2021 WL 2531070 (N.D. Cal. June 21,
`2021) ..................................................................................................................... 5
`In re Facebook Biometric Info. Priv. Litig.,
`185 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ................................................................ 6
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`DEFS.’ REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:339
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Feldman v. Google, Inc.,
`513 F. Supp. 2d 229 (E.D. Pa. 2007) .................................................................... 6
`Fitz v. NCR Corp.,
`118 Cal. App. 4th 702 (2004) ............................................................................... 7
`Gamayo v. Match.com LLC,
`No. C 11-00762, 2011 WL 3739542 SBA, (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
`2011) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon,
`457 U.S. 147 (1982) ........................................................................................... 15
`Gibson v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
`No. CV 20-00769-CJC, 2020 WL 5492990 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9,
`2020) ................................................................................................................... 10
`Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
`243 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .............................................................. 13
`In re Holl,
`925 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................... 3, 4, 5
`Huu Nguyen v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-05591-LHK, 2017 WL 1330602 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11,
`2017) ................................................................................................................... 10
`Integritymessageboards.com v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-05286-PJH, 2020 WL 6544411 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020)................ 11
`In re JUUL Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`497 F. Supp. 3d 552 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................ 9, 10
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 13, 14
`Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc.,
`245 Cal. App. 4th 855 (2016) ............................................................................... 5
`Mier v. CVS Pharm., Inc.,
`No. SA CV 20-01979-DOC-ADS, 2021 WL 1559367 (C.D. Cal.
`Mar. 22, 2021) .................................................................................................... 11
`DEFS.’ REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS FAC,
`iii
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:340
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Miguel v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`No. CV 12-3308 PSG, 2013 WL 452418 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013) ................. 3, 7
`Milliner v. Bock Evans Fin. Counsel, Ltd.,
`114 F. Supp. 3d 871 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................. 7
`Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc.,
`469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 7
`Net2Phone, Inc. v. Super. Ct.,
`109 Cal. App. 4th 583 (2003) ........................................................................... 3, 7
`Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc.,
`763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 5, 6
`Reinhardt v. Gemini Motor Transp.,
`879 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (E.D. Cal. 2012) ........................................................ 14, 15
`Rice-Sherman v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-03613-WHO, 2020 WL 1245130 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16,
`2020) ................................................................................................................... 13
`Rothman v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-CV-09760-CAS-MRWx, 2021 WL 1627490 (C.D. Cal.
`Apr. 27, 2021) ................................................................................................. 9, 10
`Salas v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
`No. CV 15-8629 FMO (Ex), 2017 WL 11084512 (C.D. Cal. Aug.
`7, 2017) ............................................................................................................... 11
`Slaught v. Bencomo Roofing Co.,
`25 Cal. App. 4th 744 (1994) ................................................................................. 2
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................ 1, 9
`Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc.,
`No. 5:13-CV-05682-LHK, 2014 WL 2903752 (N.D. Cal. June 25,
`2014), aff'd, 840 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2016) ......................................................... 6
`Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. 17.19 Acres of Prop.,
`627 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 12
`DEFS.’ REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS FAC,
`iv
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:341
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Wolschlager v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co.,
`111 Cal. App. 4th 784 (2003) ............................................................................... 5
`Yei A. Sun v. Advanced China Healthcare, Inc.,
`901 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 7
`In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`893 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (D. Nev. 2012) .................................................................. 5
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ..................................................................................... 1, 2, 8, 16
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.45(a) .............................................................................. 11, 12
`Gift Certificate Law ................................................................................. 1, 11, 12, 13
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`9(b) ...................................................................................................................... 13
`12(b)(6) ....................................................................................................... 1, 9, 16
`12(f) .................................................................................................................... 16
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`DEFS.’ REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:342
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs’ opposition (ECF No. 33) (“Opp.”) to the motion to dismiss, transfer,
`and/or strike filed by Defendants Alphabet, Inc., Google, LLC, Google Payment
`Corp., and Google Arizona LLC (collectively, “Google” or “Defendants”) (ECF No.
