throbber
Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`Elizabeth L. Deeley (CA Bar No. 230798)
`elizabeth.deeley@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
`Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095
`
`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
`Facsimile: +1.202.637.2201
`
`Hilary H. Mattis (CA Bar No. 271498)
`hilary.mattis@lw.com
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1008
`Telephone: +1.650.328.4600
`Facsimile: +1.650.463.2600
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, 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.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:18-cv-04978 JD
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION TO DISMISS THE THIRD
`AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`
`Date: July 30, 2020
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Court: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor
`Hon. James Donato
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`THIRD AM. CONSOL. COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN F RANCIS CO
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`TO PLAINTIFFS AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 30, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 11 of the
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California, located at 450 Golden Gate
`Avenue, San Francisco, California, Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) will and hereby does
`move for an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
`(“Third Amended Complaint” or “TAC”), Dkt. 166. This motion is made pursuant to Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6), on the grounds that (1) the breach of the implied
`covenant of good faith and fair dealing and quasi-contract claims in the TAC fail to state a claim
`as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); (2) the breach of the implied
`covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim is time-barred to the extent it is based on ad
`campaigns begun before August 15, 2014; (3) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for fraudulent
`misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) or
`12(b)(6); (4) the quasi-contract claim is time-barred to the extent it is based on ad campaigns begun
`before August 15, 2016; and (5) the fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment
`claims are time-barred to the extent they are based on ad campaigns begun before April 15, 2017.
`This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities, Facebook, Inc.’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss the
`Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Request for Judicial Notice”) and the
`Declaration of Nicole C. Valco Support of Facebook, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended
`Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Valco Decl.”) filed therewith, the pleadings and papers on
`file in this action, the arguments of counsel, and any other matter that the Court may properly
`consider.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`Facebook seeks an order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6)
`dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
`fair dealing, quasi-contract, fraudulent concealment, and fraudulent misrepresentation in their
`entirety and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN F RANCIS CO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`THIRD AM. CONSOL. COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 14, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`
` By: /s/ Elizabeth L. Deeley
`Elizabeth L. Deeley (CA Bar No. 230798)
`Nicole C. Valco (CA Bar No. 258506)
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
`Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095
`elizabeth.deeley@lw.com
`nicole.valco@lw.com
`
`Susan E. Engel (pro hac vice)
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: +1.202.637.2200
`Facsimile: +1.202.637.2201
`susan.engel@lw.com
`
`Hilary H. Mattis (CA Bar No. 271498)
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1008
`Telephone: +1.650.328.4600
`Facsimile: +1.650.463.2600
`hilary.mattis@lw.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc.
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN F RANCIS CO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`THIRD AM. CONSOL. COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`“Potential Reach” And “Estimated Daily Reach” Estimates ................................. 3
`B.
`The Parties’ Integrated Contract ............................................................................ 4
`C.
`Plaintiffs’ Contract-Based Allegations .................................................................. 5
`D.
`Plaintiffs’ Fraud-Based Allegations ....................................................................... 6
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`Plaintiffs Still Fail To State An Implied Covenant Claim. .................................... 6
`1.
`Plaintiffs’ implied covenant claim is a repackaged version
`of their dismissed breach of contract claim that fails to
`identify any specific contract term that was frustrated. ............................. 6
`The implied duty alleged by Plaintiffs would contravene
`the express terms of the parties’ contract. .................................................. 8
`Plaintiffs Still Fail To State A Quasi-Contract Claim. .......................................... 8
`1.
