`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 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 26
`
`
`
`Brenda Sharton (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`DECHERT LLP
`One International Place, 40th Floor
`100 Oliver Street
`Boston, MA 02110-2605
`Telephone: (617) 728-7100
`Facsimile: (617) 275-8374
`brenda.sharton@dechert.com
`
`Jonathan S. Tam (Bar No. 304143)
`DECHERT LLP
`One Bush Street, Suite 1600
`San Francisco, CA 94104-4446
`Telephone: (415) 262-4518
`Facsimile: (415) 262-4555
`jonathan.tam@dechert.com
`
`Benjamin M. Sadun (Bar No. 287533)
`DECHERT LLP
`US Bank Tower
`633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2032
`Telephone: (213) 808-5700
`Facsimile: (213) 808-5760
`benjamin.sadun@dechert.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Flo Health, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`ERICA FRASCO, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiff,
` v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT FILED:
`September 2, 2021
`
`Date:
`February 10, 2022
`Time:
`10:00 A.M.
`Dept.:
`Courtroom 11 – 19th Floor
`Judge:
`Honorable James Donato
`
`
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 2 of 26
`
`
`SARAH WELLMAN, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`JUSTINE PIETRZYK, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JENNIFER CHEN, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TESHA GAMINO, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 3 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`LEAH RIDGWAY and AUTUM N. MEIGS,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MADELINE KISS, individually and on behalf of
`all other similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 4 of 26
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
`BACKGROUND AND DISCLOSURES ..................................................................................................... 2
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................................. 3
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 4
`I.
`ALL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FAIL FOR LACK OF INJURY-IN-FACT. .............................. 4
`II.
`ALL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED. ............................................................. 5
`III.
`PLAINTIFFS AFFIRMATIVELY CONSENTED TO FLO’S DATA SHARING. ........................ 8
`IV. ALL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST FLO FAIL FOR ADDITIONAL
`INDEPENDENT REASONS. ........................................................................................................ 10
`A.
`Invasion of Privacy (Counts I & II) .................................................................................... 10
`B.
`Breach of Contract (Counts III & IV) ................................................................................. 11
`C.
`Unjust Enrichment (Count V) ............................................................................................. 12
`D.
`Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) (Count VI) ............................................................. 13
`E.
`California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”) (Count VII) ................ 14
`F.
`Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Count VIII) ................................................................ 15
`G.
`Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”) (Count XIV) ........... 15
`CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................... 15
`
`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
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 5 of 26
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Aguilera v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp.,
`223 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................................... 12
`
`Amusement Indus. Inc. v. Oganesyan,
`2006 WL 2665991 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc.,
`292 P.3d 871 (Cal. 2013) ......................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ................................................................................................................................. 3
`
`Avakian v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`2019 WL 3064426 (C.D. Cal. 2019) ..................................................................................................... 12
`
`Belluomini v. Citigroup, Inc.,
`2013 WL 3855589 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`Brokaw v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`122 F. App’x 305 (9th Cir. 2004) .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Cottle v. Plaid Inc.,
`2021 WL 1721177 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`Crossley v. California,
`479 F. Supp. 3d 901 (S.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................................... 10
`
`Custom Packaging Supply, Inc. v. Phillips,
`2015 WL 8334793 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2015) ......................................................................................... 15
`
`Darnaa, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`2015 WL 7753406 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) ........................................................................................... 5
`
`Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc.,
`823 F. App'x 482 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................................. 8
`
`In re DoubleClick, Inc. Privacy Litig.,
`154 F. Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc.,
`269 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (S.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................................................. 14
`
`In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig.,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 836 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ............................................................................................. 11, 13
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`- ii-
`
`21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 6 of 26
`
`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
`
`In re Facebook Priv. Litig.,
`791 F. Supp. 2d 705 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`In re Facebook, Inc., Consumer Priv. User Profile Litig.,
`402 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`Folgelstrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
`125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 260 (Ct. App. 2011) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`G & G Prods. LLC v. Rusic,
`902 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Gonzales v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`305 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`Gonzalez v. Google LLC,
`2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`In re Google,
`2013 WL 1283236 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ............................................................................................... 11, 15
`
`In re Google, Inc. Privacy Pol’y Litig.,
`2015 WL 4317479 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`Hambrecht & Quist Venture Partners v. Am. Med. Int’l., Inc.,
`46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 33 (Ct. App. 1995) ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp.,
`494 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Hancock v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`In re Holl,
`925 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................................. 8
`
`In re iPhone App. Litig.,
`2011 WL 4403963 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ........................................................................................... 4, 12, 15
`
`In re iPhone App. Litig.,
`844 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ........................................................................................... 11, 13
`
`Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co.,
`614 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1980) ................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Janda v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`378 F. App’x 705 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`In re JetBlue Airways Corp., Privacy Litig.,
`379 F. Supp. 2d 299 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`- iii-
`
`21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 7 of 26
`
`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
`
`Kent v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2013 WL 3353875 (C.D. Cal. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ........................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Maureen K. v. Tuschka,
`155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 620 (Ct. App. 2013) .................................................................................................. 15
`
`McGowan v. Weinstein,
`505 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (C.D. Cal. 2020) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`McKelvey v. Boeing N. Am., Inc.