`32) (“Mot.”) fails to address, much less refute, dispositive facts and law raised in
`Google’s Motion, including the critical issues below.
`First, Plaintiffs try to avoid the forum selection clause at issue by complaining
`that it was not set out directly in the terms they clicked to accept and was available
`instead via a direct hyperlink. But that argument ignores established law permitting
`incorporation of terms by reference, including in precisely the types of circumstances
`here. This case should thus be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, or in the
`alternative, transferred to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1404(a). See Alt. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas,
`571 U.S. 49 (2013).
`Second, Plaintiffs’ attempts to avoid dismissal of their claims under
`Rule 12(b)(6) fail. With respect to their UCL claim, Plaintiffs argue it is premature
`to apply the Ninth Circuit’s rule from Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d
`834, 845 (9th Cir. 2020), which bars UCL claims that are redundant of legal remedies
`sought in a complaint. These efforts to avoid Sonner are unavailing, as made clear
`by the multiple recent decisions that have applied Sonner to dismiss claims at the
`pleading stage based on similar allegations. Further, Plaintiffs ask the Court to find
`that the Gift Certificate Law applies to Play Store gift cards, despite the “usable with
`multiple sellers” exception that plainly applies, but their argument requires the Court
`to impose limitations on the exception that appear nowhere in the plain text of the
`statute. Last, Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
`fair dealing is duplicative because it alleges nothing more than the same acts and
`same damages as their breach of contract claim. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims should be
`entirely dismissed.
`
`
`1
`
`DEFS.’ REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`I.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:343
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Lastly, Plaintiffs try to convince the Court that their class allegations are proper
`and should not be stricken because “the questions that predominate are simple—was
`the Class Member denied redemption of their gift card?” Opp. at 24. But this
`argument flatly mischaracterizes Plaintiffs’ own class definition, which limits the
`class to bona fide gift card purchasers or holders that were denied redemption and
`not just all instances where a “Class Member [was] denied redemption.” When
`Plaintiffs’ actual class allegations are considered—as opposed
`to
`the
`mischaracterization in their Opposition—it is clear that class membership will
`require the Court to conduct highly individualized predeterminations that cannot be
`resolved on a classwide basis.
`II. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Should Be Dismissed Under Forum Non
`Conveniens or Transferred Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`In responding to Google’s request to dismiss or transfer this case under
`Section 1404, Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Google Play Gift Card and Prepaid
`Play Balance Terms of Service (“Gift Card TOS”) is a valid contract between them
`and Google, on which their claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied
`covenant of good faith and fair dealing are premised. FAC ¶¶ 29, 64-67; Mot. at 9.
`Plaintiffs further admit that they clicked to accept the Gift Card TOS when they
`attempted to redeem their gift cards. Opp. at 9. In doing so, Plaintiffs accepted the
`forum selection clause at issue, which is validly incorporated by reference into the
`Gift Card TOS and should now be enforced. ECF No. 32-4 ¶ 13; ECF No. 32-6.
`1. Google’s Forum Selection Clause Is Validly Incorporated
`Into the Gift Card TOS and Thus Enforceable
`
`As set forth in Google’s opening brief, under California law, a contract “may
`validly incorporate by reference … the terms of another document” as long as the
`reference is “clear and unequivocal and the terms of the incorporated document [are]
`known or easily available.” Slaught v. Bencomo Roofing Co., 25 Cal. App. 4th 744,
`
`DEFS.’ REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:344
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`748-49 (1994); Mot. 9-11. Where “the terms of the incorporated document” are
`clearly referenced and “easily accessed [via] the hyperlink in the document,” such
`terms are “properly incorporated” by reference. Miguel v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
`N.A., No. CV 12-3308 PSG (PLAx), 2013 WL 452418, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013)
`(enforcing arbitration agreement that was validly incorporated by reference into the
`parties’ contract); see also Net2Phone, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 109 Cal. App. 4th 583, 588
`(2003) (“We perceive no unfairness in Net2Phone's requirement that certain
`contractual terms must be accessed via hyperlink, a common practice in Internet
`business.”). Plaintiffs fail to adequately respond to this argument, instead
`mischaracterizing Google’s arguments, ignoring its authorities, and citing additional
`authorities that only show that the forum selection clause is validly incorporated into
`the Gift Card TOS.
