Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 358 Filed 12/21/21 Page 1 of 24
`
`ECF No. 315-3, Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Mot. for
`Class Certification
`REDACTED VERSION REFILED PURSUANT TO
`DKT. 350
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 358 Filed 12/21/21 Page 2 of 24
`
`Eric Kafka (pro hac vice)
`COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
`TOLL PLLC
`88 Pine Street, 14th Floor,
`New York, NY 10005
`Telephone: (212) 838-7797
`Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
`ekafka@cohenmilstein.com
`
`Andrew N. Friedman (pro hac vice)
`Geoffrey Graber (SBN 211547)
`Julia Horwitz (pro hac vice)
`Karina G. Puttieva (SBN 317702)
`COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
`TOLL PLLC
`1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 408-4600
`Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
`afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
`ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
`jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com
`kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com
`
`Charles Reichmann (SBN 206699)
`LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMANN
`16 Yale Circle
`Kensington, CA 94708-1015
`Telephone: (415) 373-8849
`Charles.reichmann@gmail.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`DZ Reserve and Cain Maxwell (d/b/a Max
`Martialis), individually and on behalf of
`others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.: 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`
`Date: June 10, 2021
`Time: 10:00 am
`Court: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor
`Hon. James Donato
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 358 Filed 12/21/21 Page 3 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 3
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiffs Meet the Typicality and Adequacy Requirements of Rule 23(a)(3)-(4) ................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Record Shows that Plaintiffs Relied on Potential Reach ....................................... 3
`
`Facebook’s Remaining Typicality and Adequacy Arguments Are Meritless .............. 5
`
`II.
`
`The Court Should Certify a 23(b)(2) Class for Injunctive Relief ............................................. 6
`
`III.
`
`The Court Should Certify a 23(b)(3) Class for Damages ......................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`Facebook Does not Dispute All Class Members Are Exposed to Potential
`Reach ........................................................................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Materiality Is a Common Issue Giving Rise to a Presumption of
`Reliance............................................................................................................. 7
`
`Facebook’s Potential Reach Inflation and “Inaccurate Representation”
`That It Counts People Are Uniform Misrepresentations .................................. 9
`
`Cowan Shows Every Class Member Received Inflated Potential Reach
`Numbers and Facebook Only Criticizes His “Input Assumptions” ................ 10
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Experts Provide Two Methods to Calculate Classwide Damages ............. 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Facebook’s Attempt to Use Allenby’s Survey Results to Invoke Olean
`Fails as a Matter of Law.................................................................................. 12
`
`Facebook Does Not Challenge the Admissibility of Roughgarden’s
`Auction Simulation – Which Shows All Advertisers Paid a Price
`Premium .......................................................................................................... 13
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Damages Stem Directly from Their Theories of Liability ............. 14
`
`C.
`
`Class Treatment Is Superior as All Claims Will Be Adjudicated in One Trial .......... 15
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 15
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 358 Filed 12/21/21 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Adkins v. Facebook, Inc.,
`424 F. Supp. 3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .............................................................................................6
`
`Ambrosio v. Cogent Commc’n’s, Inc.,
`2016 WL 777775 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2016) ...................................................................................6
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds,
`568 U.S. 455467 (2013) ...........................................................................................................4, 7, 8
`
`Astiana v. Kashi Co.,
`291 F.R.D. 493 (S.D. Cal. 2013) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Avilez v. Pinkerton Government Services, Inc.,
`596 F. App’x 597 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................5, 6
`
`B.K. ex rel. Tinsley v. Snyder,
`922 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2019) ...........................................................................................................6
`
`Bally v. State Farm Life Ins. Co.,
`335 F.R.D. 288 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Bradach v. Pharmavite, LLC,
`735 F. App’x. 251 (9th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) ............................................................................9
`
`Brickman v. Fitbit Inc.,
`2017 WL 5569827 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017) ................................................................................7
`
`Broomfield v. Craft Brew All.,
`2018 WL 4952519 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2018) ..........................................................................9, 13
`
`C.f. Berger v. Home Depot USA, Inc.,
`741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................................10
`
`In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig.,
`2020 WL 870927 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2020) .................................................................................11
`
`Chowning v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc.,
`733 F. App’x 404 (9th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................15
`
`In re ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`90 F. Supp. 3d 919,967–68 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................4, 13
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`ii
`
`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 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 358 Filed 12/21/21 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Dickey v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`2019 WL 251488 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2019) ..................................................................................10
`
`Ewert v. eBay, Inc.,
`2010 WL 4269259 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2010)..................................................................................5
`
`In re Facebook, Inc., PPC Advertising Litigation,
`282 F.R.D. 446 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .....................................................................................................5
`
`In re First All. Mortg. Co.,
`471 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006) ...........................................................................................................9
`
`Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc.,
`326 F.R.D. 592 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................................................13
`
`In re Foodservice Inc. Pricing Litig.,
`729 F.3d 108, 118 (2d Cir. 2013).....................................................................................................9
`
`Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
`324 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) ........................................................................3, 8
`
`Hawkins v. Kroger Co.,
`337 F.R.D. 518 (S.D. Cal. 2020) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Hernandez v. Cty. of Monterey,
`305 F.R.D. 132 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .....................................................................................................5
`
`Hinojos v. Kohl’s Corp.,
`718 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2013) .........................................................................................................8
`
`Hirsch v. USHealth Advisors, LLC,
`337 F.R.D. 118 (N.D. Tex. 2020) ....................................................................................................3
`
`Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`2014 WL 2702726 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2014) ...............................................................................10
`
`Just Film, Inc. v. Buono,
`847 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017) .........................................................................................................3
`
`Kosta v. Del Monte Foods, Inc.,
`308 F.R.D. 217 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC,
`2020 WL 6074107 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2020) ................................................................................7
`
`Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC,
`334 F.R.D. 552 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct.,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) .....................................................................................................................4
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 358 Filed 12/21/21 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`In re Live Concert Antitrust Litig.,
`247 F.R.D. 98 (C.D. Cal. 2007) .......................................................................................................8
`
`Low v. Trump Univ. LLC,
`2016 WL 6732110 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2016) .................................................................................8
`
`Maldonado, et al., v. Apple, Inc., et al.,
`2021 WL 1947512 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021) ...............................................................................11
`
`McKenzie Law Firm, P.A. v. Ruby Receptionists, Inc.,
`2020 WL 1970812 (D. Or. Apr. 24, 2020) ....................................................................................15
`
`Miler v. Fuhu Inc.,
`2015 WL 7776794 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2015) .................................................................................12
`
`Miller v. RP On-Site, LLC,
`2020 WL 6940936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2020) ................................................................................3
`
`Moore v. PaineWebber, Inc.,
`306 F.3d 1247 (2d Cir. 2002)...........................................................................................................9
`
`Munro v. Univ. of S. Cal.,
`2019 WL 7166985 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2019) ...................................................................................7
`
`In re Nat’l W. Life Ins. Deferred Annuities Litig.,
`2013 WL 593414 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2013) ....................................................................................8
`
`Nguyen v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.,
`932 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2019) .........................................................................................................14
`
`Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC,
`993 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................................11, 13, 14
`
`Parsons v. Ryan,
`754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................................................3
`
`Plascencia v. Lending 1st Mortg.,
`259 F.R.D. 437 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`802 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2015) .........................................................................................................15
`
`Rahman v. Mott’s LLP,
`2014 WL 5282106 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014)..................................................................................4
`
`Reitman v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc.,
`2019 WL 7169792 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 3019) aff’d, 380 F. App’x. 880 (9th Cir.
`2020) ................................................................................................................................................9
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`iv
`
`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 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 358 Filed 12/21/21 Page 7 of 24
`
`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
`
`Roley v. Google, LLC,
`2020 WL 8675968 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2020) ................................................................................12
`
`Ruiz Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc.,
`835 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................................14
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) .......................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Spacone v. Sanford, L.P.,
`2018 WL 4139057 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2018) ...................................................................................3
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................................3
`
`Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp.,
`655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) .........................................................................................................3
`
`In re Tobacco II Cases,
`46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009) .............................................................................................................4, 7, 8
`
`Tucker v. Pac. Bell Mobile Servs.,
`208 Cal. App. 4th 201 (2012) ........................................................................................................10
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
`577 U.S. 442 (2016) .......................................................................................................................11
`
`Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc.,
`824 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................................14
`
`Vasquez v. Super. Ct.,
`4 Cal. 3d 800 (1971) ....................................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc.,
`281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) .........................................................................................................3
`
`Walker v. Life Ins. Co. of the Sw.,
`2012 WL 7170602 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012) ...................................................................................7
`
`Walker v. Life Ins. Co. of the Sw.,
`953 F.3d 624 (9th Cir. 2020) ...........................................................................................................7
`
`Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co.,
`552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) .........................................................................................................13
`
`In re Worlds of Wonder Sec. Litig.,
`1992 WL 330411 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 1992) ......................................................................................8
`
`In re Yahoo Mail Litig.,
`308 F.R.D. 577 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .....................................................................................................4
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 358 Filed 12/21/21 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) ...............................................................................................................................8
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 ............................................................................................................4
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`vi
`
`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 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 358 Filed 12/21/21 Page 9 of 24
`
`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
`
`Facebook has known for years its Potential Reach is inflated and “inaccurate.” According to
`
`Facebook Potential Reach is “arguably the single most important number in [its] ads creation
`
`interface” (where advertisers set their budget), “everyone” uses Potential Reach, and it is “vital to
`
`100% of [its] Ads Revenues.” That is why executives repeatedly blocked employees from fixing the
`
`problem or disclosing the truth. Facebook knew reducing Potential Reach inflation would have had a
`
`“significant” “revenue impact,” but Facebook also knew “it’s revenue we should have never made
`
`given the fact it’s based on wrong data.” As one senior executive stated: “If we overstated how many
`
`actual real people we have in certain demos, there is no question that impacted budget allocations.”
