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
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REESE LLP
`Michael R. Reese (SBN 206773)
`Carlos F. Ramirez (Pro Hac Vice to be Submitted)
`100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
`New York, New York 10025
`Telephone: (212) 643-0500
`Email: mreese@reesellp.com
` cramirez@reesellp.com
`
`REESE LLP
`George V. Granade (Cal. State Bar No. 316050)
`8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
`Los Angeles, California 90211
`Telephone: (310) 393-0070
`Email: ggranade@reesellp.com
`
`
`SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`Spencer Sheehan (Pro Hac Vice to be Submitted)
`505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
`Great Neck, New York 11021
`Telephone: (516) 303-0552
`Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`AMANDA CAUDEL, individually, and on
`behalf of those similarly situated,
`
`CASE NO. _______
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Demand for Jury Trial
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 2 of 17
`
`Plaintiff Amanda Caudel (“Plaintiff”) by her attorneys alleges upon information and
`
`belief, except for allegations pertaining to Plaintiff, which are based on personal knowledge:
`
`1.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. (“Defendant”) is the largest American online retailer and
`
`includes among its myriad services the option for consumers to rent or buy movies, television
`
`shows and other media (the “Video Content”) for a fee.
`
`2.
`
`In the event that a consumer “Rents” Video Content, Defendant advertises that, for
`
`a fee of around $5.99, the consumer will have access to the Video Content for 30 days and then for
`
`48 hours after the consumer first watches the Video Content.
`
`3.
`
`For a much higher fee of around $19.99, Defendant offers the option to “Buy” the
`
`Video Content.
`
`4.
`
`Below is a representative example of the options available to a consumer on
`
`Defendant’s website at the digital point-of-sale:
`
`5.
`
`
`When a consumer chooses the option to “Buy” on the page of the Video Content by
`
`clicking on the “Buy” button, the Video Content instantly becomes available in the consumer’s
`
`video library without the consumer needing to accept any terms and conditions pursuant to a
`
`
`
`clickwrap agreement.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 17
`
`6.
`
`Consumers navigate to their videos on Defendant’s website by clicking on a link
`
`that directs them to “Your Video Purchases & Rentals.”
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`The “Video Purchases & Rentals” webpage contains a collection of all available
`
`Video Content rented and purchased by Plaintiff on Defendant’s website.
`
`8.
`
`Reasonable consumers will expect that the use of a “Buy” button and the
`
`representation that their Video Content is a “Purchase” means that the consumer has paid for full
`
`access to the Video Content and, like any bought product, that access cannot be revoked.
`
`9.
`
`Unfortunately for consumers who chose the “Buy” option, this is deceptive and
`
`untrue. Rather, the ugly truth is that Defendant secretly reserves the right to terminate the
`
`consumers’ access and use of the Video Content at any time, and has done so on numerous
`
`occasions, leaving the consumer without the ability to enjoy their already-bought Video Content.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 4 of 17
`
`10.
`
`Defendant’s representations are misleading because they give the impression that
`
`the Video Content is purchased – i.e. the person owns it - when in fact that is not true because
`
`Defendant or others may revoke access to the Video Content at any time and for any reason.
`
`11.
`
`In so representing the “Purchase” of Video Content as true ownership of the content,
`
`Defendant took advantage of the (1) cognitive shortcuts made at the point-of-sale, e.g. Rent v. Buy
`
`and (2) price of the Video Content, which is akin to an outright purchase versus a rental.
`
`12.
`
`Though some consumers may get lucky and never lose access to any of their paid-
`
`for media, others may one day find that their Video Content is now completely inaccessible.
`
`Regardless, all consumers have overpaid for the Video Content because they are not in fact owners
`
`
`of the Video Content, despite have paid extra money to “Buy” the product.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant’s representations that consumers are truly purchasing their Video
`
`Content are designed to – and do – deceive, mislead and defraud consumers. A real-life experience
`
`listed on a Reddit post explains the disappearing Video Content issue:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`The above complaint posted around five months ago is not new news for Defendant.
