`
`
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`Elizabeth L. Deeley (CA Bar No. 230798)
`elizabeth.deeley@lw.com
`Melanie M. Blunschi (CA Bar No. 234264)
`melanie.blunschi@lw.com
`Nicole C. Valco (CA Bar No. 258506)
`nicole.valco@lw.com
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
`
`Andrew B. Clubok (pro hac vice)
`andrew.clubok@lw.com
`Susan E. Engel (pro hac vice)
`susan.engel@lw.com
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: +1.202.637.2200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`
`
`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 all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04978 JD
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL
`OF CLASS NOTICE PLAN
`
`Date: June 9, 2022
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOT. FOR APPROVAL
`OF CLASS NOTICE PLAN
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-04978 JD
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 412 Filed 05/13/22 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Consistent with this Court’s directive, the parties worked together to submit a notice plan
`
`“on a joint basis, to the fullest extent possible.” Dkt. 388 at 17. Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”)
`
`agrees that the forms of notice proposed by Plaintiffs—which include two types of in-product
`
`notifications, as well as email, traditional, and online media advertising campaigns—provide the
`
`“best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who
`
`can be identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).
`
`However, the parties did not reach agreement on the content of the proposed notifications
`
`because Plaintiffs have refused to include any statement of Meta’s defenses at all, other than a
`
`blanket denial of the allegations. That is not the law. When issuing Rule 23 class notice, courts
`
`should convey objective, neutral information about the nature of the class claims, including the
`
`defendant’s defenses. See Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 174 (1989) (“[C]ourts
`
`must take care to avoid even the appearance of judicial endorsement of the merits of the action.”);
`
`see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(iii). Yet Plaintiffs are proposing a notice that recites their
`
`allegations in detail but limits Meta’s position to a boilerplate, “Meta denies the allegations.” That
`
`is not evenhanded, and it defeats the entire purpose of the notice to allow class members to evaluate
`
`adverse viewpoints in determining whether to opt out or be bound. This problem plagues both the
`
`in-app banner and the long- and short-form notices.1 Each should be modified to be neutral,
`
`including by stripping Plaintiffs’ one-sided language from the in-app banner notice or by adding
`
`Meta’s defenses to the long- and short-form notices.
`
`In addition, the Parties have conferred further regarding the timing for dissemination of
`
`class notice and agree that notice should occur on the later of 14 calendar days after the Court rules
`
`on Plaintiffs’ motion or July 15, 2022. This will to allow time for the Ninth Circuit to consider
`
`
`1 Meta does not object to the language proposed for the in-app jewel notification, which is neutral,
`succinct, and should serve as a model for the in-app banner notice. By “banner” notice, Meta
`refers to both a “banner” that will appear at the top of the Ads Manager page and the text that
`appears in a box when an advertiser hovers over the banner. The text in the hover box is an
`extension of the banner text.
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOT. FOR APPROVAL
`OF CLASS NOTICE PLAN
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-04978 JD
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 412 Filed 05/13/22 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`
`whether to take up Meta’s Rule 23(f) petition and avoid the risk of confusing class members with
`
`premature notice while still allowing for notice sufficiently ahead of the trial date.2
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The parties initially met and conferred regarding the forms and content of notice on April
`
`19, 2022, and continued to have detailed discussions over the next 10 days about the best way to
`
`reach the most potential class members, including numerous emails regarding the feasibility and
`
`expected efficacy of potential forms of notice and their content.
`
`After several requests from Meta, Plaintiffs first provided their proposed language for the
`
`in-product, short-form, and long-form notices on April 27, two days before the deadline to submit
`
`the notice proposal (and twelve days after Meta first requested it). The parties conferred the next
`
`morning with a focus on the in-product notifications, and Meta followed up with edits and
`
`comments to that notice the same day. On April 29, the parties continued to correspond about the
`
`content of the notices. Plaintiffs provided additional edits to the in-product notifications, and Meta
`
`followed up that afternoon with details about the technical feasibility of Plaintiffs’ proposal,
`
`further edits to the in-product notifications, and targeted edits to the short-form and long-form
`
`notices that reflected the parties’ correspondence to date and this Court’s approach to (pre-
`
`settlement) class notice in the Facebook Biometrics litigation. After sending its proposed edits,
`
`Meta repeatedly followed up to discuss the language of the notices with Plaintiffs, but they
`
`declined to have a further call and ignored Meta’s request that they identify any remaining areas
`
`of dispute before filing their motion.
