throbber
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 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)

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