Case 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 25 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086)
` Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94303
`Telephone: (650) 858-6000
`Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
`
`DAVID Z. GRINGER (pro hac vice)
` David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`REVEAL CHAT HOLDCO, LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company, USA TECHNOLOGY
`AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (d/b/a
`Lenddo USA), a Delaware corporation, CIR.CL,
`INC., a dissolved Delaware corporation, and
`BEEHIVE BIOMETRIC, INC., a dissolved
`Delaware corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`FACEBOOK’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
` Case No. 5:20-CV-00363-BLF
`
`DEFENDANT FACEBOOK INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`THEREOF
`
`Hearing Date: June 11, 2020
`Time: 9:00 AM
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`
`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 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 25 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................3 
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5 
`I. 
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Time-Barred .....................................................................................6 
`A. 
`The Statute Of Limitations And Laches Bar Plaintiffs’ Claims ..............................6 
`B. 
`No Tolling Theory Applies ......................................................................................8 
`Plaintiffs Have Not Plausibly Alleged Antitrust Injury .....................................................10 
`A. 
`Plaintiffs Fail To Allege Causal Antitrust Injury ...................................................11 
`B. 
`Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged Antitrust Injury In The “Social Advertising”
`Market ....................................................................................................................13 
`Plaintiffs Lack Antitrust Standing To Bring Their Monopolization And
`Attempted Monopolization Claims (Counts I and II) ............................................14 
`Plaintiffs Lack Antitrust Injury To Bring Their Section 1 Claim (Count
`III) ..........................................................................................................................15 
`Plaintiffs Did Not Suffer Antitrust Injury From the Acquisitions And
`Integration Of Instagram And WhatsApp (Counts IV and V) ...............................16 
`Plaintiffs Have Failed To State A Claim ...........................................................................17 
`A. 
`The Product Markets Alleged Are Implausible .....................................................17 
`1. 
`The “Social Data” Market ..........................................................................18 
`2. 
`The “Social Advertising” Market ..............................................................20 
`Plaintiffs Fail To State Monopolization And Attempted Monopolization
`Claims ....................................................................................................................21 
`Plaintiffs Fail To State A Section 1 Claim .............................................................25 
`C. 
`Plaintiffs’ Claim For Injunctive Relief Must Be Dismissed ..................................25 
`D. 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................255 
`
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`i
`FACEBOOK’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 25 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc.,
`948 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1991) ...............................................................................................1
`
`America Online, Inc. v. GreatDeals.Net,
`49 F. Supp. 2d 851 (E.D. Va. 1999) ..................................................................................20
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................................5
`
`Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Co.,
`472 U.S. 585 (1985) .....................................................................................................22, 23
`
`Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of
`Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983) ...........................................................................10, 15, 17
`
`Atlantic Richfield Co.v. USA Petroleum Corp.,
`495 U.S. 328 (1990) ...........................................................................................................12
`
`Bay Area Surgical Management LLC v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.,
`166 F. Supp. 3d 988 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (Freeman, J.) .........................................................18
`
`Bell Altantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................................5
`
`Beneficial Standard Life Insurance Co. v. Madariaga,
`851 F.2d 271 (9th Cir. 1988) .............................................................................................10
`
`Big Bear Lodging Ass’n v. Snow Summit, Inc.,
`182 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999) ...........................................................................................15
`
`Bourns, Inc. v. Raychem Corp.,
`331 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................12, 15
`
`Brantley v. NBC Universal, Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................5
`
`California Computer Products, Inc. v. IBM Corp.,
`613 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1979) .............................................................................................10
`
`Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc.,
`479 U.S. 104 (1986) .......................................................................................................1, 15
`
`Conmar Corp. v. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc.,
`858 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1988) ...........................................................................................8, 9
`
`ii
`FACEBOOK’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 25 Filed 03/16/20 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.,
`467 U.S. 752 (1984) ...........................................................................................................15
`
`Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp.,
`263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) ...........................................................................................7, 8
`
`Federal Home Loan Bank Board v. Elliott,
`386 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1967) .................................................................................................7
`
`Feitelson v. Google Inc.,
`80 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................5, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17
`
`FTC v. PepsiCo, Inc.,
