Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 17
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`
`JOHN ULIN (SBN 165524)
`Email: julin@troygould.com
`AMY STALLING (SBN 316353)
`Email: astalling@troygould.com
`TROYGOULD PC
`1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-2367
`Telephone:
`(310) 553-4441
`Facsimile:
`(310) 201-4746
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`MAFFICK LLC
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MAFFICK LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`company,
`
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`and Does 1-10, inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`(1) DEFAMATION;
`(2) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
`WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS;
`(3) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
`WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
`RELATIONS;
`(4) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH
`PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
`RELATIONS;
`(5) VIOLATION OF § 43(a) OF THE
`LANHAM ACT; AND
`(6) VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF.
`CODE § 17200, ET. SEQ.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff MAFFICK LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Maffick”), for its
`Complaint against Defendant FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Facebook”), and Does
`1-10, inclusive, hereby alleges as follows:
`THE PARTIES
`Maffick is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
`1.
`Delaware, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.
`At all relevant times, Maffick has been a single member LLC. Its sole
`2.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
` - 0.0
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 2 of 17
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`
`member is Anissa Naouai (“Naouai”), a United States citizen living in Los Angeles.
`
`Maffick is a social media and e-commerce company that focuses on social media
`3.
`
`
`optimization and brand development. It operates three social media channels on Facebook and
`
`
`
`Instagram: “In the Now,” “Soapbox,” and “Waste-Ed” and engages in e-commerce through one of
`its social media channels, which allows for direct purchases of products within Facebook and
`Instagram.
`Facebook is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with
`4.
`its principal place of business in Menlo Park, California.
`At all relevant times, Facebook has operated social media platforms through its
`5.
`Facebook and Instagram websites and applications, on which millions of users publish content and
`engage in commercial activities, including Maffick.
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise,
`6.
`of the defendants sued as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore
`sues those defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to state their true
`names and capacities when they have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
`based thereon alleges, that the fictitiously named defendants were responsible in some manner for
`the acts and transactions alleged in this Complaint and are liable to Plaintiff therefor.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each defendant is,
`7.
`and at all relevant times herein mentioned was, the agent, servant, employee, alter-ego,
`instrumentality, representative, co-venturer and/or partner of one or more of the other defendants,
`and in doing the actions herein alleged, acted within their scope and authority and with the
`knowledge, consent, approval and ratification of each of the other defendants.
`JURISDICTION
`Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`Venue is proper in the Northern District Court of California because Facebook’s
`9.
`terms and conditions require that suit be brought there. Defendant Facebook’s headquarters are in
`
`8.
`
`
` - 0.0
`
`2
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 3 of 17
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`
`San Mateo County, California and assignment is appropriate to the San Francisco / Oakland
`
`division pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(c).
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Maffick is a social media company that focuses on social media optimization and
`10.
`brand development. It operates three social media channels on Facebook and Instagram. Maffick
`also offers e-commerce merchandise for sale over its social media pages. Its revenue is derived
`from monetization of media content, advertising for branded content that is promoted on its social
`media channels, and the re-sale of original content that is created for its channels.
`Maffick’s channel “In the Now” is directed toward a community of mindful media
`11.
`consumers and is centered around important, curious and purpose-driven content. It tells stories
`about social justice, everyday heroism, acts of kindness and doing good where it matters most.
`Examples of recent stories include a delivery man who received a surprise gift from a customer, a
`man whose family was killed in a plane crash, and lessons we can learn from indigenous people
`about connectedness.
`Maffick’s channel “Waste-Ed” focuses on environmental issues and sustainability,
`12.
`both in the content it delivers, and the companies and brands promoted on the channel. Examples
`of recent stories include an eleven-year-old who recycled nearly one million cans, a trach picking
`action figure, and the relocation of a one-hundred-year-old tree. Maffick also promotes the sale of
`environmentally conscious products.
`Maffick’s channel “Soapbox” delivers political opinion and seeks to expose
`13.
`hypocrisy across the political spectrum. Examples of recent stories include an Iraq War veteran
`relating his experiences, a video of Nelson Mandela responding to a reporter who was critical of
`him, and a finding that prison sentences are 20% longer for black men than for white men for
`similar crimes.