`The quasi-contract claim is barred by the parties’ express
`contract. ...................................................................................................... 9
`Plaintiffs do not allege that Facebook unjustly retained a
`benefit. ..................................................................................................... 10
`Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Fraudulent Misrepresentation. ................... 11
`Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Fraudulent Concealment. ........................... 13
`Claims Based On Ads Outside The Limitations Period Are Time-
`Barred. .................................................................................................................. 15
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN F RANCIS CO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`THIRD AM. CONSOL. COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ahern v. Apple Inc.,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 541 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...........................................................................3, 13, 14
`
`Balthazar v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-3231-JF, 2011 WL 588209 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2011) ...........................................12
`
`Berkla v. Corel Corp.,
`302 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................................2
`
`Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc.,
`222 Cal. App. 3d 1371 (1990) ...................................................................................................7
`
`Deras v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-05452-JST, 2018 WL 2267448 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2018) ..................................10
`
`Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.,
`356 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................12
`
`Ellis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
`752 F. App’x 380 (9th Cir. 2018) ..............................................................................................9
`
`In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig.,
`No. 17-17486, 2020 WL 1807978 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2020) ................................................2, 6, 7
`
`FormFactor, Inc. v. MarTek, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-01122-JD, 2015 WL 367653 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2015) ...........................................8
`
`Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc.,
`24 Cal. 4th 317 (2000) ...............................................................................................................8
`
`Hall v. SeaWorld Entm’t, Inc.,
`747 F. App’x 449 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................13
`
`Hedging Concepts, Inc. v. First All. Mortg. Co.,
`41 Cal. App. 4th 1410 (1996) ....................................................................................................9
`
`Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc.,
`891 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2018) .........................................................................................3, 13, 14
`
`In Taiwan Civil Rights Litig. Org. v. Kuomintang Bus. Mgmt Comm.,
`No. C 10-00362 JW, 2011 WL 5023397 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2011) .......................................15
`
`In re iPhone 4s Cons. Litig.,
`637 Fed. App’x 414 (9th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................11
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN F RANCIS CO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`THIRD AM. CONSOL. COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................................3, 11, 12
`
`Knowles v. Arris Int’l PLC,
`No. 17-CV-01834-LHK, 2019 WL 3934781 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2019) ................................13
`
`Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indem. Co.,
`44 Cal. App. 4th 194 (1996) ......................................................................................................9
`
`Lectrodryer v. SeoulBank,
`77 Cal. App. 4th 723 (2000) ....................................................................................................10
`
`Letizia v. Facebook Inc.,
`267 F. Supp. 3d 1235 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...............................................................................9, 10
`
`Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange,
`221 Cal. App. 3d 1136 (1990) .................................................................................................15
`
`Mirkin v. Wasserman,
`5 Cal. 4th 1082 (1993) .............................................................................................................15
`
`Morawski v. Lightstorm Entm’t, Inc.,
`599 F. App’x 779 (9th Cir. 2015) ..............................................................................................9
`
`Nein v. HostPro, Inc.,
`174 Cal. App. 4th 833 (2009) ....................................................................................................8
`
`Overton v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`333 F. Supp. 3d 927 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .....................................................................................10
`
`Pierry, Inc. v. Thirty-One Gifts, LLC,
`No. 17-cv-03074-MEJ, 2017 WL 4236934 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2017) ....................................7
`
`Plastino v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`873 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .....................................................................................7
`
`Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................15
`
`Richter v. CC-Palo Alto, Inc.,
`176 F. Supp. 3d 877 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .....................................................................................15