`477 F.2d 24 (2d Cir. 1973).................................................................................................10
`
`Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories Inc.,
`386 F.3d 485 (2d Cir. 2004)...............................................................................................10
`
`Glen Holly Entertainment, Inc. v. Tektronix, Inc.,
`343 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................13
`
`Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc.,
`897 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................17, 18, 19, 20, 21
`
`Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank,
`465 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2006) ...............................................................................................7
`
`In re Musical Instruments & Equipment Antitrust Litigation,
`798 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................................25
`
`In re Super Premium Ice Cream Distribution Antitrust Litigation,
`691 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Cal. 1988) ..................................................................................21
`
`International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. v. General Telephone and
`Electronics Corp., 518 F.2d 913 (9th Cir. 1975) .............................................................6, 8
`
`Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
`518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................25
`
`Kinderstart.com, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`2007 WL 831806 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2007) .....................................................................20
`
`Kloth v. Microsoft Corp.,
`444 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................7, 14, 17
`
`Kourtis v. Cameron,
`419 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005) ...............................................................................................7
`
`Lucas Automotive Engineering, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
`140 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1998) .........................................................................12, 15, 16, 17
`
`iii
`FACEBOOK’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 25 Filed 03/16/20 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`Mangindin v. Washington Mutual Bank,
`637 F. Supp. 2d 700 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ...............................................................................25
`
`Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) ...........................................................................................................13
`
`MetroNet Services Corp. v. Qwest Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) .....................................................................................21, 25
`
`Midwestern Machinery Co. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.,
`392 F.3d 265 (8th Cir. 2004) ...............................................................................................7
`
`Newcal Industries, Inc. v. Ikon Office Solution,
`513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................17, 19
`
`NicSand, Inc. v. 3M Co.,
`507 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................12
`
`Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................23, 24
`
`NSS Labs, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`2019 WL 3804679 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2019) ..................................................................17
`
`Olin Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission,
`986 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir. 1993) ...........................................................................................19
`
`Oliver v. SD-3C LLC,
`751 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) .........................................................................................6, 7
`
`Oltz v. St. Peter’s Community Hospital,
`861 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) ...........................................................................................17
`
`Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.,
`797 F.2d 370 (7th Cir. 1986) .............................................................................................23
`
`Omega Environmental, Inc. v. Gilbarco, Inc.,
`127 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 1997) ...........................................................................................16
`
`Pace Industries, Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co.,
`813 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1987) ...............................................................................................6
`
`Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Linkline Communications, Inc.,
`555 U.S. 438 (2009) ...........................................................................................................22
`
`Planet Drum Foundations v. Hart,
`2017 WL 4236932 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2017) ....................................................................7
`
`Pool Water Products v. Olin Corp.,
`258 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2001) ...........................................................................................16
`
`iv
`FACEBOOK’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 25 Filed 03/16/20 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`Ryan v. Microsoft Corp.,
`147 F. Supp. 3d 868 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................9
`
`Schor v. Abbott Laboratories,
`457 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2006)) ............................................................................................22
`
`Sidibe v. Sutter Health,
`4 F. Supp. 3d 1160 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................................19
`
`Somers v. Apple, Inc.,
`729 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................................11
`
`Stackla, Inc. v. Facebook Inc.,
`2019 WL 4738288 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2019) ..............................................................4, 24
`
`Swartz v. KPMG LLP,
`476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) ...............................................................................................9
`
`Taleff v. Southwest Airlines Co.,
`828 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (N.D. Cal. 2011),
`aff’d 554 F. App’x 598 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................8
`
`Tanaka v. University of Southern California,
`252 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2001) .....................................................................................19, 20
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) .............................................................................................................7
`
`United States v. Microsoft Corp.,