`Maffick’s channels are intentionally non-partisan and Maffick does not seek to
`14.
`represent any one point of view. Its mission statement makes clear that there are more than two
`sides to every story and it actively seeks to produce content that rises above any one perspective to
`tell stories in a neutral manner that encourages its audience to form their own opinions. Maffick
`
`
` - 0.0
`
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 4 of 17
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`
`determines what content to post based on analytical data from CrownTangle and Tubular Labs
`
`concerning audience preferences.
`
`
`On May 18, 2020, Facebook contacted Maffick and threatened to shut down all of
`15.
`
`
`
`its social media pages by May 22, 2020, unless Maffick posted a disclosure on all of its accounts
`stating that Maffick was “a brand of Maffick Media, which is owned and operated by Ruptly
`GmbH, a subsidiary of RT news.”
`Maffick is not owned or operated by Ruptly GmbH (“Ruptly”) and is not a brand
`16.
`of Maffick Media GmbH (“Maffick Media”). Maffick is owned and operated by Anissa Naouai.
`Ruptly is a part-owner of the inactive German entity, Maffick Media, in which Ms.
`17.
`Naouai owned a 49% interest. Maffick Media no longer does business of any kind.
`In July 2019, Ms. Naouai formed an entirely new entity known as Maffick LLC, a
`18.
`Delaware company in which neither Maffick Media nor Ruptly has any involvement. While Ms.
`Naouai chose to continuing using the “Maffick” name for the new LLC, the company is not related
`to or associated with Maffick Media (or Ruptly). The social media pages at issue were created by
`Ms. Naouai, are owned by Maffick LLC, and have been continually operated and controlled by her.
`She has and always has had final editorial control over what she and the staff at Maffick post on
`those pages.
`On May 19, 2020, Maffick responded to Facebook, indicating that its pages were
`19.
`actually owned by Maffick LLC, an independent company owned and operated by a United States
`citizen, and that complying with Facebook’s demand that it disclose publicly that it was “owned
`and operated by Ruptly GmbH, a subsidiary of RT news” would require Maffick to post inaccurate
`information. Facebook did not respond.
`Maffick reached out to Facebook again on May 20, 21 and 22 seeking to resolve
`20.
`the situation without being required to post misinformation, but Facebook did not respond to any of
`those communications either.
`On May 22, 2020, Maffick was concerned that Facebook would follow through on
`21.
`its threat to shut down its pages completely, so as a temporary, stop-gap measure, Maffick posted
`the phrase “Affiliated with RT” in the “About section of Soapbox’s Facebook and Instagram
`
`
` - 0.0
`
`4
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`accounts, because Soapbox is a channel that posts what can be considered political content.
`
`Maffick’s intention was to compromise, keep its Facebook pages operating, and engage in further
`
`
`dialogue with Facebook, so that it would not be required to post further inaccurate information on
`
`
`
`any of its pages. Maffick reached out again to Facebook and again received no response.
`On June 4, 2020, Facebook publicly announced its plan “to label media outlets
`22.
`that are wholly or partially under the editorial control of their government,” and indicated that,
`“today we’re starting to apply labels to those state-controlled media outlets.” Facebook explained
`that it would label state-controlled media entities in order “to provide an extra layer of protection
`against various types of foreign influence in the public debate ahead of the November 2020
`election in the US.”
`According to Facebook, its “definition of state-controlled media extends beyond
`23.
`just assessing financial control or ownership and includes an assessment of editorial control exerted
`by a government.”
`In determining whether social media pages are under “editorial control by a
`24.
`foreign government,” Facebook indicated it considers the following criteria:
`Mission statement, mandate, and/or public reporting on how the
`organization defines and accomplishes its journalistic mission
`
`Ownership structure such as information on owners, stakeholders, board
`members, management, government appointees in leadership positions, and
`disclosure of direct or indirect ownership by entities or individuals holding
`elected office
`
`Editorial guidelines such as transparency around sources of content and
`independence and diversity of sources
`
`Information about newsroom leadership and staff
`
`Sources of funding and revenue
`
`Governance and accountability mechanisms such as correctional policies,
`procedure for complaints, external assessments and oversight boards
`
`
`25.