`86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 645 (Ct. App. 1999) .................................................................................................. 7, 8
`
`Opperman v. Path, Inc.,
`87 F. Supp. 3d 1018 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................................. 15
`
`Orkin v. Taylor,
`487 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`Paracor Fin., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp.,
`96 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................................. 13
`
`Parra v. ADT Sec. Servs.,
`2014 WL 4926277 (E.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................................................ 6
`
`Plumlee v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`664 F. App’x 651 (9th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................................ 6, 7
`
`In re Redback Networks, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`329 F. App’x 715 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................................ 3
`
`Rogers v. Am. President Lines, Ltd.,
`291 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1961) ................................................................................................................. 12
`
`San Mateo Union High Sch. Dist. v. Cnty. of San Mateo,
`152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 530 (Ct. App. 2013) .................................................................................................. 12
`
`Sanchez v. Compania Mexicana de Aviacion S.A.,
`361 F. App’x 751 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................................ 8
`
`Schramm v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`2010 WL 11483804 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`- iv-
`
`21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 8 of 26
`
`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
`
`Shah v. Meeker,
`435 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Smith v. Facebook, Inc.,
`262 F. Supp. 3d 943 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`Svenson v. Google Inc.,
`65 F. Supp. 3d 717 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ..................................................................................................... 12
`
`TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Ct.,
`117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 163 (Ct. App. 2002) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`Thakur v. Betzig,
`2019 WL 2211323 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`TransUnion LLC v Ramirez,
`141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) ............................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Tsao v. Captiva MVP Rest. Partners, LLC,
`986 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................................... 5
`
`United States v. Forrester,
`512 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................................. 10
`
`Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,
`76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 146 (Ct. App. 2008) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC,
`847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................................... 15
`
`In re Yahoo Mail Litig.,
`7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc.,
`733 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Yunker v. Pandora Media, Inc.,
`2013 WL 1282980 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ............................................................................................... 12, 13
`
`In re Zappos.com, Inc.,
`108 F. Supp. 3d 949 (D. Nev. 2015) ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`In re Zynga Privacy Litigation.
`750 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................................... 10, 13
`
`Statutes
`
`18 U.S.C.A. § 2510 ...................................................................................................................................... 13
`
`18 U.S.C.A. § 2702 ...................................................................................................................................... 13
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`- v-
`
`21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 9 of 26
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2707............................................................................................................................................ 6
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. ....................................................................................................... 15
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 56.05........................................................................................................................... 14, 15
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 56.06................................................................................................................................. 14
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3515................................................................................................................................ 2, 8
`
`Cal. Civ. P. Code § 335.1 .............................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Cal. Civ. P. Code § 338 ................................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Cal. Civ. P. Code § 339 ................................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Cal. Civ. P. Code § 340 ................................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Cal. Civ. P. Code § 340.8 .............................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Court Rules
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ................................................................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`- vi-
`
`21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 10 of 26
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 10, 2022, at 10:00 A.M., or as soon thereafter as this
`
`matter may be heard, Defendant Flo Health, Inc. will and hereby respectfully moves for an order dismissing
`Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. This
`Motion will be heard in the Courtroom of the Honorable James Donato for the United States District Court
`in the Northern District of California. The Court is located at the San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 11,
`19th Floor 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.
`This Motion is based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities set forth below, the
`accompanying declaration of Benjamin M. Sadun and the exhibits attached thereto, the accompanying
`Request for Judicial Notice, the pleadings on file herein, and upon such other matters as may be presented
`to the Court at the time of the hearing.
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`Whether Plaintiffs’ claims against Flo should be dismissed for lack of standing and for failure to
`state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and whether
`the claims should be dismissed with prejudice where amendment would be futile.