`253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) .............................................................................................10
`
`United States v. Topco Associates, Inc.,
`405 U.S. 596 (1972) .............................................................................................................1
`
`Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP,
`540 U.S. 398 (2004) ...............................................................................................21, 22, 25
`
`Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.,
`2020 WL 879396 (7th Cir. Feb. 24, 2020) ........................................................................22
`
`Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena,
`592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................................6
`
`Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc.,
`705 F.2d 1515 (9th Cir. 1983) .............................................................................................8
`
`DOCKETED CASES
`
`Ackers v. Google LLC, 5:19-cv-05537-BLF, ECF No. 26 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2020) .....................13
`
`v
`FACEBOOK’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 25 Filed 03/16/20 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ..........................................................................................................................9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)......................................................................................................1, 5, 6, 11
`
`Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27 (1914) ................................................................ passim
`
`Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 (1890) .................................................................6, 10, 19
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Alexei Oreskovic, Facebook Says WhatsApp deal cleared by FTC, REUTERS
`(Apr. 10, 2014), https://tinyurl.com/wkm7tgg .................................................................4, 9
`
`Federal Trade Commission, FTC Closes Its Investigation Into Facebook’s
`Proposed Acquisition of Instagram Photo Sharing Program (Aug. 22, 2012),
`https://tinyurl.com/stxz53r .....................................................................................................4, 9
`
`HERBERT HOVENKAMP & PHILLIP E. AREEDA, ANTITRUST LAW, Wolters Kluwer
`(Vol. 11A, 4th ed. 2014) ......................................................................................................9, 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`FACEBOOK’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 25 Filed 03/16/20 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on June 11, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
`the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 3 of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
`California, San Jose Division, at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California, this Motion to
`Dismiss filed by defendant Facebook, Inc. will be heard. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
`Facebook moves to dismiss the Complaint in the above-captioned action on the grounds that
`plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred, no plaintiff has suffered antitrust injury, plaintiffs have failed
`to allege plausible product markets, and plaintiffs have otherwise failed to state claims upon
`which relief can be granted. Facebook’s Motion to Dismiss is based on this Notice of Motion
`and the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
`STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Facebook requests that the Court
`dismiss plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`The antitrust laws promise each business “the freedom to compete.” United States v.
`Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596, 610 (1972). Competition can and does produce firms that
`succeed and, sometimes, firms that fail. So long as that success and failure stems from
`competition on the merits, the antitrust laws remain silent. Thus, the antitrust laws recognize
`both that a “firm that creates a valued service or product should not be punished … merely
`because the firm finds itself to be the holder of a natural monopoly,” Alaska Airlines, Inc. v.
`United Airlines, Inc., 948 F.2d 536, 548 (9th Cir. 1991), and that “the antitrust laws do not
`require the courts to protect [] businesses from the loss of profits due to continued
`competition[.]” Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104, 116 (1986).
`As plaintiffs allege, Facebook “rose to prominence in the face of fierce of competition.”
`Compl. ¶ 35. No one would say plaintiffs—four “app developers,” two of whom no longer exist,
`a third whose current status is unspecified, and a fourth who makes “loans to customers in the
`
`1
`FACEBOOK’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 25 Filed 03/16/20 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`Philippines,” id. ¶¶18-25—“rose to prominence.” In a meandering 110-page Complaint,
`plaintiffs contend that they depended on Facebook Application Programming Interfaces (“APIs”)
`with the expectation that their applications (or “apps”) could somehow mimic Facebook’s
`success. Plaintiffs also complain that Facebook did not enter into a contract allowing them
`access to the APIs but did enter into such contracts with better-known app developers. And
`plaintiffs hypothesize that Facebook monitored its competitors and acquired two of the more
`serious ones in 2012 and 2014. In the absence of these acquisitions, plaintiffs guess, either of the
`acquired firms might have emerged as alternatives to Facebook.
`Each of these theories fails as matter of law because it is at odds with the core principle
`that antitrust law protects competition and not competitors. Given just how far afield plaintiffs’
`theories go, it is unsurprising that they have failed to state a claim on multiple grounds.
`First, plaintiffs waited too long to sue. Each of the complained of acts occurred between
`five and eight years ago. Because there is a four-year statute of limitations period for antitrust
`damage claims, all of plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed to the extent they seek damages.
`Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief fares no better because courts import the same statutory
`four-year damages period to assess laches in the antitrust context.
`Second, plaintiffs completely fail to allege the nature of any injury caused by any of the
`challenged conduct. Indeed, plaintiffs tell us next-to-nothing about themselves, their business
`plans, their position in the market before the challenged acts occurred (many of which appear to
`have occurred before they even existed), and why any of the challenged acts caused them
`antitrust injuries. That most of the named plaintiffs have failed is unfortunate, but nothing in the
`Complaint permits a plausible inference that but for Facebook’s conduct, the outcome would be
`any different, or even that Facebook’s conduct was a contributing factor in plaintiffs’ demise.