`
`On June 5, 2020, without reaching out to Maffick beforehand, Facebook published
`
`
` - 0.0
`
`5
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 6 of 17
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`
`a notice on the “Page Transparency” section of In the Now, Waste-Ed, and Soapbox, indicating that
`
`each page is “Russia state-controlled media” (“the Notice”).
`
`
`The Notice now appears on every social media post by In the Now, Waste-Ed,
`26.
`
`
`
`and Soapbox. It also appears on sponsored and e-commerce posts concerning the sale of
`merchandise over Maffick’s social media pages, giving the impression that the products are
`connected or associated with, or originate from, the Russian government.
`The Notice is false. Maffick is not controlled operationally or
`27.
`editorially by the Russian government or by Russian state entities or officials.
`The Notice immediately resulted and continues to result in negative
`28.
`comments from visitors to Maffick’s social media pages and viewers of its posts.
`Maffick was and is understandably concerned about having a false statement that
`29.
`it is “Russia state-controlled media” published on its Facebook pages and on every post that
`appears on In the Now, Waste-Ed, or Soapbox, and on posts relating to materials sold on the
`Waste-Ed e-commerce shop. It is also concerned about the harm to its reputation and business
`relationships and opportunities that the Notice is causing.
`As a result of these concerns, Maffick wrote to Facebook on June 30, 2020. Maffick
`30.
`informed Facebook that it was owned and operated by Maffick LLC and Anissa Naouai and not by
`any Russian governmental entity or official. It further detailed why none of Facebook’s own
`criteria support the conclusion that Maffick is “Russia state-controlled media.”
`31. With respect to Facebook’s criteria concerning “mission statement, mandate, and/or
`public reporting on how the organization defines and accomplishes its journalistic mission,”
`Maffick informed Facebook that its mission statement is laid out in the Maffick Optimization
`Policy (“MOP”), a commercially sensitive and confidential document that Maffick offered to share
`with Facebook, subject to appropriate protections against disclosure to third parties. Maffick noted
`that it is a social media company, not a news outlet. Its focus is social media optimization and
`brand development. Maffick is intentionally non-partisan and does not seek to represent any one
`point of view.
`
`
` - 0.0
`
`6
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 7 of 17
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`
`32. With respect to Facebook’s criteria concerning “ownership structure such as
`
`information on owners, stakeholders, board members, management, government appointees in
`
`
`leadership positions, and disclosure of direct or indirect ownership by entities or individuals
`
`
`
`holding elected office,” Maffick reiterated that it is wholly owned by Maffick LLC and that Anissa
`Naouai is its sole shareholder. No Russian governmental entities or officials own any direct or
`indirect ownership interest in Maffick or any position in management or corporate governance.
`Maffick offered to provide documentation of this.
`As for “editorial guidelines such as transparency around sources of content and
`33.
`independence and diversity of sources,” Maffick noted that, while it is not a news organization, it
`adheres to journalistic standards in publishing, with a particular emphasis on transparency around
`independence and diversity of sources. Maffick fact checks to protect against disseminating
`misinformation and verifies original videos not only for copyright and licensing purposes, but for
`accountability. In the case of conflicting reports, Maffick bases the choice to run a story on the
`availability of three independent collaborations. Maffick cites both information and media sources
`on screen and/or in its social copy, cites all statistics and hard facts on which opinion pieces are
`based, and clearly identifies archival footage to avoid audience confusion as to when an event took
`place. Maffick informed Facebook that all its editorial decisions are rooted in MOP, an internal
`company document, which contains its editorial policy and outlines its brand mission and best
`practices for the optimization of visual media.
`34. With regard to “information about newsroom leadership and staff,” Maffick
`informed Facebook that it has a global production team based in Los Angeles, Berlin and Moscow
`and final authority on editorial matters rests with Maffick’s leadership in Los Angeles, specifically
`Anissa Naouai and Amanda Getty. No Russian state entities or officials have any input into
`editorial decisions at Maffick or any of their social media channels.
`35. Maffick informed Facebook that its “sources of funding and revenue” are
`monetization of media content, advertising for branded content that is promoted on its social media
`channels, and the re-sale of original content that is created for its channels.
