throbber
Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 47
`
`
`
`HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
`Ann Marie Mortimer (State Bar No. 169077)
`amortimer@HuntonAK.com
`Jason J. Kim (State Bar No. 221476)
`kimj@HuntonAK.com
`Jeff R. R. Nelson (State Bar No. 301546)
`jnelson@HuntonAK.com
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`Telephone: (213) 532-2000
`Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`FACEBOOK, INC. and INSTAGRAM, LLC
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware
`corporation; INSTAGRAM, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO.: 3:20-cv-02429
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
`JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`BASANT GAJJAR, d/b/a
`“LeadCloak”
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 47
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) and Instagram, LLC (“Instagram”) allege
`
`the following:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Since May 2016, Defendant has enabled and assisted fraudulent
`
`advertisers in circumventing Facebook’s and Instagram’s advertisement review
`
`process using a practice known as “cloaking.” Cloaking is a “bait-and-switch”
`
`technique used to hide the true nature of the website linked to an ad from Plaintiffs,
`
`meanwhile presenting different content to users who clicked on the ad. Specifically,
`
`Defendant developed, marketed, and sold software and services designed to cloak ads
`
`that violated Plaintiffs’ Terms and Policies. As a result, Defendant prevented
`
`Plaintiffs from detecting and rejecting improper ads.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant’s cloaking services were used to promote, among other things,
`
`deceptive diet pills and pharmaceuticals, cryptocurrency investment scams, and even
`
`misinformation about the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`3.
`
`In addition to using technical enforcement measures against Defendant,
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action for monetary and injunctive relief to stop Defendant’s
`
`abuse and misuse of their platforms and products and violations of their Terms and
`
`Advertising Policies.
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Facebook is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Menlo Park, San Mateo County, California. Plaintiff Instagram is a
`
`subsidiary and product of Facebook.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Basant Gajjar is the founder and system architect of an
`
`unregistered California business called “LeadCloak,” which offered cloaking software
`
`as a service on LeadCloak.com. Exs. 1, 2, and 3. According to the LeadCloak.com
`
`website, LeadCloak is a “powerful cloaker that you can use to easily cloak various ad
`
`networks to get targeted traffic to your website and offer pages.” Exs. 3 and 4.
`
`LeadCloak claims that it enables advertisers to circumvent ad review systems used by
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 47
`
`
`
`Facebook, Instagram, Google, Oath, WordPress, Shopify, and others. Exs. 3 and 4.
`
`Defendant Gajjar has operated LeadCloak since at least May 2016. Exs. 1 and 2.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Gajjar is a citizen of India, currently residing in Bangkok,
`
`Thailand. According to information from public records, between 2004 and 2019,
`
`Defendant has also used various personal and business mailing addresses in the
`
`United States, including addresses in Sacramento and San Jose, California. According
`
`to Gajjar’s LinkedIn profile, one of his businesses operates in San Francisco. Ex. 1.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over all causes of
`
`action alleged in this complaint because complete diversity exists and the amount in
`
`controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant had multiple Facebook and Instagram accounts and thereby
`
`agreed to Instagram’s Terms of Use, and Facebook’s Terms of Service and agreed to
`
`submit to the personal jurisdiction of this Court for litigating this matter. Defendant
`
`also had multiple ad accounts and agreed to Facebook’s Commercial Terms under
`
`which he agreed to submit to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`9.
`
`In addition, the Court has personal jurisdiction because Defendant
`
`knowingly directed and targeted his conduct at California and at Plaintiffs, which have
`
`their principal place of business in California. Defendant transacted business and
`
`engaged in commerce in California. Plaintiffs’ claims arise directly from all of these
`
`California contacts.
`
`10. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as
`
`the threatened and actual harm to the Plaintiffs occurred in this district.
`
`11. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2(c), this case may be assigned to either the San
`
`Francisco or Oakland division because Facebook is located in San Mateo County.
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`2
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 4 of 47
`
`
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A. Background
`
`1.
`
`Advertising on Facebook and Instagram
`
`12. Facebook is a social networking website and mobile application that
`
`enables its users to create their own personal profiles and connect with each other on
`
`their personal computers and mobile devices. As of December 2019, Facebook daily
`
`active users averaged 1.66 billion and monthly active users averaged 2.5 billion.