`
`Indeed, Defendant has been aware for close to a decade that consumers are routinely misled by the
`
`manner in which it “sells” Video Content.
`
`15.
`
`A Consumer Reports article from October 16, 2012 titled That Amazon Video You
`
`Bought? You May Not Actually Be Able To Watch
`
`It
`
`(available
`
`at
`
`https://www.consumerreports.org/consumerist/that-amazon-video-you-bought-you-may-not-
`
`actually-be-able-to-watch-it/) discusses Defendant’s unfair ability to pull “Purchased Digital
`
`Content” at any time: “This restriction isn’t mentioned on the purchase page of the movie, nor is
`
`the customer given any such warning during the buying process. It’s not even directly mentioned
`
`on the “Amazon Instant Video Usage Rules” page.” The article goes on to say that, “We’ve written
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Amazon to ask why they do not make this restriction more clear during the purchasing process. If
`
`the company replies — we’re not holding our breath on this one — we will update.” Apparently
`
`Defendant never replied because the article was never updated to reflect that.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant has sold more Video Content and at substantially higher prices per unit
`
`than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense
`
`of consumers.
`
`17.
`
`The consumer belief that they are truly owning the Video Content has a material
`
`bearing on price or consumer acceptance of Defendant’s video service because consumers are
`
`willing to pay substantially more for Video Content that they believe they can access at any time
`
`
`and for an indefinite period.
`
`18.
`
`The value of the Video Content that Plaintiff and the Class members purchased and
`
`consumed was materially less than its value as represented by Defendant.
`
`19.
`
`Had Plaintiff and Class members known the truth, they would not have bought the
`
`Video Content from Defendant or would have paid substantially less for it.
`
`20.
`
`As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Video Content is sold at
`
`a premium price, upon information and belief, at an average of $14.99 per movie (compared to only
`
`$5.99 to rent the same Video Content), compared to other similar Video Content and services
`
`represented in a non-misleading way.
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`21.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (Class Action Fairness Act
`
`of 2005 or “CAFA”).
`
`22.
`
`Under CAFA, district courts have “original federal jurisdiction over class actions
`
`involving (1) an aggregate amount in controversy of at least $5,000,000; and (2) minimal
`
`diversity[.]”
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Amanda Caudel is a citizen of California.
`
`Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Seattle,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`King County, Washington and is a citizen of Washington.
`
`25.
`
`Venue is proper because Plaintiff and many Class members reside in this District
`
`and Defendant does business in this District and State.
`
`26.
`
`This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it conducts and
`
`transacts business, contracts to supply and supplies goods within California.
`
`27.
`
`A substantial part of events and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this
`
`District.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Amanda Caudel is a citizen of Fairfield, California in Solano County.
`
`
`Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
`
`business in Seattle, King County, Washington.
`
`30.
`
`During the relevant statutes of limitations, Plaintiff purchased the Video Content
`
`within her district and/or State for personal consumption and/or use in reliance on the
`
`representations that access to the Video Content upon its purchase would not be revoked by
`
`Defendant or others.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`31.
`
`The class consists of all California residents who purchased Video Content from
`
`Defendant from April 25, 2016 to the date of class certification and trial (“the Class”) Excluded
`
`from the Class are: governmental entities; Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a
`
`controlling interest; Defendant’s officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, co-
`
`conspirators, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; and, any judge, justice, or judicial officer
`
`presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff.
`
`32.
`
`Common questions of law or fact predominate and include whether Defendant’s
`
`representations were and are misleading and if Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to damages.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff's claims and basis for relief are typical to other members because all were
`
`subjected to the same unfair and deceptive representations and actions by Defendant.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff is an adequate representative because her interests do not conflict with other
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`members.
`
`35.
`
`No individual inquiry is necessary since the focus is only on Defendant’s practices
`
`and the Class is definable and ascertainable.
`
`36.
`
`Individual actions would risk inconsistent results, be repetitive and are impractical
`
`to justify, as the claims are modest relative to the scope of the harm.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff's counsel is competent and experienced in complex class action litigation
`
`and intends to adequately and fairly protect Class members’ interests.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff seeks class-wide injunctive relief because the practices continue.