`
`Forced to face this classwide evidence of fraud, Facebook manufactures new evidence in the
`
`form of self-serving declarations from ten hand-picked advertisers. In its Opposition, Facebook relies
`
`extensively on these new-found company spokespeople (who were never disclosed in discovery) to
`
`claim that advertisers actually do not care about Potential Reach and do not use it to set their budgets.
`
`According to Facebook, this new “evidence” is fatal to Plaintiffs’ materiality and reliance arguments.
`
`Facebook’s eleventh-hour gambit is procedurally improper. It is also legally irrelevant. In this
`
`Circuit and under California law, materiality and reliance are objective issues, assessed under a
`
`“reasonable person” standard. The subjective preferences or beliefs of absent class members do not
`
`matter. That is why courts repeatedly find materiality and reliance to be common questions, ideally
`
`suited for class treatment. Facebook’s desperate efforts to downplay its lies through newly-minted
`
`evidence only underscores the common issues that predominate this action.
`
`Not content to introduce new facts, Facebook embarks on a wholesale effort to re-write the
`
`record, distorting the deposition testimony of named plaintiffs to challenge their suitability to serve as
`
`class representatives. Facebook asserts Cain Maxwell could not have relied on Potential Reach –
`
`despite his repeated testimony that he did so – because he viewed an online tutorial that does not
`
`discuss Potential Reach. Facebook’s argument strains credulity. Facebook asserts DZ Reserve could
`
`not have relied on Potential Reach because its owner, Dan Ziernicki, continued to buy Facebook ads
`
`after joining the suit. But Facebook omits a key fact: Ziernicki lowered his spending on Facebook ads
`
`by over 90%. This corroborates his allegation that “he would not have spent the money that he did”
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 358 Filed 12/21/21 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`had he known the truth, establishes standing under California law, and is consistent with Plaintiffs’
`
`damages models, which show that advertisers would have lowered their Facebook spending (by 3.4%
`
`- 8.9%) had they known the truth.
`
`Facebook contends Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate predominance but it does not dispute that all
`
`class member advertisers are exposed to Potential Reach. Instead, Facebook argues that “Plaintiffs are
`
`not entitled to a presumption of reliance” because they cannot prove materiality or uniformity. But
`
`materiality is an objective inquiry and a common issue to be evaluated on the merits by the factfinder.
`
`And Plaintiffs submit overwhelming evidence of materiality. Facebook also fails to explain why its
`
`misrepresentation does not stem from a common course of conduct under the Ninth Circuit law.
`
`Facebook mischaracterizes and misconstrues the analyses of Plaintiffs’ experts. Facebook
`
`asserts Plaintiffs’ statistics expert, Dr. Cowan, calculates “average rates” of inflation in an effort to
`
`generate a class related issue. But Cowan does not calculate average inflation, and Facebook does not
`
`challenge the reliability of his methodology for purposes of class certification. Rather, Facebook re-
`
`asserts the criticisms of its rebuttal expert, Dr. Tadelis, who claims Cowan should have used different
`
`“input assumptions” which purportedly leads to minimal inflation. For example, Tadelis argues that
`
`Cowan improperly classifies, like Facebook, accounts for pets as fake, when, according to Tadelis, pet
`
`accounts are rightly counted in Potential Reach. These types of criticisms regarding inputs and
`
`assumptions, however, are questions for the jury – not for class certification.
`
`Facebook also claims Plaintiffs’ conjoint survey “proves” many class members were uninjured
`
`because some respondents increased their budgets when the misrepresentation was removed. But
`
`courts consistently reject that exact argument because materiality is an objective inquiry where
`
`individual preferences and beliefs are legally irrelevant. Additionally, based on the results of the
`
`conjoint survey, prices decrease for all advertisers if the misrepresentation is removed.