`
`
`Dated: November 1, 2021
`
`
`DECHERT LLP
`
`____
`By: /s/ Brenda R. Sharton
`Brenda R. Sharton (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Jonathan S. Tam (Bar No. 304143)
`Benjamin M. Sadun (Bar No. 287533)
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Flo Health, Inc.
`
`
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`- vii-
`
`21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 11 of 26
`
`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
`
`MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`This is a motion to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Flo Health, Inc. (“Flo”). Flo is a
`technology startup that provides reproductive and fertility information to millions of women worldwide
`through the Flo App (the “App”), a mobile application. As disclosed in the App’s Terms of Use (“TOU”)
`and Privacy Policy (“PP”)—which Plaintiffs affirmatively consented to—the App collects user data to
`operate the App, analyze user trends, and improve the user experience.1 Specifically, as Flo disclosed in its
`PP, the App used third-party tools provided by analytics divisions of larger tech companies “to monitor and
`analyze trends, usage and activities” based on certain aggregated, de-identified user data. PP § 2.9. Flo
`specifically named these third parties in the PP, including AppsFlyer, Google, Facebook, and Flurry
`(collectively, the “Analytics Defendants”). PP § 4.1. Even Plaintiffs admit that the use of such third-party
`analytics is routine. Compl. ¶¶ 14-16, 152. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs now seek to hold Flo liable for operating
`precisely as it said it would and in line with industry norms.
`Plaintiffs no longer allege that Flo sold user information, as they did in prior complaints. Instead,
`they now allege only that Flo shared this information with third parties for advertising purposes. This is
`completely untrue. Flo never sold user data. Nor did Flo share user data for advertising purposes. Even
`accepting all of Plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true, however, the Consolidated Complaint (“Complaint”)
`suffers from numerous independent, fatal, and incurable deficiencies and should be dismissed in its entirety.
`First, no Plaintiff alleges any injury, much less the particularized injury required for standing—not
`a single cost incurred, reputational harm suffered, or unwanted advertisement seen on account of Flo’s
`alleged use of their data. For this reason alone, Plaintiffs lack Article III standing with respect to all claims.
`Second, Plaintiffs’ claims are all hopelessly time-barred, especially under the one-year limitations
`period Plaintiffs agreed to in the TOU. TOU § 22. Plaintiffs do not dispute the enforceability of the TOU;
`to the contrary they explicitly rely on it. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs filed suit in 2021 for injuries sustained as
`far back as 2016 and ending in early 2019. Compl. ¶ 143. Moreover, Flo’s alleged data-sharing—and the
`
`1 Flo’s Exhibits are attached to the accompanying declaration of Benjamin M. Sadun. Copies of the TOU
`and PP with relevant passages highlighted are Exhibits A and B, respectively. The TOU and PP are cited
`repeatedly in the Complaint, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 31, 242, and are integral to it. As explained in Flo’s Request
`for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), the Court may consider documents referenced in the Complaint. See, e.g.,
`Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005).
`- 1-
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 12 of 26
`
`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
`
`false notion that Flo sold data—became (in Plaintiffs’ words) “bombshell” headline news in February 2019,
`two years before Plaintiffs filed suit. Compl. ¶ 124. Thus, by any measure, their claims are untimely.
`Third, each of the activities that Plaintiffs complain about was expressly permitted by the TOU and
`PP that Plaintiffs affirmatively accepted. Specifically, the PP disclosed that Flo would share “Personal
`Data,” including where a user “navigate[s] through the App,” “what features [the user] prefer[s] the most,”
`and the user’s “device identifier[].” PP § 4. Consistent with these disclosures, the contents of user inputs
`were not shared. And any data that was shared was de-identified. It is a bedrock principle that “[sh]e who
`consents to an act is not wronged by it.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3515. For all these reasons, and additional claim-
`specific defects set forth below, the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.
`BACKGROUND AND DISCLOSURES
`Flo is the creator of the world’s leading mobile application for women’s health. The Flo App,
`launched in 2016, provides access to information about women’s reproductive health and allows its users
`to track information related to all phases of the reproductive cycle. Flo plays an important role in advancing
`women’s health across the globe. The App is available in more than thirty countries, including in many
`places where information regarding women’s reproductive health is not otherwise available. Indeed, Flo
`has partnered with the United Nations to spread worldwide awareness about women’s reproductive and
`sexual health issues. Although Flo has grown considerably, it is still a relatively small company. Unlike the
`other Defendants, Flo is a start-up that had approximately 100 employees worldwide during the relevant
`time period and has grown to over 350 employees today.