`The Ninth Circuit’s decision in In re Holl enforcing an arbitration agreement
`in a consumer contract is instructive. 925 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2019). “[L]ocating the
`arbitration clause at issue” in that case required “several steps and a fair amount of
`web-browsing intuition.” Id. at 1083. The plaintiff had enrolled in a “UPS My
`Choice program” which required him to click to agree to two agreements—the UPS
`Technology Agreement and the UPS My Choice Service Terms. Id. at 1079-80. The
`online enrollment page had blue hyperlinks to both agreements. Id. at 1083. The
`UPS My Choice Service Terms incorporated several other documents by reference
`but did not contain hyperlinks to the referenced documents. Id. at 1081. Instead,
`plaintiff had to visit the “full ups.com website, intuitively find the Service Terms and
`Conditions link at the bottom of the webpage, select it, and locate yet another link to
`the UPS Tariff/Terms and Conditions of Service,” and then “read [those terms] to
`find the arbitration clause.” Id. at 1083-84.
`Despite those multiple steps, the In re Holl Court held that the arbitration
`clause was valid, reiterating well-established California law that “[a] contract may
`incorporate documents and terms by reference” and “the incorporation is valid—and
`
`DEFS.’ REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:345
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`the terms of the incorporated document are binding—so long as the incorporation is
`‘clear and unequivocal, the reference is called to the attention of the other party and
`he consents thereto, and the terms of the incorporated document are known or easily
`available to the contracting parties.’” Id. at 1084 (internal brackets omitted).
`Although the plaintiff argued that the arbitration provision was “so inconspicuous
`that no reasonable user would be on notice of its existence,” id. at 1082, the Court
`held that plaintiff’s undisputed assent to the UPS My Choice Service Terms
`“encompassed the arbitration clause” that was “validly incorporate[d]” into the UPS
`My Choice Service Terms. Id. at 1084. The Court reasoned, in part, that the My
`Choice Service Terms stated in “clear language” that the agreement containing the
`arbitration clause was “expressly incorporated,” and the “current version of the
`[incorporated] document [was] published on ups.com” and accessible “at all relevant
`times.” Id. (noting California courts have deemed analogous incorporations by
`reference valid and binding).
`Google’s forum selection clause is significantly easier to locate than the
`arbitration clause in In re Holl. As Plaintiffs admit, they clicked to agree to the Gift
`Card TOS when they attempted to redeem their Google Play gift cards on either a
`desktop or mobile device. Opp. at 9; Mot. at 7. That there are multiple hyperlinks
`in the Gift Card TOS and the Google Play TOS does not demonstrate that Google’s
`forum selection clause is invalid. Opp. at 9-10. The Gift Card TOS states in “clear
`language” that its terms “incorporate and are subject to the Google Play Terms of
`Service” (“Google Play TOS”) and provides a blue hyperlink—that contrasts with
`the black font of the other text—to the incorporated Google Play TOS. ECF No. 32-
`4 ¶ 11; Mot. at 7-10. The Google Play TOS, in turn, expressly states that the “use of
`Google Play and the … services …available through it is subject to these Google
`Play Terms of Service and the Google Terms of Service [“Google TOS”],” and
`provides a blue hyperlink to the incorporated Google TOS. ECF No. 32-4 ¶ 12; Mot.
`at 7-10. The Google TOS contains the forum selection clause providing that “all
`
`DEFS.’ REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:346
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`disputes arising out of or relating to these terms … will be resolved exclusively in
`the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA.” ECF No. 32-4
`¶ 13; Mot. at 7-10.