`
`13.
`
`Instagram is a photo and video sharing service, mobile application, and
`
`social network. Instagram users can post photos and videos to their profile. They can
`
`also view and comment on posts shared by others on Instagram.
`
`14. Anyone with a Facebook or Instagram account can create and place ads
`
`on Facebook and Instagram. Every week, users create millions of ads through
`
`Plaintiffs’ ad platforms, which provide advertisers with many options for reaching
`
`their target audiences, so long as the ads comply with Facebook’s and Instagram’s
`
`terms and policies.
`
`15. To create and publish an ad on Facebook and Instagram, an advertiser
`
`must agree to Facebook’s Terms of Service, Self-Serve Ad Terms, Commercial
`
`Terms, and Advertising Policies. Advertisers are also subject to Facebook’s
`
`Community Standards and Instagram’s Community Guidelines.
`
`16. Ads are subject to Facebook’s ad review system, which relies primarily
`
`on automated tools that review ads for compliance with Facebook’s Advertising
`
`Policies. This automated review happens before an ad can run. Ads may also be
`
`subject to additional review after they are published, depending on user feedback and
`
`other indicators.
`
`17.
`
`If the ad review process identifies a policy violation, the ad is rejected,
`
`and the advertiser will receive a rejection message. Some ads are flagged by the
`
`automated ad review system for manual human review. If the ad review system does
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 47
`
`
`
`not detect a policy violation, the advertiser will receive a notification confirming that
`
`the ad will begin running.
`
`18. Facebook can also take a range of enforcement actions against an
`
`advertiser who violates the Advertising Policies, including banning an ad account
`
`from running ads.
`
`2.
`
`Cloaking
`
`19. One of the components reviewed by the ad review system is the website
`
`landing page (“landing page”) a person will see if he or she clicks on an ad. If the
`
`landing page violates Facebook’s Advertising Policies, the ad will be rejected.
`
`20.
`
`“Cloaking” is a malicious technique used to circumvent the ad review
`
`process in order to deliver content on a landing page that violates Facebook’s
`
`Advertising Policies.
`
`21. Cloaking is used to misrepresent the landing page linked in an ad as
`
`compliant to Facebook and its ad review system, while simultaneously promoting
`
`non-compliant goods or services to Facebook users visiting the same landing page.
`
`Essentially, the web server hosting the landing page is programmed to display a
`
`landing page to Facebook’s review system that falls within the bounds of the
`
`Advertising Policy, when in fact, the true landing pages displayed to users frequently
`
`promote deceptive products and services and display disallowed images. The true
`
`landing pages will frequently include ads for deceptive diet pills and pharmaceuticals,
`
`cryptocurrency investment scams, or images of sexual content. Figure 1 is a visual
`
`illustration of how cloaking generally works.
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`4
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 6 of 47
`
`
`
`Figure 1: FB Ad Review and Cloaking
`
`WITHOUT CLOAKING
`
`WITH CLOAKING
`
`Ad with link to website
`
`Ad with link to website
`
`Facebook Ad Review
`System
`
`Facebook
`Users
`
`Facebook Ad
`Review System
`
`Facebook detects
`non-compliant landing page
`
`Non-compliant
`landing page
`
`Compliant
`landing page
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Facebook Terms of Service, Instagram’s Terms of Use, the
`
`Advertising Policies, and Commercial Terms
`22. All Facebook users must agree to Facebook’s Terms of Service1 and
`
`other rules that govern access to, and use of, Facebook. Those Terms include
`
`Facebook’s Advertising Policy, Self-Service Ad Terms, and Commercial Terms.
`23. Everyone who uses Instagram agrees to Instagram’s Terms of Use2 and
`
`other rules that govern access to and use of Instagram, including Instagram’s
`Community Guidelines.3 The Instagram Terms of Use state that because Instagram is
`
`a Facebook product, the Instagram Terms of Use constitute an agreement between
`Instagram users and Facebook.4
`
`
`1 Facebook’s Terms of Service can be found at https://www.facebook.com/terms.php.
`2 Instagram Terms of Use can be found at
`https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870.
`3 Instagram Community Guidelines can be found at
`https://help.instagram.com/477434105621119.
`4 https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870.