`
`In sum, Facebook’s attempts to distract cannot avoid the common facts predominating this
`
`case: for years Facebook has inflated its Potential Reach and falsely told its advertisers that it counts
`
`people, resulting in massive revenues that it “should have never made given the fact it’s based on
`
`wrong data.” Plaintiffs’ claims to recover that money should be adjudicated in a single trial – as called
`
`for by Rule 23 and the Seventh Amendment – and the motion to certify the class should be granted.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 358 Filed 12/21/21 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Facebook does not contest numerosity or commonality. Rule 23(a)(1), (2). Nor does it
`
`specifically challenge the adequacy of proposed class counsel. Rule 23(a)(4).
`
`4
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiffs Meet the Typicality and Adequacy Requirements of Rule 23(a)(3)-(4)
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Typicality is a “permissive” requirement that is satisfied where the representative claims are
`
`“reasonably co-extensive with those of the absent class members; they need not be substantially
`
`identical.” Just Film, Inc. v. Buono, 847 F.3d 1108, 1116 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Parsons v. Ryan, 754
`
`F.3d 657, 685 (9th Cir. 2014)). Plaintiffs are adequate if they have no conflicts of interest with the
`
`class and have demonstrate they will “prosecute the action vigorously.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d
`
`938, 957 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs meet these requirements: Both testified they relied on Potential
`
`Reach and that they would have spent less had they known Potential Reach was falsely represented.
`
`Ex. 138 at 199:2-12, 217:22-218:2, 227:24-228:11, 256:16-257:14; Ex. 139 at 51:12-52:2, 68:13-
`
`69:11, 98:6-12, 103:15-106:5; Ex. 140 at 158:2-15, 153:19-154:7. Contrary to Facebook’s assertions,
`
`14
`
`the record shows Plaintiffs relied on Potential Reach.1
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The Record Shows that Plaintiffs Relied on Potential Reach
`
`Maxwell Relied on Potential Reach. Facebook claims Maxwell “lied” about his reliance on
`
`Potential Reach because he also looked at an online tutorial about Facebook that did not discuss
`
`Potential Reach. Opp. at 15. But this did not render Maxwell incapable of relying on Potential Reach,
`
`and Maxwell need not show the Potential Reach misrepresentations were the “sole or even the
`
`predominant or decisive factor influencing the [his] decisions to buy the challenged products . . . and
`
`in any event, [this] is a merits dispute as to materiality.” Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
`
`
`1 The decisions cited by Facebook are inapposite and bear no resemblance to this case. Opp. at
`15-16. In Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002), the court affirmed
`summary judgment against individual plaintiffs because the evidence did not support their claims, not
`because their testimony was “uncorroborated and self-serving.” In Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655
`F.3d 1013, 1019-20 (9th Cir. 2011), the plaintiff “never saw the site or signed up for the program.” In
`Miller v. RP On-Site, LLC, 2020 WL 6940936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2020), plaintiff, a career criminal,
`swore that defendant issued consumer reports with convictions that were not public when in fact they
`were public and that he was denied a tenancy application when in fact it was approved. In Hirsch v.
`USHealth Advisors, LLC, 337 F.R.D. 118 (N.D. Tex. 2020), plaintiff was atypical because defendant
`countersued him for fraud. And in Spacone v. Sanford, L.P., 2018 WL 4139057 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9,
`2018) plaintiff testified he had no issue with the price he paid, and that his injury was an inconvenience.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 358 Filed 12/21/21 Page 12 of 24
`
`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
`
`324 F. Supp. 3d 1084, 1116-17 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018)(citing In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th
`
`298, 326 (2009); Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455467 (2013)) (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). Facebook also misleads the Court by egregiously omitting portions of
`
`Maxwell’s testimony to falsely claim that he said he “might have tested the waters” even if he had
`
`known about the inflation. Opp. at 16. In fact, Maxwell testified:
`
`If -- if the data were accurate and said, "We don’t know how many
`people, but this is accounts, and that could be seven times as many
`accounts as there are actual people," I would have definitely given
`it a second thought. I might have tested the waters. But the fact that
`the data were deceptive -- were deceptive, I would not have spent
`any money on Facebook at all, that’s correct. I can’t -- I can’t build
`a business on bad data. Garbage in, garbage out.
`
`Ex. 138 at 257:5-14. This testimony supports Maxwell’s reliance on Facebook’s Potential Reach —
`
`and Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief.