`At all relevant times, the Google TOS was easily accessible through the
`referenced blue hyperlinks, which bring the incorporated terms to the consumers’
`attention. As such, the forum selection clause here is validly incorporated into the
`Gift Card TOS, as was the arbitration clause in In re Holl. See In re Holl, 925 F.3d
`at 1084. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ assent to the Gift Card TOS—which Plaintiffs
`concede—“encompassed” the forum selection clause that was validly incorporated
`into the Gift Card TOS. Id.; see also Wolschlager v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 111
`Cal. App. 4th 784, 791 (2003) (arbitration provision in policy found binding where
`preliminary title report clearly incorporated policy and “directed the plaintiff to
`where he could inspect it”); cf. Crum & Forster Indem. Co. v. Robb Rep. Media LLC,
`No. 20-CV-00127-LB, 2021 WL 2531070, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) (enforcing
`loan agreements incorporated into a waiver by hyperlinks, finding that there were
`“only ten hyperlinks” and they were “conspicuous” enough to give defendants
`sufficient notice of their responsibility).
`Plaintiffs’ cited authorities regarding hyperlinked terms are inapposite and
`misleading because they involve browsewrap agreements, which courts treat
`differently from clickwrap agreements like those at issue in this case.1 As Plaintiffs’
`own authorities explain, “[u]nlike a clickwrap agreement, a browsewrap agreement
`does not require the user to manifest assent to the terms and conditions expressly….
`[A] party instead gives his assent simply by using the website.” Nguyen v. Barnes &
`Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuit “has recognized
`that the closer digital agreements are to the clickwrap end of the spectrum,” as
`
`1 Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc., 245 Cal. App. 4th 855, 867-68 (2016) (finding
`plaintiff was not bound by the forum selection clause contained in a browsewrap
`agreement); In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 893 F.
`Supp. 2d 1058, 1063-64 (D. Nev. 2012) (declining to enforce an arbitration clause
`contained in a browsewrap agreement); Nguyen, 763 F.3d at 1176-77 (same).
`
`DEFS.’ REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS FAC,
`5
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:347
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`opposed to the “‘browsewrap’ agreements at the other [end],” “the more often they
`have been upheld as valid and enforceable.” In re Facebook Biometric Info. Priv.
`Litig., 185 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 1165 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Nguyen, 763 F.3d at 1176
`(courts have been “more willing to find the requisite notice for constructive assent
`where the browsewrap agreement resembles a clickwrap agreement”)).
`For those agreements near the “clickwrap end of the spectrum,” like those here,
`“courts have long upheld contracts where ‘the consumer is prompted to examine
`terms of sale that are located somewhere else.’” Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., No.
`5:13-CV-05682-LHK, 2014 WL 2903752, at *8 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2014), aff'd, 840
`F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal citation and quotations omitted). In fact, as noted
`in Google’s moving brief, multiple courts have enforced the forum selection clauses
`in Google’s clickwrap agreements under similar circumstances. Mot. at 10-11.2
`Moreover, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, both Plaintiffs separately agreed to
`the Google Play TOS, which incorporates by reference the Google TOS, or the
`Google TOS containing the forum selection clause. Opp. at 10; Mot. at 10; ECF No.
`32-4 ¶¶ 14-16. Plaintiff Meyers clicked to agree to the Google Play TOS when
`signing up for a Google Play account and Plaintiff Ginoza agreed to the Google TOS
`in creating a Google account. Id.3
`2.
`The Forum Selection Clause Should Be Enforced Through
`Either Dismissal or Transfer
`
`Plaintiffs fail to make the requisite “strong showing” to prevent enforcement
`of Google’s valid forum selection clause, which requires that (1) the clause be invalid
`
`
`2 Plaintiffs again mischaracterize Feldman v. Google, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 2d 229,
`237 (E.D. Pa. 2007). Opp. at 10 n.3. The Feldman court noted that hyperlinked
`terms may not provide reasonably conspicuous notice in browsewrap agreements as
`opposed to “clickwrap agreements which do provide sufficient notice.” Feldman,
`513 F. Supp. 2d at 237.
`3 The Google Play TOS governs the “use of Google Play and … services available
`through it,” and the Google TOS broadly governs “the relationship between [a user]
`and Google” with regard to its “broad range of services.” ECF Nos. 32-6 at 2, 32-7
`at 3. Thus, both agreements apply to this case, independent of the Gift Card TOS.