`
`
`
`
`5
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 7 of 47
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Instagram’s Terms of Use and section 3.2.1 of the Facebook Terms of
`
`Service prohibit users from “do[ing] . . . anything unlawful, misleading, [ ] or
`
`fraudulent” or facilitate or support others in doing so.
`
`25. Section 3.2.2 of the Facebook Terms of Service prohibits “upload[ing]
`
`viruses or malicious code or doing anything that could disable, overburden, or impair
`
`the proper working or appearance of [Facebook] Products.”
`
`26. Facebook’s Advertising Policies specify what types of ad content are
`
`allowed by people or entities that advertise across the Facebook Products.
`
`27. Facebook’s Self-Serve Ad Terms apply when a user uses self-serve
`
`advertising interfaces to create, submit, or deliver advertising or other commercial or
`
`sponsored activity or content. The Self-Service Ad Terms include the Advertising
`
`Policies.
`
`28. Advertising Policy 4.13 (available at https://www.facebook.com/policies/
`
`ads/) prohibits “ads, landing pages, and business practices” from “contain[ing]
`
`deceptive, false, or misleading content, including deceptive claims, offers, or
`
`methods.”
`
`29. Advertising Policy 4.28 prohibits “tactics intended to circumvent our ad
`
`review process or other enforcement systems,” including “techniques that attempt to
`
`disguise the ad’s content or destination page,” as well as “[r]estrict[ing] Facebook’s
`
`access to an ad’s destination page.”
`
`30. Advertising Policy 4.32 prohibits ads that “promote products, services,
`
`schemes or offers using deceptive or misleading practices.”
`
`31. Facebook Commercial Terms apply to access and use of Facebook and
`
`Facebook Products for any business or commercial purpose. Business and
`
`commercial purposes include, but are not limited to, advertising and products on
`
`Facebook and Instagram.
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 8 of 47
`
`
`
`B. Defendant Agreed to Facebook and Instagram’s Terms and Policies
`
`32. Defendant Gajjar has created and maintained at least four Facebook
`
`accounts since September 13, 2006, and therefore, agreed to Facebook’s Terms of
`
`Service and Policies. Between June 15, 2011 and November 16, 2019, Gajjar was an
`
`administrator of eight Facebook Pages that promoted marketing, computing, and
`
`financial services. Gajjar has used five ad accounts between January 4, 2008 and
`
`December 30, 2019.
`
`33. Defendant Gajjar created and maintained two Instagram user accounts,
`
`since July 28, 2015 and November 7, 2019, and agreed to Instagram’s Terms of Use.
`
`C. Defendant’s Cloaking on Facebook
`
`34. Since March 2016, and continuing to the present, Defendant offered
`
`cloaking services on the LeadCloak website targeting Facebook, Google and other
`
`advertising platforms. Exs. 1 - 5.
`
`35. Since January 2018, Defendant’s cloaking service was used to cloak the
`
`landing pages for hundreds of ads on Facebook directed at Facebook users in the
`
`United States and elsewhere. Some of the cloaked landing pages promoted
`
`cryptocurrency schemes and diet scams in violation of Facebook’s Advertising
`
`Policies and used the images of celebrities.
`
`36. For example, on or about September 16, 2019, Defendant’s cloaking
`
`service delivered an ad with an innocuous landing page to Facebook’s ad review
`
`system, which depicted an Amazon page for sweaters (Figure 2(a)). Ex. 6. In fact,
`
`Facebook users that clicked on the same ad were directed to a fake Fox News page
`
`marketing a dietary supplement and using images of celebrities (Figure 2(b)). Ex. 7.
`
`The ad was directed at users in the United States, including California. Between
`
`September 16, 2019 and September 17, 2019, approximately 425 Facebook users
`
`clicked on the ad and were directed to a cloaked landing page as a result of
`
`Defendant’s service.
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 9 of 47
`
`Figure 2(a): Landing Page
`Displayed to FB Review System
`
`Figure 2(b): Landing Page
`Displayed to FB Users
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37. Similarly, between March 21, 2020 and March 30, 2020, Defendant’s
`
`cloaking service was used to conceal the true landing page of ads directed at Facebook
`
`users in Denmark in order to promote a crytocurrency investment scheme.