`Third, plaintiffs fail to allege a plausible product market—a necessary predicate for each
`of plaintiffs’ theories. Given the reality that Facebook faces robust competition, which would be
`fatal to their case, plaintiffs have sought to define markets around “social data” and “social
`advertising.” But to state a claim, relevant markets must be alleged with sufficient detail to make
`
`2
`FACEBOOK’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 25 Filed 03/16/20 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`their contours known and must be defined to include all economic substitutes. Plaintiffs fail on
`both counts. Taking “data” and “advertising” and inserting the word “social” in front of them
`may be a way to gerrymander markets to make Facebook appear to have a larger market share
`than reality, but it is not a viable way to define relevant markets.
`Fourth, because the antitrust laws prize competition and not forced sharing or retroactive
`second-guessing, each of plaintiffs’ theories fails to state a claim, even if the Complaint’s far-
`fetched allegations are accepted as true. It is not unlawful monopolization to refuse to share
`infrastructure—built through innovation and at-risk investment—with your competitors on terms
`they desire. It is not an illegal agreement to decline to contract with certain firms. And it is not
`an antitrust violation to acquire companies where the theory of liability is that, had the years-old
`acquisitions not happened, the acquired firms would have helped plaintiffs compete. Finally,
`plaintiffs’ “injunctive relief” cause of action must also be dismissed because no such right of
`action exists in federal courts.
`Plaintiffs’ allegations fall well short of stating viable antitrust claims and should be
`dismissed. Because each claim is time-barred, there is no reason to grant leave to amend.
`BACKGROUND
`Facebook operates a portfolio of products. These include “core Facebook,” the photo-
`and video-sharing app Instagram, and the messaging app WhatsApp. Compl. ¶ 28. Since its
`inception, when Mark Zuckerberg developed core Facebook in a college dorm room, Facebook
`has evolved into a multi-billion-dollar, publicly traded company that has over two billion users
`worldwide. Compl. ¶¶ 27, 35-44.
`The Complaint alleges that beginning in 2007, Facebook allowed application developers
`to the integrate their apps with core Facebook. Compl. ¶¶ 51, 90-102. One way that it did so
`was by providing developers with access to certain APIs, which allowed developers to “query
`the Facebook network for information.” Id. ¶ 92. These included the “Friends API,” which “let
`third-party developers … search[] through a user’s friends, as well as their friends of friends,”
`and the “News Feed API,” which let such developers see “the stream of information that flowed
`
`3
`FACEBOOK’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 25 Filed 03/16/20 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`through a user’s news feed, such as a post about a friend of the user getting engaged or sharing a
`news article.” Id. ¶¶ 118-119.
`In April 2012, Facebook acquired Instagram. Compl. ¶ 260. Since the acquisition,
`Facebook has invested in and grown Instagram, such that Instagram now has a billion users. Id.
`¶¶ 260, 263-265. Facebook acquired WhatsApp in February 2014. Id. ¶ 290. Both acquisitions
`were reviewed and cleared by federal regulators. Federal Trade Commission, FTC Closes Its
`Investigation Into Facebook’s Proposed Acquisition of Instagram Photo Sharing Program (Aug.
`22, 2012), https://tinyurl.com/stxz53r (“Instagram Press Release”); Alexei Oreskovic, Facebook
`Says WhatsApp deal cleared by FTC, REUTERS (Apr. 10, 2014), https://tinyurl.com/wkm7tgg
`(“WhatsApp Article”).
`Managing API access is a critical tool that Facebook uses to “decisively police the
`integrity of its platforms,” in which “the public has a strong interest.” Stackla, Inc. v. Facebook
`Inc., 2019 WL 4738288, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2019). Consistent with this interest, in April
`2014, Facebook publicly announced that it was changing its policy with respect to third-party
`developer access to the Friends and News Feed APIs for the core Facebook app. Compl. ¶ 202.
`The Complaint alleges that after the April 2014 announcement and through April 2015,
`Facebook entered into a series of agreements—labeled in the Complaint “Whitelist and Data
`Sharing Agreements”—under which certain app developers were permitted ongoing access to
`these APIs. Id. ¶¶ 207-216. By April 2015, according to plaintiffs, the Friends and News Feed
`APIs were available only to developers that had a separate agreement with Facebook. Id. ¶ 205.