`Flo does not sell any user data and never has. Nor has Flo ever shared data with anyone else for
`advertising purposes. What Plaintiffs now allege is that Flo disclosed user data “to the Non-Flo Defendants
`and other third parties through ‘software development kits’ (‘SDKs’) that it incorporated into the Flo App.”
`Compl. ¶ 14. But Plaintiffs affirmatively consented to this. The contract between Flo and App users consists
`of the TOU and the PP. Compl. ¶¶ 289-30. After downloading the Flo App, before a user can even open
`it, users must affirmatively assent to the TOU and PP. See Compl. at 36. Plaintiffs admit these documents
`constitute a binding agreement between them and Flo—indeed, they predicate their jurisdictional statement
`and several claims on them. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 31, 289-311.
`The TOU and PP repeatedly disclose in conspicuous and bolded language that the App will collect
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`- 2-
`
`21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 13 of 26
`
`and share user data to operate and improve the App, among other purposes. Key provisions include:
`
`PP §§ 2, 4.1, 4.2. The TOU also expressly provides that “[a]ny cause of action you may have with respect
`to your use of the App must be commenced within one (1) year after the claim or cause of action arises.”
`Id. § 22.2 This language appears immediately under an all caps, bolded jurisdiction provision that Plaintiffs
`cite in the Complaint. See Compl. ¶ 31.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) unless it “contain[s] sufficient factual matter,
`accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
`(2009) (cleaned up). Only specific factual allegations are accepted as true, not legal assertions, “[t]hreadbare
`recitals of the elements,” or “conclusory statements.” Id. In addition, “the court need not accept as true
`allegations that are conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Redback
`Networks, Inc. Sec. Litig., 329 F. App’x 715, 717 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). A claim must also be
`dismissed if an affirmative defense, such as “the running of the statute [of limitations,] is apparent on the
`face of the complaint.” See Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980); see also
`Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 2 F.4th 871, 890 n.8 (9th Cir. 2021).
`
`
`2 Except where otherwise noted, all emphasis in quotations is added.
`- 3-
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 93 Filed 11/01/21 Page 14 of 26
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`All of Plaintiffs’ Claims Fail for Lack of Injury-In-Fact.
`As explained in Analytics Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Part IV.A, incorporated herein by
`reference), Plaintiffs fail to allege a concrete injury. The crux of Plaintiffs’ claims against Flo is that Flo
`“disclosed [their] intimate health data without [their] knowledge or consent to third parties.” E.g., Compl.
`¶ 39. As explained below, this is misleading. Flo disclosed only where users went on the App, not their
`health data, and did so with Plaintiffs’ consent, and for the purposes disclosed. Infra Part III. But in any
`event, Plaintiffs do not allege how this purported disclosure harmed them. E.g., Compl. ¶¶ 38, 41. “The
`mere misappropriation of personal information, without a resultant economic harm … is neither damage
`nor injury-in-fact.” In re Google, Inc. Privacy Pol’y Litig., 2015 WL 4317479, at *5 n.63 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
`Nor can uninjured Plaintiffs plead around this problem by relying on statutory violations. As the
`Supreme Court reaffirmed earlier this year, “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the
`context of a statutory violation.” TransUnion LLC v Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2205 (2021). Thus, even
`where a statute creates a cause of action, Plaintiffs lack standing unless they allege an injury analogous to
`“harms traditionally recognized as providing a basis for lawsuits in American courts.” Id. at 2204.
`TransUnion is instructive. There, the plaintiffs alleged that TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting
`Act (“FCRA”) by flagging them as potential terrorists without taking sufficient measures to ensure that
`flagging was accurate. Id. at 2201-02. The Supreme Court held that only class members whose credit reports
`had been transmitted to third parties had standing because the disclosure of an inaccurate credit report is
`closely analogous to the common law injury of defamation. Id. at 2208-09. The Court reversed the Ninth
`Circuit’s holding that class members whose files had never been disclosed to potential lenders had standing.
`As the Supreme Court explained: “the mere existence of inaccurate information in a database is insufficient
`to confer Article III standing,” even though the FCRA provided for nominal damages. Id. at 2201, 2209.
`So too here. Even taking Plaintiffs’ unsupported characterization as true, the mere sharing of
`personal information “without any concrete consequences” is not a cognizable harm. Hancock v. Urban
`Outfitters, Inc., 830 F.3d 511, 514 (D.C. Cir. 2016); accord In re iPhone App. Litig. (iPhone I), 2011 WL
`4403963, at *14 (N.D. Cal. 2011)