`
`Specifically, at various times between March 21, 2020, and March 30, 2020,
`
`Defendant’s cloaking delivered an ad with an innocuous landing page to Facebook’s
`
`ad review system, which promoted stainless steel spoons (Figure 3(a)). Ex. 8. In fact,
`
`Facebook users that clicked on the same ad were directed to a fake news article that
`
`promoted bitcoin investments to counter the economic impact of the COVID-19
`
`pandemic and used the image of a local celebrity. (Figure 3(b)). Ex. 9.
`
`Appoximatley 4,202 Facebook users clicked on the ad.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2(a): Landing Page
`Displayed to FB Review System
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3(b): Landing Page
`Displayed to FB Users
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 10 of 47
`
`
`
`D. Defendant’s Cloaking Service
`
`38. Defendant promoted his cloaking service online and advertised that it
`
`was designed to circumvent various advertising review systems, including those
`
`operated by Facebook, Instagram, Google, Oath, WordPress, Shopify, and others.
`
`Exs. 3, 4, and 10. On his website, Defendant promoted various types of cloaking
`
`techniques to advertisers. Ex. 4. For example, Defendant’s website advised
`
`advertisers to block IP addresses belonging to Facebook or Google in order to prevent
`
`Facebook and Google from reviewing the non-complaint landing page used for the ad
`
`when advertising on Facebook and Google. Ex. 11.
`
`39. Defendant’s customers used LeadCloak.com to setup and run cloaked
`
`advertising campaigns on Facebook and Google. Exs. 3, 4, and 10 – 14. Advertisers
`
`using the LeadCloak website were able to select the advertising network for the
`
`campaign; the landing page to be shown to the ad review system; the geographic
`
`locations to target with the campaign; and set other advertising criteria. Exs. 10 – 13.
`
`40. Once an advertiser set up a campaign, LeadCloak generated and
`
`delivered computer code (“LeadCloak cloaking code”) to the advertiser that enabled
`
`the advertiser to cloak ads on advertising networks, including Facebook if that was the
`
`selected network. Ex. 13. The LeadCloak cloaking code provided the logic used to
`
`determine which landing page would be shown to the user (or ad review system) that
`
`clicked on an advertisement. Advertisers integrated the LeadCloak cloaking code into
`
`their pre-existing code base on their web server to enable cloaking.
`
`41.
`
`In exchange for a fixed fee, Defendant provided advertisers with access
`
`to his cloaking software and technical support. Ex. 14. Defendant offered his
`
`cloaking service under a monthly plan or a “pay-as-you-go” plan. Id.
`
`42. Defendant charged monthly users of his cloaking services a fixed fee
`
`based on the number of advertising campaigns the customer ran. Id. As shown in
`
`Figure 4 below, the Defendant charged his monthly customers between $399 and
`
`$1,999 a month for use of his cloaking service.
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 11 of 47
`
`
`
`Figure 4: Monthly Cost for Defendant’s Cloaking Service
`
`43. Defendant charged “pay-as-you-go” advertisers a fixed fee based on the
`
`number of clicks an advertiser’s advertisement received. Id. The prices for
`
`Defendant’s “pay-as-you-go” plan is shown below in Figure 5.
`
`Figure 5: Pay-as-you-go Cost for Defendant’s Cloaking Service
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 12 of 47
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Facebook’s Enforcement Actions
`
`44. Facebook took various technical enforcement measures against
`
`Defendant and his customers, including disabling user and ad accounts on Facebook
`
`and Instagram.
`
`F. Defendant’s Acts Have Caused Damage and a Loss to Facebook
`
`45. Defendant interfered with Plaintiffs’ service and has negatively impacted
`
`the Facebook and Instagram experience for users who viewed and clicked on ads
`
`containing landing pages cloaked using his software and service.
`
`46. Defendant’s breaches of Plaintiffs’ Terms and Advertising Policies have
`
`caused Facebook substantial harm.
`
`47. Defendant’s actions injured Plaintiffs’ reputation, public trust, and
`
`goodwill.
`
`48. Facebook has suffered damages attributable to the efforts and resources it
`
`has used to address this Complaint, investigate and mitigate Defendant’s conduct, and
`
`attempt to identify, analyze, and stop his injurious activities.
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Breach of Contract)
`
`49. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all preceding paragraphs.
`
`50. Since September 13, 2006, Defendant Gajjar created and maintained at
`
`least four Facebook user accounts and therefore he agreed to Facebook’s Terms and
`
`Policies, including the Commercial Terms and Advertising Policies.