`
`CLAIMS
`
`FIRST CLAIM
`
`
`
`Violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.
`
`On Behalf of the Class
`
`Seeking Injunctive Relief Only
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and
`
`incorporates such allegations by reference herein.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the Class for violation of California’s
`
`Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. (the “CLRA”).
`
`41.
`
`This claim is for injunctive relief only, pursuant to California Civil Code section
`
`1782(d).
`
`42.
`
`Under the CLRA, “services” means “work, labor, and services for other than a
`
`commercial or business use, including services furnished in connection with the sale or repair of
`
`goods.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(b).
`
`43.
`
`The component of Amazon Prime Video that enables online playing of “Purchased
`
`Videos” or Video Content is a “service” under the CLRA.
`
`44.
`
`Under the CLRA, “consumer” means “an individual who seeks or acquires, by
`
`purchase or lease, any goods or services for personal, family, or household purposes.” Id. § 1761(d).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 9 of 17
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members are “consumers” under the CLRA.
`
`Under the CLRA, “person” means “an individual, partnership, corporation, limited
`
`liability company, association, or other group, however organized.” Id. § 1761(c).
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant is a “person” under the CLRA.
`
`Under the CLRA, “transaction” means “an agreement between a consumer and
`
`another person, whether or not the agreement is a contract enforceable by action, and includes the
`
`making of, and the performance pursuant to, that agreement.” Id. § 1761(e).
`
`49.
`
`Defendant, on the one hand, and Plaintiff and the Class members, on the other hand,
`
`engaged in “transactions” under the CLRA because, among other reasons, Defendant agreed to sell,
`
`
`and pursuant to that agreement sold, Video Content to Plaintiff and the Class members.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant’s actions, representations, omissions, and conduct have violated the
`
`CLRA because they extend to transactions that are intended to result, or that have resulted, in the
`
`sale of goods and services to consumers.
`
`51.
`
`Under California Civil Code section 1770(a):
`
`(a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or
`
`deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a
`
`transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of
`
`goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:
`
`* * * * *
`
`(5) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval,
`
`characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they
`
`do not have . . . .
`
`Id. § 1770(a).
`
`52.
`
`As detailed above, Defendant has violated California Civil Code section 1770(a)(5)
`
`by representing that the Video Content has characteristics and benefits that they do not have, i.e.,
`
`Defendant made representations to Plaintiff and the Class members indicating that the Video
`
`Content had been “Purchased” and, as such, that it would be available for viewing online
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`indefinitely, when in fact Defendant knew that the Video Content could become unavailable for
`
`viewing due to content provider licensing restrictions or other reasons.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant violated the CLRA by making the representations and omissions it made
`
`at the Video Content point-of-sale detailed above when it knew, or should have known, that its
`
`representations and omissions were false and misleading.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members believed Defendant’s representations that the Video
`
`Content would viewable online indefinitely.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members would not have purchased the Video Content, but
`
`for the misleading representations and/or omissions by Defendant detailed above.
`
`
`
`56.
`
`The Video Content Plaintiff and the Class members received was worth less than
`
`the Video Content for which they paid. Plaintiff and the Class members paid a premium price on
`
`account of Defendant’s misrepresentations and/or omissions detailed herein.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members were injured in fact and lost money as a result of
`
`Defendant’s representations and/or omissions about the Video Content detailed above. Plaintiff and
`
`the Class members paid for Video Content they thought they were purchasing and, as such, would
`
`be available for viewing indefinitely, when in fact Defendant knew that the Video Content could
`
`become unavailable for viewing due to content provider licensing restrictions or other reasons.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class members, requests that the Court enjoin Defendant
`
`from continuing to employ the unlawful methods, acts, and practices alleged herein pursuant to
`
`California Civil Code section 1780(a)(2). If the Court does not restrain Defendant from engaging
`
`in these practices in the future, Plaintiff and the Class members will be harmed in that they will
`
`continue to believe they are purchasing Video Content for viewing indefinitely, when in fact, the
`
`Video Content can be made unavailable at any time.
`
`59.