`
`
` - 0.0
`
`7
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 8 of 17
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`
`Finally, with respect to “governance and accountability mechanisms such as
`36.
`
`correctional policies, procedure for complaints, external assessments and oversight board,” Maffick
`
`
`noted that it has an express policy on corrections which provides: “We acknowledge our mistakes
`
`
`
`when we make them and we’re eager to learn from them. If we get it wrong, we take it down.
`Period. And we have systems in place to ensure that the chances of us getting it wrong are slim. In
`the event of a harmless mistake that can’t be changed immediately (like a typo in a video), we leave
`the post active until engagement dies down, and then we expire it. If needed we add updates to
`comments/descriptions to ensure we’re providing the best information we have. We have not had
`an instance in which we’re required to publish a statement, but in the event that we do, we will
`make it clear publicly we understand where we went wrong.”
`37. While there have not been external assessments of Maffick’s editorial processes or
`accountability procedures, Maffick noted that, in 2019, it won several awards for its excellence in
`digital media including “Media Agency of the Year” from Digiday, the Shorty Award for Best
`Overall Facebook Presence, and the Lovie Award for Best Viral Video. Maffick’s film about “fast
`fashion” was recently selected for the Los Angeles Fashion Film Festival and the United Nations
`Association Film Festival.
`Given that none of Facebook’s own criteria for determining whether a social media
`38.
`provider is state-controlled media supported the conclusion that Maffick is controlled by the
`Russian state, which it is not, Maffick asked Facebook to remove the Notice from its pages
`immediately and, in any event, to respond to its June 30 letter by July 7, 2020.
`Facebook did not respond. On July 8, 2020 Maffick wrote to Facebook again,
`39.
`asking that it immediately remove the false Russia state-controlled media designation from its
`pages and respond to the June 30 letter by no later than July 15, 2020.
`By July 14, 2020, when Facebook still had not responded to Maffick’s repeated
`40.
`outreach, Maffick reached out again to a contact at Facebook’s legal department. Finally, on July
`15, 2020, Facebook wrote to Maffick indicating that a response to the June 30 letter would be
`forthcoming.
`
`
` - 0.0
`
`8
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 9 of 17
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`
`On July 20, 2020, Facebook finally responded to Maffick’s letter. Facebook’s
`41.
`
`outside counsel wrote to indicate that Facebook was not willing to take down the Notice. Instead,
`
`
`Facebook proposed that Maffick resolve its dispute over the false Russia state-controlled media
`
`
`
`designation through Facebook’s internal appeal process. Facebook noted that Maffick had already
`initiated an appeal on June 30, 2020. Facebook counsel’s July 20 letter was the first
`acknowledgment Maffick had from anyone at Facebook that Maffick had even submitted an
`appeal.
`42. Maffick wrote back to Facebook on July 21, 2020, indicating its willingness to
`utilize the Facebook appeal process, if Facebook would agree to remove the Notice from Maffick’s
`pages during the pendency of the appeal, provide Maffick with a point person with whom to
`communicate about the appeal, and agree to a time period within which it would complete the
`appeal. Maffick expressed its concern about the efficacy of the appeal process without these
`protections, in light of its past experiences with Facebook’s slow response or non-response,
`including in connection with the dispute that is the subject of this case.
`On July 24, 2020, Facebook’s counsel wrote to reject each of Maffick’s proposals,
`43.
`insisting instead that Maffick participate in a “black box” appeal, in which it submits
`documentation to Facebook without any discussion about whether the documentation is sufficient,
`explanation of what else might be needed, or opportunity to supplement, and wait for an indefinite
`period of time for any response from Facebook, which would, of course, be judging the propriety
`of its own decisions.
`Facebook knows or should know that the Notice is false and that Maffick is not
`44.
`operated or controlled, editorially or otherwise, by any Russian government entity or official. At
`the very least, it knows that its public statement that Maffick is Russia-state controlled media is
`based on obsolete ownership information that requires further investigation. Facebook’s statement
`that Maffick is Russia state-controlled media is therefore either an intentional falsehood or has been
`made with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.