`
`Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp.,
`34 Cal. 979 (2004) ...................................................................................................................14
`
`Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corp.,
`386 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................................11
`
`Sharp v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC,
`701 F. App’x 596 (9th Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................................6, 7
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN F RANCIS CO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`THIRD AM. CONSOL. COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`
`Sloan v. Gen. Motors, LLC,
`No. 16-cv-07244-EMC, 2020 WL 1955643 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020) ..............................3, 14
`
`Sussex Fin. Enterprises, Inc. v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank AG,
`460 F. App’x 709 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................12
`
`Total Coverage, Inc. v. Cendant Settlement Serv. Group, Inc.,
`252 F. App’x 123 (9th Cir. 2007) ..............................................................................................9
`
`Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.,
`730 F. App’x 470 (9th Cir. 2018) ..............................................................................................6
`
`Vu Nguyen v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC,
`614 F. App’x 881 (9th Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................................2, 7
`
`Young v. Facebook, Inc.,
`790 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .....................................................................................6
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN F RANCIS CO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`THIRD AM. CONSOL. COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Third Amended
`Complaint” or “TAC”) is the fifth complaint filed in this action. Plaintiffs continue to allege that
`Facebook overstated the Potential Reach estimates for their ad campaigns, misleading them into
`believing their ads might reach more people than they actually did. This Court has already held
`that Facebook’s contract with Plaintiffs “explicitly disclaims an audience reach or target
`guarantee.” Minute Entry for October 17, 2019 Hearing (“MTD II Order”), Dkt. 130 at 1. Yet
`Plaintiffs still make no effort to explain how they could have believed that their ads would reach
`the Potential Reach estimates (that they purportedly saw but still have not identified). Potential
`Reach is simply a free tool to estimate the number of people in an advertiser’s entire “target
`audience,” i.e., the universe of people who might fall within the advertiser’s targeting and
`placement choices. TAC ¶ 36 & fig.4. As Plaintiffs acknowledge, Facebook’s Ads Manager
`interface disclosed that “[t]he number of people [Plaintiffs] actually end up reaching depends on
`[their] budget and performance.” Id. ¶ 36 (emphasis added). Advertisers are not charged based
`on Potential Reach or Estimated Daily Reach1 (together, “reach estimates”), Ex. A at 2,2 and reach
`estimates do not affect the number of people to whom their ads are actually delivered, TAC ¶ 36
`fig.4. Advertisers are only “charged for the number of clicks or the number of impressions [their]
`ad received.” Ex. B at 2. Despite this, Plaintiffs make no effort to cure the deficiencies previously
`identified in their implied covenant and quasi-contract claims, and they add two new fraud-based
`claims that also ignore basic pleading requirements. Plaintiffs should not get a sixth bite at the
`apple nearly two years into this litigation; each of these claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`
`1 Estimated Daily Reach estimates “give[] [advertisers] an idea of how many of the people in
`[their] target audience . . . [they] may be able to reach on a given day,” TAC ¶¶ 3, 27, based on
`“factors like [their] bid and budget.” TAC Ex. 1, Dkt. 166-1 at 3. Only Plaintiffs’ implied
`covenant claim contains allegations related to Estimated Daily Reach.
`2 Each exhibit citation in this motion is to an exhibit attached to the Valco Decl. filed herewith,
`except for citations to “TAC Ex. 1,” which is a citation to Exhibit 1 to the TAC, Dkt. 166-1. See
`Request for Judicial Notice filed herewith.
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN F RANCIS CO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`THIRD AM. CONSOL. COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`First, Plaintiffs’ implied covenant claim fails because it is nothing more than a repackaged
`version of their failed breach of contract claim, which this Court has dismissed. MTD II Order,
`Dkt. 130 at 1; see also In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., No. 17-17486, 2020 WL
`1807978, at *15 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2020) (affirming dismissal of implied covenant claim where “the
`allegations did not go beyond the [also dismissed] breach of contract theories asserted by
`Plaintiffs”). The TAC still does not identify any contractual promise that Plaintiffs claim was
`frustrated by Facebook. Instead, Plaintiffs’ implied covenant claim is still based on extra-
`contractual reach estimates. TAC ¶¶ 137-38. But as the Court already held, the parties’ contract
`“does not create a contractual obligation as to the accuracy of the Potential Reach or Estimated
`Daily Reach,” and in fact “explicitly disclaims an audience reach or target guarantee.” MTD II
`Order, Dkt. 130 at 1. Without any contractual provision on which to hinge an implied duty, the
`implied covenant claim should be dismissed. See Vu Nguyen v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 614 F.
`App’x 881, 883 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of implied covenant claim for failure to
`identify an express contract term that was frustrated).