`
`Therefore, Plaintiff prays only for injunctive relief consistent with the relief that the
`
`California Supreme Court discussed in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017) ) and the
`
`Ninth Circuit in Blair v. Rent-a-Center Inc., 928 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2019).
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`SECOND CLAIM
`
`Violation of California’s False Advertising Law,
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.
`
`On Behalf of the Class
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and
`
`incorporates such allegations by reference herein.
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the Class for violation of California’s False
`
`Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq. (the “FAL”).
`
`62.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant has engaged in advertising and marketing
`
`
`representing that the Video Content may be purchased by consumers for viewing online
`
`indefinitely.
`
`63.
`
`Defendant engaged in its advertising and marketing with intent to directly induce
`
`consumers, including Plaintiff and the Class members, to purchase the Video Content based on
`
`Defendant’s false and misleading representations and omissions.
`
`64.
`
`In making and disseminating the representations and omissions detailed herein,
`
`Defendant knew or should have known that the representations and omissions were untrue or
`
`misleading.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members believed Defendant’s representations that they had
`
`purchased the Video Content and, accordingly, the Video Content would be available for viewing
`
`indefinitely.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members would not have purchased the Video Content, but
`
`for the misleading representations and/or omissions by Defendant detailed above.
`
`67.
`
`The Video Content Plaintiff and the Class members purchased was worth less than
`
`the Video Content for which they paid. Plaintiff and the Class members paid a premium price on
`
`account of Defendant’s misrepresentations and/or omissions detailed herein.
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members were injured in fact and lost money as a result of
`
`Defendant’s representations and/or omissions about the Video Content detailed above. Plaintiff and
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`the Class members paid for Video Content that could be viewed online indefinitely but did not
`
`receive such a product because the Video Content may become unavailable due to potential content
`
`provider licensing restrictions or for other reasons.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class members, requests that the Court enjoin Defendant
`
`from engaging in the false and misleading advertising and marketing set forth herein. If the Court
`
`does not restrain Defendant from engaging in such conduct, Plaintiff and the Class members will
`
`be harmed in that they will continue to purchase Video Content they believe will be available
`
`indefinitely, when in fact, the Video Content can be made unavailable at any time.
`
`70.
`
`Therefore, Plaintiff prays only for injunctive and other public relief consistent with
`
`
`the relief (such as restitution) that the California Supreme Court discussed in McGill v. Citibank,
`
`N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017) and the Ninth Circuit in Blair v. Rent-a-Center Inc., 928 F.3d 819
`
`(9th Cir. 2019).
`
`THIRD CLAIM
`
`Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law,
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
`
`Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Prongs
`
`On Behalf of the Class
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and
`
`incorporates such allegations by reference herein.
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the Class for violation of the unlawful, unfair,
`
`and fraudulent prongs of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et
`
`seq. (the “UCL”).
`
`73.
`
`The circumstances giving rise to Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ allegations
`
`include Defendant’s corporate policies regarding the sale and marketing of Video Content for
`
`purchase.
`
`74.
`
`Under the UCL, “unfair competition” means and includes “any unlawful, unfair or
`
`fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`act prohibited by” the FAL. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
`
`75.
`
`By engaging in the acts and practices described herein, Defendant has committed
`
`one or more acts of “unfair competition” as the UCL defines the term.
`
`76.
`
`Defendant has committed “unlawful” business acts or practices by violating the
`
`CLRA and the FAL, as detailed above.
`
`77.
`
`Defendant has committed “unfair” business acts or practices by, among other things:
`
`a.
`
`engaging in conduct for which the utility of the conduct, if any, is
`
`outweighed by the gravity of the consequences to Plaintiff and the members
`
`of the Class;
`
`
`
`b.
`
`engaging in conduct that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or
`
`substantially injurious to Plaintiff and the members of the Class; and
`
`c.
`
`engaging in conduct that undermines or violates the spirit or intent of the
`
`consumer protection laws that this Class Action Complaint invokes.
`
`78.
`
`Defendant has committed unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts or
`
`practices by, among other things, engaging in conduct Defendant knew or should have known was
`
`likely to and did deceive reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and the Class members.