`
`51. Since July 28, 2015, Defendant Gajjar created and maintained two
`
`Instagram user accounts and therefore he agreed to Instagram’s Terms of Use.
`
`52. Between June 15, 2011 and November 16, 2019, Defendant was an
`
`administrator of eight Facebook Pages that promoted marketing, computing, and
`
`financial services. Gajjar also used five ad accounts between January 4, 2008 and
`
`December 30, 2019.
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 13 of 47
`
`
`
`53. From 2016 to the present, Defendant breached the Instagram Terms of
`
`Use, Facebook’s Terms of Service, and Advertising Policies 4.13, 4.28, and 4.32 by
`
`taking the actions described in this Complaint, including by cloaking the landing
`
`pages of ads appearing on Facebook and Instagram. More specifically, Defendant
`
`developed, marketed, and sold cloaking software as a service on his website
`
`LeadCloak.com. Defendant enabled and supported Facebook advertisers in
`
`circumventing Facebook’s automated ad review process and other enforcement
`
`systems. Through his actions, Defendant misrepresented certain ads’ true landing
`
`page to Plaintiffs, and as a result, Defendant facilitated and supported evading
`
`Plaintiffs’ ad review system.
`
`54. Defendant’s actions violated Facebook’s Term of Service 3.2.1 and
`
`Instagram’s Terms of Use because they constitute unlawful, misleading, or fraudulent
`
`conduct and Defendant facilitated and supported others to do the same.
`
`55. Defendant’s actions violated Facebook’s Term of Service 3.2.2 because
`
`his cloaking code disabled and impaired and could disable and impair Facebook’s ad
`
`review system and Facebook’s ability to access an ad’s landing page.
`
`56. Defendant violated Self-Service Ad Terms and Advertising Policies 4.13
`
`and 4.32 because he cloaked ads that used landing pages that contained deceptive,
`
`false, or misleading content, including deceptive and misleading claims, offers, and
`
`methods to promote products, services and schemes like the cryptocurrency scam
`
`shown in figure 3(b) above. Additionally, Defendant’s conduct violated Advertising
`
`Policy 4.28, which explicitly prohibits the use of tactics to circumvent Facebook’s ad
`
`review process, including restricting Facebook’s ability to access an ad’s landing
`
`page.
`
`57. Defendant’s actions interfered and caused others to interfere with
`
`Instagram and Facebook’s service in violation of Facebook’s Commercial Terms.
`
`58. Facebook has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required
`
`of it in accordance with its agreement with Defendant.
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 14 of 47
`
`
`
`59. Defendant’s breaches of Plaintiffs’ Terms and Policies have caused
`
`damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendant as follows:
`
`1.
`
`That the Court enter judgment against Defendant that Defendant has
`
`breached his contract with Plaintiffs in violation of California law; and
`
`2.
`
`That the Court enter a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining
`
`Defendant and his agents, servants, employees, successors, and assigns, and all other
`
`persons acting in concert with or conspiracy with him or affiliated with Defendant
`
`from:
`
`a.
`
`Accessing or attempting to access Facebook’s and Instagram’s
`
`platform and computer systems;
`
`b.
`
`Developing, offering, and marketing software or computer code
`
`intended to circumvent Facebook’s ad review process and other
`
`enforcement measures;
`
`c.
`
`Engaging in any activity that disrupts, diminishes the quality of,
`
`interferes with the performance of, or impairs the functionality of
`
`Facebook’s and Instagram’s platform and computer systems;
`
`d.
`
`Engaging in any activity, or facilitating others to do the same, that
`
`violates Facebook’s Terms of Service, Self-Service Ad Terms, and
`
`Advertising Policies, and Instagram’s Terms of Use.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`That Plaintiffs be awarded damages in such amounts to be proven at trial.
`
`That Plaintiffs be awarded pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by
`
`law.
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`13
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 15 of 47
`
`
`
`5.