`
`Specifically, Meta requested: (1) to add language to the notices to set out Meta’s defenses;
`
`and (2) to edit the expanded banner language that appears when users hover their mouse on the
`
`banner, in order to make it neutral. Plaintiffs refused to make those proposed changes, and
`
`submitted their motion regarding class notice without further conferring with Meta about the
`
`content of the notices.
`
`
`2 If the Court takes up Meta’s 23(f) notice, the Parties will meet and confer within two business
`days regarding whether the notice plan should be altered and will make a proposal to the Court on
`a joint basis, to the fullest extent possible.
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOT. FOR APPROVAL
`OF CLASS NOTICE PLAN
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-04978 JD
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 412 Filed 05/13/22 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Long-Form and Short-Form Notices and In-Product
`Banner Are Not Neutral And Should Be Modified To Avoid Confusion
`
`Rule 23 requires that any class notice include a statement of the “class claims, issues, or
`
`defenses,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(iii), which courts have explained “must be neutral.” Adoma
`
`v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., No. CIV. S-10-0059 LKK, 2010 WL 4054109, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15,
`
`2010) (citing Hoffman-La Roche, 493 U.S. at 174 (“courts must be scrupulous to respect judicial
`
`neutrality” in “oversee[ing] the notice-giving process”)). “To that end, trial courts must take care
`
`to avoid even the appearance of judicial endorsement of the merits of the action.” Hoffman-La
`
`Roche, 493 U.S. at 174. An evenhanded statement of the case is necessary for class members to
`
`determine whether or not they should opt out of the class. See In re NVIDIA GPU Litig., 539 F.
`
`App’x 822, 825 (9th Cir. 2013) (notice is only “satisfactory” if it provides “sufficient detail to
`
`alert” class members as to whether they have “adverse viewpoints”); Camp v. Alexander, 300
`
`F.R.D. 617, 621 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“The best practicable notice envisioned by Rule 23 ‘conveys
`
`objective, neutral information about the nature of the claim and the consequence of proceeding as
`
`a class.’” (citation omitted)). Plaintiffs’ long- and short-form notices, as well as the in-product
`
`banner notification, run afoul of this neutrality requirement.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Long- and Short-Form Notices Are Inappropriately One-Sided
`
`Plaintiffs refused to incorporate language describing Meta’s defenses into the long- and
`
`short-form notices, insisting instead on a one-sided description of their claims that violates the
`
`neutrality required for class notice and risks confusing Meta’s advertising customers. Plaintiffs’
`
`proposed language recites their allegations of fraud in detail without including any description of
`
`Meta’s position, other than a boilerplate statement that Meta “denies all of Plaintiffs’ allegations.”
`
`Indeed, the proposed long-form notice includes a header that says “What is Facebook’s
`
`Response?” but Plaintiffs refused to include the response Meta provided. For the notices to “avoid
`
`even the appearance of judicial endorsement of the merits of the action,” Hoffman-La Roche, 493
`
`U.S. at 174, Meta’s description of its defenses (set forth below) must be included.
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOT. FOR APPROVAL
`OF CLASS NOTICE PLAN
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-04978 JD
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 412 Filed 05/13/22 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`
`Consistent with this principle of neutrality, courts routinely approve class notices only
`
`where the notice includes sections explaining both plaintiffs’ claims and defendants’ specific
`
`responses to them. For example, in In re Facebook Biometrics Information Privacy Litigation,
`
`following class certification but before settlement, this Court approved a class notice that included
`
`a statement of Meta’s (then Facebook’s) defenses:
`
`Facebook denies Plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety. Facebook denies that its
`technology is regulated by BIPA. It also contends that it gave the Class Members
`adequate notice and obtained their consent to use facial recognition technology on
`their photos. Facebook denies that any Class Member has been aggrieved by its
`alleged conduct. It denies that any Class Member may recover damages.
`
`No. 3:15-CV-03747-JD (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 393-1). Likewise, this Court has approved of defense
`
`language in other cases involving consumer fraud and UCL claims where notice was sent out
`
`before a settlement or trial. See Milan et al v. Clif Bar & Company; No. 3:18-cv-02354-JD (N.D.
`
`Cal Dec. 6, 2021) (Donato, J.) (Dkt. 218-1) (form notice included defendant’s arguments that the
`
`statements are true and not misleading, that there is no price premium attached to challenged
`
`statements, and that class members are not entitled to any relief); Meek v. Skywest, Inc. et al., No
`
`3:17-cv-01012-JD (N.D. Cal.) (Donato, J.) (Dkt. 173-1) (providing a lengthy summary of UCL
`
`defenses). This is standard. Yet without giving any reason, Plaintiffs included a robust description
`
`of their allegations, but rejected Meta’s request to respond substantively at all. See Dkt. 411 at 2.