`
`DEFS.’ REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS FAC,
`6
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:348
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`due to fraud or overreaching, (2) enforcement would contravene a strong public
`policy of the forum in which the suit is brought, or (3) trial in the contractual forum
`will for all practical purposes deprive Plaintiffs of their day in court. Yei A. Sun v.
`Advanced China Healthcare, Inc., 901 F.3d 1081, 1088 (9th Cir. 2018); Mot. at 11-
`12. Plaintiffs assert that the forum selection clause is procedurally and substantively
`unconscionable, Opp. at 11, but Plaintiffs’ arguments, without more, fall well short
`of the “strong showing” needed to avoid enforcement.
`is procedurally
`First, Plaintiffs argue
`the
`forum selection clause
`unconscionable because it is purportedly buried within several hyperlinks and was a
`“take it or leave it” provision. Id. But as discussed above, the use of hyperlinks to
`incorporate terms is well-established under California law. And a “take it or leave
`it” provision, without more, cannot establish procedurally unconscionability. See
`Net2Phone, 109 Cal. App. 4th at 588-89 (“The fact that the forum selection clause
`may have been a ‘take it or leave it’ proposition … does not make the clause
`unenforceable.”); Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 593-94 (1991)
`(upholding forum selection clause in a non-negotiated consumer contract found on
`the back a cruise ticket); Mot. at 11.4
`Second, Plaintiffs purport that the forum selection clause is substantively
`unconscionable because it lacks mutuality in forcing them to spend “more money to
`litigate their small-dollar claims than they would receive in damages.” Opp. at 11.
`But as their own authority provides, “[s]ubstantive unconscionability focuses on
`overly harsh or one-sided results,” e.g., a clause that “requires one contracting party,
`but not the other, to arbitrate all claims.” Fitz v. NCR Corp., 118 Cal. App. 4th 702,
`723 (2004); see also Miguel, 2013 WL 452418, at *6 (“Substantive unconscionability
`centers on … whether [the] terms are so one-sided as to shock the conscience.”).
`
`4 Plaintiffs cite Milliner v. Bock Evans Fin. Counsel, Ltd., 114 F. Supp. 3d 871, 879
`(N.D. Cal. 2015) and Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1281 (9th Cir.
`2006) to argue that the forum selection clause is procedurally unconscionable. But
`in both cases, the courts based their decisions regarding unconscionability on far
`more than a “take it or leave it” nature of the provision at issue.
`
`DEFS.’ REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS FAC,
`7
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 34 Filed 07/19/21 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:349
`
`
`Mere financial difficulties associated with litigating in a contractually selected forum
`does not establish substantive unconscionability where, as here, the forum selection
`clause applies equally to all parties to the agreement. See Clippercreek, Inc. v.
`Intelligrated Sys., LLC, No. 2:19-cv-01341-WBS KJN, 2020 WL 230179, at *3 (E.D.
`Cal. Jan. 15, 2020) (enforcing forum selection clause despite alleged increased costs
`of litigating in the contractually selected forum); Gamayo v. Match.com LLC, No. C
`11-00762 SBA, 2011 WL 3739542, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2011) (upholding
`forum selection clause despite plaintiff’s assertion that the contractually selected
`forum would “increase[] cost and inconvenience” associated with litigation).
`Accordingly, Google’s forum selection clause requiring litigation “in the
`federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California,” ECF No. 32-4 ¶ 13, should
`be enforced pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Alt. Marine Const. Co. v.
`U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013). See Mot. at 12-14. Indeed,
`Plaintiffs acknowledge that Alt. Marine governs where, as here, a valid and
`enforceable forum selection clause exists. Opp. at 8; see Alt. Marine, 571 U.S. at 63-
`64 (holding that the calculus for a forum non conveniens or § 1404(a) analysis
`changes “when the parties’ contract contains a valid forum-selection clause” so that
`only public-interest factors are considered). Plaintiffs further fail to address, much
`less rebut, Google’s arguments and authoriti