`45. Maffick has provided proof to Facebook that it is not owned or controlled by the
`Russian government, and that it is an independent, U.S.-based company, operated and controlled by
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT
`
`
` - 0.0
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 10 of 17
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`
`U.S. citizens from Los Angeles. Nevertheless, Facebook has continued to publish the Notice on
`
`Maffick’s pages.
`
`
`46. Maffick has repeatedly demanded that Facebook remove the false and defamatory
`
`
`
`language in the Notice and Facebook has failed to do so.
`In addition to being false, the Notice has caused and will continue to cause
`47.
`immediate and irreparable harm to Maffick’s reputation, its ongoing business relationships, and the
`viability of several current business development opportunities.
`In the first weeks since Facebook posted the Notice, Maffick’s monetization of its
`48.
`social media content (through advertising, e-commerce and otherwise) is down 50% from its
`monthly average for 2020. Maffick’s “reach,” a metric that measures the number of people who
`encounter its social media content, is down 74% over the same time period.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Libel Per Se – against all Defendants)
`49. Maffick incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-48 above
`as though fully set forth herein.
`Facebook has falsely published to Maffick’s millions of subscribers and social
`50.
`media visitors and to the public at large the false factual statement that Maffick is a “Russia state-
`controlled media” entity.
`The individuals who have viewed Maffick’s Facebook pages and posts have
`51.
`reasonably understood that the statements are about Maffick, as the Notice is prominently
`displayed on each of its “Page Transparency” pages and above each of its individual posts.
`The individuals who have viewed the Notice reasonably understand the statement to
`52.
`mean that Maffick is under Russian government control and that it is operating with the purpose of
`furthering Russia’s agenda, including in connection with influencing the 2020 U.S. elections.
`In reality, Maffick is not owned, operated, controlled, or managed by the Russian
`53.
`government or any Russian governmental entities or officials, but is an independent U.S. company,
`operated and controlled by a U.S. citizen who lives and works in Los Angeles, California.
`
`
` - 0.0
`
`10
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 11 of 17
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`
`Facebook knows that Maffick is not a Russia state-controlled media entity and has
`54.
`
`been provided with information regarding Maffick’s true nature, ownership structure and
`
`
`operations.
`
`
`
`Nevertheless, Facebook improperly coerced Maffick into posting a false
`55.
`“disclosure” that it was owned and operated by a Russian media organization, and then posted its
`own false Notice on each of Maffick’s pages.
`Despite knowing the truth and knowing the harm that has been engendered by the
`56.
`false Notice, Facebook has refused to take the Notice down, despite numerous requests that it do
`so.
`
`In doing all of these actions, Facebook has acted fraudulently, with actual malice
`57.
`and in reckless disregard for the truth.
`Facebook’s wrongful conduct is a substantial factor in threatening to cause and
`58.
`causing immediate and irreparable harm to Maffick’s business relationships, opportunities and
`reputation.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations – against all Defendants)
`59. Maffick incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-58 above
`as though fully set forth herein.
`60. Maffick has existing contracts with various brands and organizations and it earns a
`substantial portion of its revenue by advertising and marketing through these strategic partnerships.
`Facebook knows about the existence of Maffick’s contractual relationships.
`61.
`62.
`By falsely labeling Maffick as “Russia state-controlled media,” Facebook has
`intentionally acted to induce the breach of the afore-mentioned contracts and has intentionally
`disrupted Maffick’s contractual relationships in order to cause harm to Maffick and to prevent it
`from successfully operating on Facebook’s platforms.
`As a result of Facebook’s intentional interference, Maffick’s partners are likely to
`63.
`withdraw from their contractual agreements. In addition, Maffick’s viewers have been misled to
`
`
` - 0.0
`
`11
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`believe that the products advertised by Maffick are somehow linked to or sponsored by the Russian
`
`government. This has caused and continues to cause financial and reputational damage to Maffick.
`
`
`64. Maffick has been harmed by Facebook’s intentional interference with its contractual
`
`
`
`relations in an amount to be determined at trial.
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations – against all
`Defendants)
`65. Maffick incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-64 above
`as though fully set forth herein.