`
`To remedy the current imbalance in both the long- and short-form notice, Meta
`
`proposes adding the following statement regarding its defenses (Ex. 1 at 2, 4, 6):
`
`Facebook denies all of Plaintiffs’ allegations. Facebook maintains that it provides
`accurate and informative disclosures about Potential Reach. Facebook has also
`explained to its advertisers (who understand) that despite Facebook’s efforts to de-
`duplicate accounts, there are some users who have multiple accounts which may
`impact Potential Reach estimates. Facebook does not charge advertisers based on
`Potential Reach estimates, but instead charges based on actual results which are
`provided in real time to advertisers. Facebook denies that any Class Member has
`been damaged because advertisers do not set their budgets in reliance upon
`“Potential Reach” estimates, but rather based on estimated and actual results.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Expanded In-Product Banner Notification Is Inappropriately
`One-Sided And Unclear
`
`Plaintiffs’ proposed in-product banner notification is both impermissibly one-sided and too
`
`long and unwieldy for an in-product banner notification. Banner notifications are not designed to
`META PLATFORMS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOT. FOR APPROVAL
`OF CLASS NOTICE PLAN
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-04978 JD
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 412 Filed 05/13/22 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`
`replace short- and long-form notifications, but rather to direct potential class members to those
`
`more robust descriptions of the claims and defenses. For that reason, courts recognize that in-app
`
`banners do not need to include everything normally required by the standard Rule 23(c)
`
`requirements for class notice. See McCabe v. Six Continents Hotels, Inc., No. 12-CV-04818 NC,
`
`2015 WL 3990915, at *12 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (“Those notices [including banners] that are
`
`too small to contain all of the necessary information required by Rule 23 have links to the class
`
`website, which does contain all of the information.”); see also Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries,
`
`Inc., No. 17CV2335-GPC, 2019 WL 718807, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2019) (“[U]sing Defendant’s
`
`website to host banners about the class certification and directing individuals to the appropriate
`
`class website complies with Rule 23(c).” (emphasis added)). Rather, the banner notification is
`
`meant to alert class members to the litigation and encourage them to review a long form notice
`
`that does include everything specified by Rule 23. Consistent with the practice of this Court and
`
`others in this District, Meta’s proposed banner language (set forth below) is succinct and directs
`
`class members to the class administration website and the detailed long-form notice. In addition,
`
`because technical limitations limit Meta’s ability to break up the text in the banner by paragraph
`
`or to include bolding without undertaking extensive and time-consuming engineering work (that
`
`may not be successful), the succinct banner language will be significantly easier for class members
`
`to read, understand, and act on if they choose.
`
`This Court and others in this District routinely allow concise web-based banner
`
`notifications at the point of sale in order to alert potential class members to the litigation and direct
`
`them to another website with a more detailed form notice. For example, in Milan et. al v. Clif Bar,
`
`No. 18-cv-2354-JD (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2021) (Donato, J.), the on-website banner notice stated only:
`
`“If you purchased Clif Bar or Clif Kid Z Bar products in New York [during a certain time period],
`
`you may be a member of a Class that was recently certified. Learn More [clickable link].” Id.
`
`(Dkt. 218-4); see also Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 16-cv-02200-HSG, 2019 WL
`
`1512265, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2019) (approving banner that stated: “If you bought Chipotle
`
`food containing meat and/or dairy in a Chipotle store in California, Maryland or New York in 2015
`
`or 2016, your rights may be affected by a class action lawsuit.”). Other approved banners are even
`META PLATFORMS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOT. FOR APPROVAL
`OF CLASS NOTICE PLAN
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-04978 JD
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 412 Filed 05/13/22 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`
`shorter. See, e.g., Dkt. 52-4 at 96, In re Google Referrer Header Priv. Litig., No. 5:10-CV-04809
`
`EJD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2014) (Dkt. 52-4 at 10, 96) (“Court Authorized Notice | Did you use
`
`Google Search?” with link to case website); In re Google Referrer Header Priv. Litig., No. 5:10-
`
`CV-04809 EJD, 2014 WL 1266091, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2014) (approving banners). Courts
`
`have also recognized that, particularly at this early stage of proceedings before an adjudication on
`
`the merits, point of sale notices that are not sufficiently neutral can “interfere with [a] Defendant’s
`
`reputation and business.” Fraser v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00520-TLN-DB, 2016
`
`WL 6208367, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2016).