`Second, Plaintiffs’ quasi-contract claim, which is substantially the same as the quasi-
`contract claim the Court previously dismissed, fails again because the parties have an express
`contract that governs their advertising relationship. It is well settled under California law that
`“‘[t]here cannot be a valid, express contract and an implied contract, each embracing the same
`subject matter, existing at the same time.’” Berkla v. Corel Corp., 302 F.3d 909, 918 (9th Cir.
`2002) (citation omitted; emphasis added). There is no dispute that there is a valid, express contract
`that governs the parties’ advertising relationship. That is dispositive. So too is Plaintiffs’ failure
`to address the flaws in their factual allegations that the Court previously identified in dismissing
`the quasi-contract claim. See Minute Entry for May 16, 2019 Hearing (“MTD I Order”), Dkt. 83
`at 1 (dismissing quasi-contract claim on the ground that “[t]he allegations are not specific enough
`on the elements of the claims, such as what the contract terms were, how they were breached, how
`plaintiffs were damaged and in what amount.”). Instead of adding factual allegations to salvage
`this claim, the only amendment Plaintiffs made was to label it as pleaded “in the alternative,” TAC
`¶ 131. That cannot save this claim from dismissal where Plaintiffs have admitted—and the Court
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN F RANCIS CO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`THIRD AM. CONSOL. COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`has held, see MTD II Order, Dkt. 130 at 1—that the parties have an express contract governing
`their claims.
`Third, Plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation claim fails because Plaintiffs do not allege
`the specific content of the misstatements or how and why the statements misled them into buying
`more ad campaigns or paying a higher price, much less with Rule 9(b) specificity. See Kearns v.
`Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2009). Two years into the litigation, Facebook
`is entitled to know the specific Potential Reach estimates Plaintiffs allege are fraudulent. See id.
`Finally, Plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment claim fails to satisfy Rule 9(b) for the same
`reasons as the misrepresentation claim, and it also fails for two independent reasons. Plaintiffs fail
`to allege, as required for a concealment claim, an omission of a fact that “relate[s] to the central
`functionality” of an ad campaign, Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 891 F.3d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 2018), and
`rendered Plaintiffs’ ad campaigns “unusable,” see, e.g., Ahern v. Apple Inc., 411 F. Supp. 3d 541,
`567 (N.D. Cal. 2019). In addition, the economic loss rule bars the claim. See Sloan v. Gen. Motors,
`LLC, No. 16-cv-07244-EMC, 2020 WL 1955643, at *24 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020).
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`“Potential Reach” And “Estimated Daily Reach” Estimates
`Facebook provides reach estimates for free to anyone who uses Ads Manager, an
`interactive online interface that allows potential advertisers to target ads to a particular audience
`based on a wide variety of criteria, including location, age, gender, and various demographics,
`interests, and behaviors. TAC ¶¶ 29-34. Potential Reach is an estimate of the number of people
`in an advertiser’s entire “target audience,” i.e., the universe of people who might fall within the
`advertiser’s targeting and placement choices. Id. ¶ 36 & fig.4. Potential Reach estimates “update[]
`in real time” in response to advertisers’ changes to “targeting and placement choices,” and help
`potential advertisers understand how their choices make that group narrower or broader. Id.
`Estimated Daily Reach “gives [advertisers] an idea of how many of the people in [their] target
`audience . . . [they] may be able to reach on a given day,” id. ¶¶ 3, 27, based on “factors like [their]
`bid and budget,” TAC Ex. 1 at 3. As described in the Facebook Advertiser Help Center page that
`Plaintiffs cite and rely upon, Potential Reach and Estimated Daily Reach are “estimations” that
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN F RANCIS CO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`THIRD AM. CONSOL. COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`“don’t represent actual campaign reach or campaign reporting.” See Ex. A at 2 (cited at TAC ¶ 3
`& n.5, ¶ 27 & n.21).