`
`That the Court grant all such other and further relief as the Court may
`
`deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 9, 2020
`
`HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Ann Marie Mortimer
`Ann Marie Mortimer
`Jason J. Kim
`Jeff R. R. Nelson
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`FACEBOOK, INC. and
`INSTAGRAM, LLC
`
`Facebook Platform Enforcement
`and Litigation
`Jessica Romero
`Michael Chmelar
`
`
`
`14
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 16 of 47
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 9, 2020
`
`HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Ann Marie Mortimer
`Ann Marie Mortimer
`Jason J. Kim
`Jeff R. R. Nelson
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`FACEBOOK, INC. and
`INSTAGRAM, LLC
`
`073923.0000048 EMF_US 79884725v1
`
`
`15
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`3:20-cv-02429
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 17 of 47
`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 17 of 47
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 18 of 47
`
`2019-12-13 - Screenshot from https://www.linkedin.com/in/basant-gajjar-037b1a
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 19 of 47
`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 19 of 47
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`18
`
`18
`
`

`

`4/1/2020
`
`Iris | DomainTools
`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 20 of 47
` Inspect: leadcloak.com
`
`Domain Profile
`
`Screenshot History
`
`Whois History
`
`Hosting History
`
`SSL Profile
`
`2016-12-06 - (3 years ago)
`
`Domain
`
`leadcloak.com
`
`Record Date
`
`2016-12-06
`
`Registrar
`
`Server
`
`Created
`
`Updated
`
`Expires
`
`GODADDY.COM, LLC
`
`whois.godaddy.com
`
`2016-11-29 (3 years ago)
`
`2016-11-29 (3 years ago)
`
`2017-11-29 (2 years ago)
`
`Unique Emails
`
`abuse@godaddy.com
`leadcloak.com@domainsbyproxy.com
`
`https://research.domaintools.com/iris/search/?q=leadcloak.com
`
`1/3
`
`19
`
`

`

`4/1/2020
`
`Iris | DomainTools
`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 21 of 47
`Domain Name: leadcloak.com
`Registry Domain ID: 2077722849_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
`Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
`Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
`Update Date: 2016-11-29T07:13:32Z
`Creation Date: 2016-11-29T07:13:31Z
`Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-11-29T07:13:31Z
`Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
`Registrar IANA ID: 146
`Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@godaddy.com
`Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
`Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
`Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
`Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
`Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
`Registry Registrant ID: Not Available From Registry
`Registrant Name: Registration Private
`Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
`Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
`Registrant Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
`Registrant City: Scottsdale
`Registrant State/Province: Arizona
`Registrant Postal Code: 85260
`Registrant Country: US
`Registrant Phone: +1.4806242599
`Registrant Phone Ext:
`Registrant Fax: +1.4806242598
`Registrant Fax Ext:
`Registrant Email: leadcloak.com@domainsbyproxy.com
`Registry Admin ID: Not Available From Registry
`Admin Name: Registration Private
`Admin Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
`Admin Street: DomainsByProxy.com
`Admin Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
`Admin City: Scottsdale
`Admin State/Province: Arizona
`Admin Postal Code: 85260
`Admin Country: US
`Admin Phone: +1.4806242599
`Admin Phone Ext:
`Admin Fax: +1.4806242598
`Admin Fax Ext:
`Admin Email: leadcloak.com@domainsbyproxy.com
`Registry Tech ID: Not Available From Registry
`Tech Name: Registration Private
`Tech Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
`Tech Street: DomainsByProxy.com
`Tech Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
`Tech City: Scottsdale
`Tech State/Province: Arizona
`Tech Postal Code: 85260
`Tech Country: US
`Tech Phone: +1.4806242599
`Tech Phone Ext:
`Tech Fax: +1.4806242598
`Tech Fax Ext:
`Tech Email: leadcloak.com@domainsbyproxy.com
`Name Server: NS47.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
`Name Server: NS48.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
`DNSSEC: unsigned
`URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/
`
`https://research.domaintools.com/iris/search/?q=leadcloak.com
`
`2/3
`
`Historical Records
`
`20
`
`

`

`4/1/2020
`
`Iris | DomainTools
`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 22 of 47
`31 records found
`
`https://research.domaintools.com/iris/search/?q=leadcloak.com
`
`3/3
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 23 of 47
`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 23 of 47
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`22
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 24 of 47
`
`2020-04-06 - Screenshot from leadcloak.com
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 25 of 47
`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 25 of 47
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`24
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 26 of 47
`
`2020-04-06 - Screenshot from leadcloak.com/compare
`
`25
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02429 Do

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