`
`Plaintiffs’ expanded banner language is neither concise nor neutral. It is six sentences long,
`
`compared to the usual one sentence used in other banners, would be hard to read, and includes
`
`language that, like Plaintiffs’ other proposed notices, details Plaintiffs’ allegations but improperly
`
`omits Meta’s defenses.3 Neither the Court nor a jury has yet ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs’
`
`allegations, yet Plaintiffs insisted on including an inflammatory assertion that “Facebook’s
`
`Potential Reach metric is fraudulent because it is inflated and not based on people,” even though
`
`they refused to include language explaining Meta’s defense to their fraud allegations. Plaintiffs’
`
`six-sentence banner is one-sided and, because it will be displayed at the point-of-sale, risks
`
`confusing advertisers and improperly harming Meta’s reputation and business. This Court should
`
`reject Plaintiffs’ “expanded” banner language, in favor of a brief banner that follows the same
`
`
`3 Plaintiffs’ proposed expanded banner says:
`Court notice: You may be a class member in a lawsuit over Facebook’s Potential
`Reach. Learn more.
`For more information, you can visit [www.WEBSITE.com].
`You may be a Class Member in a lawsuit against Facebook claiming that
`Facebook’s Potential Reach metric is fraudulent because it is inflated and not based
`on people.
`The Court has not decided whether Facebook did anything wrong, and Facebook
`denies the allegations.
`The lawsuit affects your legal rights, and you have a choice to make now about
`whether to remain in the Class or request to exclude yourself from it.
`A Federal Court authorized this notice.
`
`The expanded banner’s inclusion of a “Learn more” link is redundant, as there is already a link to
`the external class administration website. In addition, Plaintiffs’ proposed text is repetitive,
`because two sentences both start with the phrase “You may be a class member in a lawsuit …”.
`META PLATFORMS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOT. FOR APPROVAL
`OF CLASS NOTICE PLAN
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-04978 JD
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 412 Filed 05/13/22 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`
`product, court notice, and clickable link format used in other cases (Ex. 1 at 1 (Proposal 1); Ex. 3
`
`at 2):
`
`Court notice: You may be a class member in a lawsuit over Facebook’s Potential
`Reach. Find out more at [www.[WEBSITE].com]. A Federal Court authorized
`this notice.
`
`Directly to the right of this text in a different-colored button in the banner will be a clickable link
`
`that says “Go to [website],” which was edited from “Learn more” to be more direct and to
`
`distinguish the button from links in Ads Manager to Meta’s Business Help Center that also use the
`
`“Learn more” language.
`
`In the event that the Court believes that the current “expanded” banner language is
`
`appropriate and that its length or appearance is not an issue, Meta alternatively proposes that the
`
`banner include a summary of Facebook’s defenses in equal measure to Plaintiffs’ allegations (Ex.
`
`1 at 1 (Proposal 2); Ex. 3 at 3):
`
`Court notice: You may be a class member in a lawsuit over Facebook’s Potential
`Reach. Find out more at [www.[WEBSITE].com].
`
`Plaintiffs have brought a lawsuit against Facebook claiming that Facebook’s
`Potential Reach metric is fraudulent because it is inflated and not based on people.
`Facebook denies all of Plaintiffs’ allegations. Facebook maintains that it provides
`accurate and informative disclosures about Potential Reach. Facebook has also
`explained to its advertisers (who understand) that despite Facebook’s efforts to de-
`duplicate accounts, there are some users who have multiple accounts which may
`impact Potential Reach estimates. Facebook does not charge advertisers based on
`Potential Reach estimates, but instead charges based on actual results which are
`provided in real time to advertisers. Facebook denies that any Class Member has
`been damaged because advertisers do not set their budgets in reliance upon
`“Potential Reach” estimates, but rather based on estimated and actual results.
`
`The lawsuit affects your legal rights, and you have a choice to make now about
`whether to remain in the Class or request to exclude yourself from it.
`
` A
`
` Federal Court authorized this notice.
`
`Again, directly to the right of this text in a different-colored button in the banner will be a clickable
`
`link that says “Go to [website].”
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOT. FOR APPROVAL
`OF CLASS NOTICE PLAN
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-04978 JD
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 412 Filed 05/13/22 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Parties Agree Notice Should Be Disseminated Within 14 Days After The
`Court Rules On The Notice Or July 15, 2022, Whichever Occurs Later
`
`Since Plaintiffs filed their motion, the parties continued to confer regarding the timing of
`
`the notice to the class. Instead of Plaintiffs’ original proposed order, the parties have agreed that
`
`notice should not be disseminated until the later of 14 calendar days after the Court rules on
`
`Plaintiffs’ notice motion or July 15, 2022.