`66. Maffick works with various brands and organizations and earns a substantial portion
`of its revenue by advertising and marketing through these strategic partnerships.
`In addition, Maffick has been actively expanding its paid partnerships, especially
`67.
`with companies producing sustainable and eco-friendly product lines, and has been developing
`additional branding to provide health and mindfulness content. Maffick’s brand, “In the Now”, has
`been working on programs to combat homelessness and support grass roots initiatives.
`Facebook knows about Maffick’s prospective economic relations, and Facebook
`68.
`knows that by posting the false Notice on Maffick’s pages, that those prospective economic
`relationships have been and will continue to be disrupted.
`Indeed, as a result of Facebook’s intentional interference, Maffick’s prospective
`69.
`partners have expressed concern about entering into economic relationships with Maffick and other
`potential partners have been discouraged from reaching out to Maffick in the first place. This has
`caused and continues to cause financial and reputational damage to Maffick, which is losing
`significant monetization and reach from its social media channels.
`70. Maffick has been harmed by Facebook’s intentional interference with its prospective
`economic relations in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`
` - 0.0
`
`12
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 13 of 17
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`
`(Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations – against all Defendants)
`
`
`71. Maffick incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-70 above
`
`
`
`as though fully set forth herein.
`72. Maffick works with various brands and organizations and earns a substantial portion
`of its revenue by advertising and marketing through these strategic partnerships.
`In addition, Maffick has been actively expanding its paid partnerships, including
`73.
`specifically with companies producing sustainable and eco-friendly product lines, and has been
`developing additional branding to provide health and mindfulness content. Maffick’s brand, “In
`the Now”, has been working on programs to combat homelessness and support grass roots
`initiatives.
`Facebook knew or should have known about Maffick’s prospective economic
`74.
`relations, and Facebook knew or should have known that by posting the false Notice on Maffick’s
`pages, that those prospective economic relationships would be disrupted.
`Facebook failed to act with reasonable care and acted wrongfully by posting a false
`75.
`Notice on Maffick’s pages accusing Maffick of being “Russia state-controlled media.”
`Indeed, as a result of Facebook’s actions, Maffick’s prospective partners have
`76.
`expressed concern about entering into economic relationships with Maffick and other potential
`partners have been discouraged from reaching out to Maffick in the first place. This has caused
`and continues to cause financial and reputational damage to Maffick, which is losing significant
`monetization and reach from its social media channels.
`77. Maffick has been harmed by Facebook’s negligent interference with its prospective
`economic relations in an amount to be determined at trial.
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act – against all Defendants)
`78. Maffick incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-77 above
`as though fully set forth herein.
`
`
` - 0.0
`
`13
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05222 Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 Page 14 of 17
`
`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
`TroyGould
`PC
`
`
`Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act prohibits commercial activities that tend to mislead
`79.
`
`the consuming public, including but not limited to false descriptions or representations of fact
`
`
`concerning the origin, sponsorship, or approval of services or commercial activities or
`
`
`
`misrepresentation of their nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origins.
`Facebook has violated the Lanham Act by applying the false and misleading label of
`80.
`“Russia state-controlled media” to Maffick, in connection with the goods and services marketed by
`Maffick on Facebook and Instagram, and by publishing the Notice on Maffick’s social media
`pages.
`
`Facebook’s platforms are used in interstate commerce and throughout the world for
`81.
`the purposes of commercial advertising and promotion.
`By falsely labeling Maffick’s pages as “Russia state-controlled media,” and thereby
`82.
`falsely representing that Facebook’s own criteria support that conclusion, Facebook is making
`misleading representations and descriptions of fact about the origin, sponsorship or approval of
`portions of its own social media platform, in violation of Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act.
`Specifically, Facebook falsely represents that certain pages that it serves are Russia state-controlled
`media, when that is not true, as part of an effort to promote itself as a responsible social media
`company, at a time when it has been under scrutiny by the press and the federal government
`concerning whether it has taken sufficient actions to preserve the integrity of U.S. elections from
`improper social media influence by foreign governments.
`In addition, because Facebook’s falsely labeling Maffick as “Russia state-controlled
`83.
`media” is part of a campaign intended to promote Facebook’s image as a responsible social media
`company, it is also v