`
`79.
`
`As detailed above, Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent practices include
`
`making false and misleading representations and/or omissions.
`
`80.
`
`As detailed above, Defendant has made material representations that the Video
`
`Content purchased by Plaintiff and the Class members would be available for viewing online
`
`indefinitely.
`
`81.
`
`Defendant made the representations and omissions with intent to directly induce
`
`consumers, including Plaintiff and the Class members, to purchase the Video Content based on the
`
`false and misleading representations and omissions.
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members believed Defendant’s representations that the Video
`
`Content would be available for viewing online indefinitely.
`
`83.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members would not have purchased the Products, but for the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`misleading representations and/or omissions by Defendant detailed above.
`
`84.
`
`The Video Content Plaintiff and the Class members received were worth less than
`
`the Video Content for which they paid. Plaintiff and the Class members paid a premium price on
`
`account of Defendant’s misrepresentations and/or omissions detailed herein.
`
`85.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members were injured in fact and lost money as a result of
`
`Defendant’s violations of the unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent prongs of the UCL that are set out
`
`above. Plaintiff and the Class members paid for Video Content that they believed would be
`
`available for viewing online, but did not receive such a product because the Video Content may
`
`become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions or for other reasons.
`
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class members, requests that the Court enjoin Defendant
`
`from engaging in the false and misleading advertising and marketing set forth herein. If the Court
`
`does not restrain Defendant from engaging in such conduct, Plaintiff and the Class members will
`
`be harmed in that they will continue to purchase Video Content they believe will be available
`
`indefinitely, when in fact, the Video Content can be made unavailable at any time.
`
`87.
`
`Therefore, Plaintiff prays only for injunctive relief and other public relief (such as
`
`restitution) consistent with the relief that the California Supreme Court discussed in McGill v.
`
`Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017) and the Ninth Circuit in Blair v. Rent-a-Center Inc., 928
`
`F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2019).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
` WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class members, respectfully
`
`requests that the Court enter an Order:
`
`A.
`
`certifying the proposed Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
`
`(b)(2), as set forth above;
`
`B.
`
`declaring that Defendant is financially responsible for notifying the Class members
`
`of the pendency of this suit;
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`fees;
`
`
`
`
`
`declaring that Defendant has committed the violations of law alleged herein;
`
`providing for any and all injunctive relief the Court deems appropriate;
`
`
`
`awarding Plaintiff his reasonable costs and expenses of suit, including attorneys’
`
`awarding pre- and post-judgment interest to the extent the law allows; and
`
`providing such further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all causes of action so triable.
`
`Dated: April 24, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`REESE LLP
`
`/s/ Michael R. Reese
`Michael R. Reese (SBN 206773)
`Carlos F. Ramirez (Pro hac vice to be filed)
`100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
`New York, New York 10025
`Telephone: (212) 643-0500
`Email: mreese@reesellp.com
` cramirez@reesellp.com
`
`
`REESE LLP
`George V. Granade (Cal. State Bar No. 316050)
`8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
`Los Angeles, California 90211
`Telephone: (310) 393-0070
`Email: ggranade@reesellp.com
`
`
`SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`Spencer Sheehan (Pro hac vice to be submitted)
`505 Northern Blvd Ste 311
`Great Neck New York 11021-5101
`Telephone: (516) 303-0552
`Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL R. REESE
`
`PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 1780
`
`Michael R. Reese declares:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before this Court. I am a partner in the
`
`law firm of Reese LLP, attorneys of record for Plaintiff Amanda Caudel.
`
`2.
`
`I am one of the attorneys principally responsible for the handling of this matter. I
`
`am personally familiar with the facts set forth in this declaration, and if called as a witness, I
`
`could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein.
`
`3.
`
`This action has been commenced in a county described in California Civil Code
`
`
`section 1780 as a proper place for the trial of the action. The transactions or a substantial portion
`
`thereof occurred in Solano County, California.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on April 24, 2020, at New York, New York
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Michael R. Reese
` Michael R. Reese
`
`
`
`16
`
`