`
`Meta filed a 23(f) petition on April 12, 2022, following this Court’s class certification
`
`order. That petition is fully briefed and the Ninth Circuit is likely to resolve it by July. See Jean-
`
`Claude Andre, David Carpenter, and Paula Salazar, Rule 23(f) Petitions in the Ninth Circuit: A
`
`Data-Driven Analysis, The Recorder (Aug. 20, 2020), available at https://www.sidley.com/-
`
`/media/publications/the-recorder_rule-23f-petitions-in-the-ninth-circuita-datadriven-
`
`analysis.pdf?la=en (finding that the Ninth Circuit typically takes around three months to resolve a
`
`Rule 23(f) petition). The parties have agreed that, if the Ninth Circuit grants the Rule 23(f) petition,
`
`the parties will meet-and-confer within 2 business days to discuss whether the timing of the notice
`
`plan should be altered, however, all deadlines in the notice plan (including July 15, 2022) will
`
`remain in place if the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on Meta’s petition by July 15, 2022.
`
`Courts in this Circuit frequently hold notice until after a Rule 23(f) petition is resolved
`
`because “premature notice risks harm to class members who are likely to be confused if
`
`certification is reversed,” even if “any notice explains that certification is potentially subject to
`
`appeal.” Bally v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 2020 WL 3035781, at *14 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2020)
`
`(pending Rule 23(f) petition warranted stay of class notice); see also Reyes v. Educ. Credit Mgmt.
`
`Corp., 2017 WL 4640418, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2017) (“[T]he Court finds that there is potential
`
`irreparable harm to the class if notice is prematurely disseminated.”); Willcox v. Lloyds TSB Bank,
`
`PLC, No. CV 13-00508 ACK-RLP, 2016 WL 917893, at *7 (D. Haw. Mar. 7, 2016) (finding that
`
`class notice should not be issued until Rule 23(f) petition is resolved because of “the potential
`
`harm to the putative class”); Altamura v. L’Oreal, USA, Inc., No. CV 11-1067 CAS JCX, 2013
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOT. FOR APPROVAL
`OF CLASS NOTICE PLAN
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-04978 JD
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 412 Filed 05/13/22 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`
`WL 4537175, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013) (finding “action should be stayed pending the
`
`resolution of L'Oréal's Rule 23(f) appeal”).4
`
`Here, there is ample time between July 15, 2022, and any decision on the merits, even
`
`accounting for the 45-day opt out period. See Schwarzschild v. Tse, 69 F.3d 293, 295 (9th Cir.
`
`1995) (“The purpose of Rule 23(c)(2) is to ensure that the plaintiff class receives notice of the
`
`action well before the merits of the case are adjudicated.”); Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc., No. 17-CV-
`
`1112 JLS, 2020 WL 1550218, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2020) (Rule 23 amendments were designed
`
`to ensure that “class would be identified before trial on the merits” (quoting Am. Pipe & Const.
`
`Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 547 (1974)). The risk of confusing class members strongly favors
`
`allowing the Ninth Circuit an opportunity to consider Meta’s 23(f) petition before sending notice.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Meta respectfully requests that the Court (i) modify the content of the proposed long- and
`
`short-form notices and “expanded” banner notice, and (ii) set a notice dissemination deadline of
`
`the later of 14 calendar days after the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion or July 15, 2022.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 13, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`
`
`
` By: /s/ Elizabeth L. Deeley
`Elizabeth L. Deeley (CA Bar No. 230798)
`Melanie M. Blunschi (CA Bar No. 234264)
`Nicole C. Valco (CA Bar No. 258506)
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
`elizabeth.deeley@lw.com
`melanie.blunschi@lw.com
`nicole.valco@lw.com
`
`Andrew B. Clubok (pro hac vice)
`Susan E. Engel (pro hac vice)
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: +1.202.637.2200
`andrew.clubok@lw.com
`susan.engel@lw.com
`
`
`4 The majority of these decisions granted motions to stay the proceedings in their entirety. Here,
`Meta does not request a stay of proceedings, and no notice plan has yet been approved, so it is
`within the court’s discretion to set a later notice dissemination date without issuing a formal stay.
`META PLATFORMS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOT. FOR APPROVAL
`OF CLASS NOTICE PLAN
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-04978 JD
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 412 Filed 05/13/22 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorneys for Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOT. FOR APPROVAL
`OF CLASS NOTICE PLAN
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-04978 JD
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`