`In March 2019, Facebook publicly announced plans to “integrate the backends” of
`Instagram and WhatsApp with core Facebook. Compl. ¶ 301. This integration will “implement
`a unitary form of end-to-end encryption” across the products and “make them interoperable”
`with core Facebook. Id. ¶ 301.
`In January 2020, plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of a purported “developer class.” Compl. ¶
`389. Plaintiffs allege that Facebook’s limiting of access to its Friends and News Feed APIs
`almost five years ago constitutes both monopolization and attempted monopolization of the
`
`4
`FACEBOOK’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 25 Filed 03/16/20 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`purported U.S. and global “social data” and “social advertising” markets. Id. ¶¶ 364-371. They
`further claim that Facebook’s alleged execution of the so-called Whitelist and Data Sharing
`agreements—which also took place almost five years ago—is a “hub-and-spoke scheme” in
`restraint of trade. Id. ¶¶ 217, 372. Finally, they say that the 2012 and 2014 acquisitions of
`Instagram and WhatsApp substantially lessened competition in, and amount to monopolization
`of, the purported markets. Id. ¶¶ 428, 433. They seek treble damages, the divestiture of
`Instagram and WhatsApp, and an order compelling non-party Zuckerberg to “divest himself of
`incontestable control over the company.” Id. ¶¶ 31, 449-450.
`ARGUMENT
`On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in the private antitrust litigation context, “it is one
`thing to be cautious before dismissing an antitrust complaint in advance of discovery, but quite
`another to forget that proceeding to antitrust discovery can be expensive. As such, a district
`court must retain the power to insist upon some specificity in pleading before allowing a
`potentially massive factual controversy to proceed.” Feitelson v. Google Inc., 80 F. Supp. 3d
`1019, 1025-1026 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (Freeman, J.) (quotations and citations omitted). Thus, “a
`complaint’s allegation of a practice that may or may not injure competition is insufficient to
`‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Brantley v. NBC Universal, Inc., 675 F.3d
`1192, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see
`also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (“Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely
`consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, ‘it stops short of the line between possibility and
`plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557)).
`This Court should dismiss each of plaintiffs’ claims. First, every claim is time-barred
`because the challenged conduct occurred over four years ago. Second, plaintiffs have not alleged
`antitrust injury. Third, plaintiffs fail to state a claim on the merits: The product markets they
`allege are implausible, and they advance theories that are either incoherent, implausible, or both.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`FACEBOOK’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`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 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 25 Filed 03/16/20 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED
`A.
`The Statute Of Limitations And Laches Bar Plaintiffs’ Claims
`Private lawsuits seeking damages for alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
`Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act are subject to a four-year statute of limitations.
`See 15 U.S.C. §15b. While there is no statute of limitations for antitrust claims seeking
`injunctive relief, such claims “are subject to the equitable defense of laches.” Oliver v. SD-3C
`LLC, 751 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing International Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. General Tel.
`& Electronics Corp. (“ITT”), 518 F.2d 913, 926 (9th Cir. 1975)). Courts use the Clayton Act’s
`four-year statute of limitations for damages claims as a “guideline” for “comput[ing] [] the
`laches period” in suits for injunctive relief. ITT, 518 F.2d at 926. Thus, in “applying laches”
`courts “look to the same legal rules that animate the four-year statute of limitations.” Oliver, 751
`F.3d at 1086. Here, plaintiffs’ damages claims are time-barred by the four-year statute of
`limitations and their requests for injunctive relief are similarly precluded by the doctrine of
`laches. The lawsuit should therefore be dismissed.
`Subject to inapplicable exceptions, a “cause of action in antitrust accrues each time a
`plaintiff is injured by an act of the defendant and the statute of limitations runs from the
`commission of the act.” Pace Indus., Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co., 813 F.2d 234, 237 (9th Cir.
`1987). The Complaint itself only challenges four independent acts—to plaintiffs a “scheme”—
`as violative of the antitrust laws: The April 2012 acquisition of Instagram, Compl. ¶ 260, the
`February 2014 acquisition of WhatsApp, id. ¶ 290, entry into a series of “data sharing”
`agreements from April 2014 to April 2015, id. ¶ 207, and Facebook’s April 2015 modification of
`its API policy, id. ¶ 205. Each challenged act occurred five to eight years before the Complaint
`was filed and is alleged to have caused injury to the plain