`
`DZ Reserve Relied on Potential Reach. Facebook contests DZ Reserve’s allegation that it
`
`“would not have paid the money it did” because its owner, Dan Ziernicki, continued to buy Facebook
`
`ads after joining this lawsuit. But after learning the truth and joining this lawsuit, Ziernicki lowered
`
`his spending on Facebook ads by over 90% (from about $1 million to about $43,000). Facebook’s own
`
`expert confirms this. See ECF 288-1 at Ex. 15. This corroborates DZ Reserve’s allegations of injury
`
`and establishes UCL standing by demonstrating “los[s] [of] money or property as a result of
`
`[Facebook’s] unfair competition.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. Standing is shown where plaintiffs
`
`“surrender in a transaction more, or acquire in a transaction less, than [they] otherwise would have.”
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 323 (2011).2 Ziernicki’s testimony and the record
`
`evidence are also consistent with Plaintiffs’ damages models that allege class member advertisers
`
`would have spent 3.4% - 8.9% less if they knew the truth – not that they would have spent nothing.
`
`Facebook also asserts that Ziernicki “lied” when he purportedly said that “DZ Reserve ‘would
`
`2 See Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, 2014 WL 5282106, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014) (standing
`established where “plaintiff alleges that he entered into more transactions and parted with more money
`than he would have absent the misrepresentations.”); see also, In re ConAgra Foods, Inc., 90 F. Supp.
`3d 919,967–68 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (standing despite continued purchases of the products after filing their
`lawsuit). Nor does it render DZ Reserve atypical or inadequate. Hawkins v. Kroger Co., 337 F.R.D.
`518, 536 (S.D. Cal. 2020); In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 308 F.R.D. 577, 593–94 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 358 Filed 12/21/21 Page 13 of 24
`
`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
`
`not have purchased’ Facebook ads had he known” about Potential Reach inflation. Opp. at 13.
`
`Ziernicki never said this. Instead, he testified that he would have likely spent less (which he did).3
`
`When specifically asked if he “didn’t want to buy ads again for DZ Reserve” due to Potential Reach
`
`inflation, Ziernicki responded, “So you know, as I mentioned in my answer, I know I would have
`
`spent less. Would I probably spend money? Most likely.” Ex. 139 at 105:11-106:1 (emphasis
`
`added); see also id. at 104:21–105:20; 106:1-5.4
`
`B.
`
`Facebook’s Remaining Typicality and Adequacy Arguments Are Meritless
`
`Facebook suggests Plaintiffs are atypical and inadequate because advertisers have varying
`
`degrees of sophistication (Opp. at 16)—an argument squarely rejected in Ewert v. eBay, Inc., 2010
`
`WL 4269259, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2010). Like here, “the agreements at issue [ ] are form
`
`contracts with standardized, non-negotiable terms, regardless of the class member’s level of
`
`sophistication or volume of business” and therefore the “named plaintiffs’ claims are not atypical
`
`simply because the class includes sophisticated business entities.” Facebook’s reliance on In re
`
`Facebook, Inc., PPC Advertising Litigation, 282 F.R.D. 446, 449-50, 454 (N.D. Cal. 2012), is
`
`similarly misguided: there, plaintiffs were inadequate because, among other things, class members
`
`contracted with Facebook “on different terms” and used “different channels.” Here the class is limited
`
`to advertisers who used Facebook’s standard ad terms and one channel: Ads Manager. See Mot. at 15.
`
`Finally, Facebook argues Plaintiffs are atypical (and inadequate) “insofar as they seek to
`
`represent advertisers who purchased ads on or after May 28, 2018” – the date on which an arbitration
`
`provision purportedly became effective. Opp. at 17. Facebook’s passing invocation of a purported
`
`arbitration provision – nearly three years into this suit – is misplaced. In Avilez v. Pinkerton
`
`3 The phrase “would not have purchased” does not appear in Ziernicki’s deposition transcripts.
`Instead, Ziernicki incorrectly recalled whether he purchased Facebook ads on behalf of entities other
`than DZ Reserve. He testified that he likely used a friend’s or girlfriend’s account to try to buy ads for
`other businesses. Ex. 140 at 210:11-13, 211:15-212:2; 213:5-216:7. But “[i]nconsistent deposition
`testimony in and of itself will not serve as a ground for denial of class certification.” Hernandez v.
`Cty. of Monterey, 305 F.R.D. 132, 161 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citations omitted).
`4 Facebook states Ziernicki tried to “hide” his new ad purchase. In fact, Ziernicki ran ads through
`other channels because Facebook blocked the DZ Reserve account from running ads af