`Facebook provides Potential Reach and Estimated Daily Reach before an advertiser makes
`a purchase, TAC ¶¶ 3, 31, and regardless of whether a purchase is ever made. Any user with a
`Facebook account can go to Ads Manager, select targeting and placement criteria, and view
`Potential Reach and Estimated Daily Reach for an ad campaign without making a purchase. If a
`potential advertiser decides to purchase an ad set, the advertiser is not charged based on Potential
`Reach or Estimated Daily Reach, Ex. A at 2, and these estimates do not affect the number of people
`to whom its ad is actually delivered, TAC ¶ 36 fig.4. An advertiser is only “charged for the number
`of clicks or the number of impressions [its] ad received.” Ex. B at 2. Facebook does “not guarantee
`the reach or performance that [advertisers’] ads will receive, such as the number of people who
`will see your ads or the number of clicks your ads will get.” Ex. F § 8 (Self-Serve Ad Terms); see
`also Ex. D (Terms of Service) §§ 4, 5 (incorporating Self-Serve Ad Terms).
`B.
`The Parties’ Integrated Contract
`Any time an advertiser purchases a Facebook advertisement, it agrees to Facebook’s Terms
`of Service (“TOS”), which contains an integration clause. Ex. D (TOS) §§ 4, 5. The TOS
`expressly incorporates the terms that govern advertisers’ use of Facebook’s “self-serve advertising
`interface[],” Ads Manager, i.e., the Self-Service Ad Terms (“SSAT”). Id. § 5. The SSAT applies
`to the use of Ads Manager and all ad orders placed using it. Ex. F § 1 (SSAT). Plaintiffs admit
`both that they purchased ads on Facebook and that the TOS and SSAT govern this action. TAC
`¶ 8, p. 24 n.40 (alleging TOS requires application of California law and provide for venue in this
`District); see also Oct. 17, 2019 Hr’g Tr., Dkt. 129 at 5:11-16 (stating that the TOS and the SSAT
`are part of Plaintiffs’ contract). Neither the TOS nor the SSAT contain any promise relating to
`Potential Reach or Estimated Daily Reach. To the contrary, the SSAT expressly provides that
`Facebook “do[es] not guarantee the reach or performance that your ads will receive, such as the
`number of people who will see your ads or the number of clicks your ads will get.” Ex. F (SSAT)
`§ 8. Facebook requires advertisers to dispute any “unauthorized or otherwise problematic
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN F RANCIS CO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`THIRD AM. CONSOL. COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`transaction” within 30 days of the charge. Ex. G § 4.3 (Payment Terms); see also Ex. F (SSAT)
`§ 4.a (requiring advertisers to comply with the Payment Terms).
`C.
`Plaintiffs’ Contract-Based Allegations
`For the first year of this litigation, Plaintiffs tried through multiple complaints to make out
`a breach of contract claim. See Dkts. 1, 9, 55, 89. Plaintiffs alleged that Facebook had a contractual
`obligation to provide potential advertisers with accurate Potential Reach and Estimated Daily
`Reach estimates, and that Facebook breached that obligation by providing Plaintiffs with
`supposedly inaccurate estimates. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ contract and quasi-contract
`claims in the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (“CAC”), Dkt. 55, for failure to state
`a claim because Plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged “what the contract terms were, how they were
`breached, and how plaintiffs were damaged and in what amount.” MTD I Order, Dkt. 83 at 1.
`Although the minute entry for the May 16, 2019 hearing did not specifically address Plaintiffs’
`implied covenant claim, the Court took the implied covenant claim under submission following
`the October 17, 2019 hearing. See MTD II Order, Dkt. 130 at 1.
`Plaintiffs purportedly filed the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
`(“SAC”), Dkt. 89, to cure the defects identified by the Court, but the only amendment Plaintiffs
`made to their contract-based claims was to clarify that the quasi-contract claim is alleged in the
`alternative in case the Court “determines that a contract did not exist between Plaintiffs and
`Facebook.” SAC ¶ 127. Plaintiffs did not amend their implied covenant claim.
`Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) is substantially the same as the SAC, but
`removes Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. The implied covenant and quasi-contract claims in
`the TAC are identical to the SAC, and Plaintiffs did not amend or add new factual allegations to
`support those claims. Compare TAC ¶¶ 130-141, with SAC ¶¶ 126-138. Plaintiffs do not allege
`they ever disputed any charge pursuant to the contractually-required claim process. Payment
`Terms § 4.3 (“Unless you submit the claim to us within 30 days after the charge, you will have
`waived, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all claims against us arising out of or otherwise
`related to the transaction.”).
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN F RANCIS CO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`THIRD AM. CONSOL. COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`
`D.
`Plaintiffs’ Fraud-Based Allegations
`The TAC adds new claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment.
`TAC ¶¶ 142-160. In the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, Plaintiffs allege that Facebook
`misrepresented: (1) the Potential Reach of Plaintiffs’ advertisements and (2) that Potential Reach
`estimates were the number of people (instead of accounts) in an ad set’s target audience. Id.
`¶¶ 143-44. In the fraudulent concealment claim, Plaintiffs allege that Facebook failed to disclose
`that Potential Reach estimates were inflated and misleading, that Potential Reach is inflated in part
`because of duplicate and fake accounts, and that Potential Reach is calculated based on the number
`of accounts (as opposed to people) in an ad set’s target audience. Id. ¶ 150.
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Plaintiffs Still Fail To State An Implied Covenant Claim.
`Despite numerous opportunities to salvage their implied covenant claim, Plaintiffs fail to
`identify any express contract term that Facebook frustrated. Instead, they still claim that Facebook
`breach its implied covenant to “carry[] out its contractual obligations to provide Plaintiffs … with
`accurate Potential Reach and Estimated Daily Reach.” TAC ¶ 137. But this Court already held
`the parties’ contract does not “does not create a contractual obligation as to the accuracy of the
`Potential Reach or Estimated Daily Reach” and “explicitly disclaims an audience reach or target
`guarantee.” MTD II Order, Dkt. 130 at 1. The Ninth Circuit has recently reiterated that where an
`implied covenant claim does “not go beyond” an already-dismissed contract claim, it should be
`dismissed. Internet Tracking Litig., 2020 WL 1807978, at *15; see also Sharp v. Nationstar
`Mortg., LLC, 701 F. App’x 596, 598 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal of implied covenant
`claim “materially identical to the [dismissed] breach of contract claim”).
`
`Plaintiffs’ implied covenant claim is a repackaged version of their
`dismissed breach of contract claim that fails to identify any specific
`contract term that was frustrated.
`To plead an implied covenant claim, Plaintiffs must identify the specific contractual
`provision that was frustrated. See Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 730 F. App’x 470, 471
`(9th Cir. 2018) (holding that the implied covenant “cannot impose substantive terms and
`conditions beyond those to which the contracting parties actually agreed”); see also Young v.
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN F RANCIS CO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`THIRD AM. CONSOL. COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-04978-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04978-JD Document 177 Filed 05/14/20 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“The implied covenant will not
`apply where ‘no express term exists on which to hinge an implied duty….’”) (citation omitted).
`The TOS is the contract between the parties, see MTD II Order, Dkt. 130 at 1, and is fully
`integrated. See Ex. D (TOS) § 4.5. Plaintiffs have not alleged a specific term of the TOS that was
`frustrated. Instead, Plaintiffs’ implied covenant claim continues to be premised on Facebook’s
`purported obligation to provide accurate Potential Reach and Estimated Daily Reach estimates
`(TAC ¶¶ 137-38), which the Court already held Facebook does not have a contractual obligation
`to provide. See MTD II Order, Dkt. 130 at 1. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim that Faceb

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket