throbber
Case 3:21-cv-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
`BENJAMIN BERKOWITZ - # 244441
`bberkowitz@keker.com
`THOMAS E. GORMAN - # 279409
`tgorman@keker.com
`IAN KANIG - # 295623
`ikanig@keker.com
`CHRISTINA LEE - # 314339
`clee@keker.com
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
`Telephone:
`415 391 5400
`Facsimile:
`415 397 7188
`Attorneys for Defendant
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`MARY HAMMERLING and KAY
`JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`company,
`
`Defendant.
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) & 12(b)(6).
`
`Date:
`December 2, 2022
`Time:
`10:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 6 —17th Floor
`Judge:
`Hon. Charles R. Breyer
`
`Date Filed: November 19, 2021
`
`Trial Date: Not Yet Set
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1881728
`
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`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-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS .................................................................. i 
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... ii 
`I. 
`BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................1 
`A.  The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ previous complaint for failing to state a claim. ..........1 
`Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims failed because they did not allege actual
`1. 
`reliance on any claimed misrepresentation or omission. ......................................1 
`Plaintiffs’ privacy-based claims failed because Google’s alleged intrusion
`was not “highly offensive” or “ egregious.” .........................................................2 
`3.  Given those dismissals, Plaintiffs’ derivative UCL claims also failed. ................2 
`Plaintiffs’ contract-based claims failed because Google never promised
`4. 
`not to collect third-party app activity data in the parties’ contract. ......................3 
`B.  Despite some shifting facts, Plaintiffs’ theories of liability remain the same. ..............3 
`1. 
`Plaintiffs purport to identify three new fraudulent misrepresentations. ...............3 
`2. 
`Plaintiffs refocus their privacy claims on Google’s privacy controls. ..................4 
`3. 
`Plaintiffs’ UCL and contract-based claims remain largely the same. ...................5 
`II.  LEGAL STANDARD .............................................................................................................5 
`III.  ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................................5 
`A.  Plaintiffs’ action fails because they admit that Google disclosed it could save
`Android app-activity data when their “App Activity” controls were enabled. ..............5 
`Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims also suffer from all the same defects as before. .............8 
`Plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claims fail because Plaintiffs still do not
`1. 
`allege that they saw or relied upon any pre-purchase statement. ..........................8 
`Plaintiffs do not try to cure their omission claims by alleging a central
`product-function. ...................................................................................................9 
`Plaintiffs’ omission claims are unsupported by allegations of actual
`reliance and barred by the economic-loss rule. ...................................................10 
`Plaintiffs do not establish a qualifying transaction under the CLRA. ................11 
`4. 
`Plaintiffs’ privacy-based claims should be dismissed with prejudice. ........................12 
`1. 
`Plaintiffs fail to clear the “high bar” for invasion of privacy. ............................12 
`a. 
`Plaintiffs’ original theory of invasion once again fails. .............................12 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`1881728
`
`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-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`2. 
`
`Plaintiffs’ new theory of invasion also fails. .............................................13 
`b. 
`Plaintiffs fail to state any of the statutory elements of a CIPA claim. ................16 
`a. 
`Plaintiffs fail to materially amend their original CIPA theory. .................16 
`b. 
`Plaintiffs’ new CIPA theory likewise fails. ...............................................17 
`D.  Plaintiffs’ UCL unlawful-prong and unfair-prong claims fail again because
`their predicate fraud-based claims and privacy-based claims all fail again. ................19 
`Plaintiffs’ contract-based claims also suffer from the same defects as before. ...........19 
`Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claim fails because they cannot identify a
`1. 
`promise from Google not to collect third-party app activity data. ......................19 
`Plaintiffs do not attempt to cure their other contract-based claims. ...................20 
`2. 
`Plaintiffs cannot request declaratory relief because all their other claims fail. ...........20 
`F. 
`IV.  CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................20 
`
`E. 
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`1881728
`
`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-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Backus v. Gen. Mills, Inc.,
`122 F. Supp. 3d 909 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .............................................................................. vii, 19
`
`Cooper v. Pickett,
`137 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................5, 6
`
`Daniel v. Ford Motor Co.,
`806 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................10
`
`Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.,
`691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. iv
`
`Decarlo v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`2020 WL 1332539 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2020) .....................................................................v, 12
`
`In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Priv. User Profile Litig.,
`402 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ............................................................................ iii, vi, 7
`
`Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc.,
`141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021) ...................................................................................................v, 11, 13
`
`In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litig.,
`58 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................15
`
`Graham v. Noom, Inc.,
`533 F. Supp. 3d 823 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .....................................................................................16
`
`Hall v. SeaWorld Ent., Inc.,
`747 F. App’x 449 (9th Cir. 2018) ..............................................................................................9
`
`Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.,
`302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................17
`
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ........................................................................... passim
`
`Melendres v. Arpaio,
`695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Morton v. Twitter, Inc.,
`2021 WL 1181753 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021)................................................................... vii, 20
`
`
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`1881728
`
`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-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`NovelPoster v. Javitch Canfield Group,
`140 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .....................................................................................17
`
`Opperman v. Path, Inc.,
`87 F. Supp. 3d 1018 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................. iii, 8
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google LLC,
`No. C 10-03561 WHA (N.D. Cal.) ............................................................................................v
`
`Rattagan v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`19 F.4th 1188 (9th Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................11
`
`Rodriguez v. Google LLC,
`2022 WL 214552 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2022) ...................................................................... vi, 18
`
`Silver v. Stripe Inc.,
`2021 WL 3191752 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 28, 2021) .............................................................................9
`
`Sloan v. Gen. Motors LLC,
`2020 WL 1955643 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020) .........................................................................10
`
`Smith v. Google LLC,
`2019 WL 542110 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2019) ............................................................................17
`
`Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty.,
`2015 WL 1849105 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2015) ........................................................................ vii
`
`United States v. Forrester,
`512 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................16
`
`In re Vizio, Inc., Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`238 F. Supp. 3d 1204 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................18
`
`In re Yahoo Mail Litig.,
`7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................12
`
`In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig.,
`313 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................................11
`
`In re Zynga Priv. Litig.,
`750 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................................16, 18
`
`State Cases
`
`Hernandez v. Hillsides,
`47 Cal. 4th 272 (2009) .............................................................................................................12
`
`Kwikset v. Super. Ct.,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) ....................................................................................................... vi, 19
`
`
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`1881728
`
`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-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`Mirkin v. Wasserman,
`5 Cal. 4th 1082 (1993) .............................................................................................................10
`
`Pioneer Elecs. (USA), Inc. v. Super. Ct.,
`40 Cal. 4th 360 (2007) .............................................................................................................15
`
`Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp.,
`34 Cal. 4th 979 (2004) .............................................................................................................10
`
`State Statutes
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ...................................................................................................... i
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 .............................................................................................. vi, 19
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1709 ...................................................................................................................... i
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1770 ................................................................................................................ i, 11
`
`Cal. Pen. Code § 631................................................................................................... i, ii, vi, 16–18
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ......................................................................................................................5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ...................................................................................................................... i, 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).................................................................................................................... i
`
`
`
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`1881728
`
`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-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`GOOGLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on December 2, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
`thereafter as counsel may be heard, before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer in Courtroom 6, on
`the 17th Floor of the Phillip Burton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate
`Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102, Defendant Google LLC will and hereby does move to
`dismiss the amended complaint filed by Plaintiffs Marie Hammerling and Kay Jackson in its
`entirety and with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure and for failure to plead fraud-based claims with particularity under Rule 9(b).
`This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, the following memorandum of
`points and authorities, Google’s request for judicial notice and the supporting declaration of Ian
`Kanig with the exhibits attached thereto, and on all pleadings and papers on file or to be filed in
`this action, on the arguments of counsel, and on any other matters properly before the Court.
`The specific issues raised through Google’s motion to dismiss are as follows:
`1.
`Whether Plaintiffs have again failed to state a fraud-based claim for statutory
`deceit (Cal. Civ. Code § 1709), violation of the fraudulent prong of California’s
`Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) (“UCL”), or violation
`of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1770) (“CLRA”);
`Whether Plaintiffs have again failed to state a claim for invasion of privacy under
`the California Constitution (Article I, Section I), the common law (intrusion upon
`seclusion), or California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Pen. Code § 631) (“CIPA”);
`Whether Plaintiffs have again failed to allege a predicate violation sufficient to
`state an unlawful prong claim under the UCL and, if so, whether Plaintiffs have
`thus also failed to state a claim under the unfair prong of the UCL;
`Whether Plaintiffs have again failed to state a contract-based claim for breach of
`contract, breach of implied contract, or unjust enrichment; and
`Whether Plaintiffs have again failed to state a claim for declaratory relief.
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`i
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`1881728
`
`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-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`
`SUMMARYOF ARGUMENT1
`This Court previously dismissed all of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs Marie Hammerling
`
`and Kay Jackson, and their amended complaint does nothing to save their claims. See Dkt. Nos.
`50 (“MTD Order”) & 51 (“FAC”). Plaintiffs’ claims not only suffer from the same deficiencies
`as before, but they have made new admissions and incorporated additional disclosures that
`confirm Google is permitted to collect third-party app activity data on Android smartphones.
`App-activity controls and disclosures. In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs admit they
`have always had access to privacy controls that disclose that Google may collect third-party app
`activity data on their Android smartphones and, further, allow them to decide whether to save that
`activity data to their Google accounts. FAC ¶¶ 23, 32. The relevant control for app activity is
`descriptively named “Web & App Activity” (hereafter, “WAA”). Id. Google informs users about
`this activity control in its Privacy Policy, where it asks users to “[d]ecide what types of activity
`[they’d] like saved in [their] account,” along with a link to view and manage the activity saved in
`their account. RJN, Ex. A at 8. Crucially, Plaintiffs now admit that they had this WAA setting
`“enabled,” as well as the “additional Web & App Activity” setting. FAC ¶ 183 (WAA setting
`was “enabled”); see also id. ¶ 19 & Fig. 1 (“This activity was saved to your Google Account
`because the following settings were on: additional Web & App Activity.”), 21 & Fig. 2 (same).
`The FAC points to these activity controls in an apparent effort to suggest that Google
`misleads users into believing that Google “[s]aves your activity on Google sites and apps” only,
`not on third-party apps. Id. ¶ 23. Again and again, Plaintiffs emphatically declare that Google
`“[n]ever” and “nowhere” discloses that it may collect third-party app activity data. Id. ¶¶ 71, 76,
`98, 148–49). But Plaintiffs tactically omit Google’s disclosures for the relevant “additional Web
`& App Activity” setting. Those disclosures explicitly inform users that when the additional
`WAA setting is enabled, it “saves your activity from sites, apps, and devices that use Google
`services, including . . . activity from sites and apps that partner with Google to show ads,” “app
`activity, including data that apps share with Google,” and “Android usage & diagnostics, like
`
`
`1 Throughout this brief, unless otherwise indicated, emphases were added to quotations and
`internal quotation marks, alterations, citations, and footnotes were omitted from them.
`ii
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`1881728
`
`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-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`. . . how often you use your device and apps.” RJN, Ex. E. Indeed, when the additional WAA
`setting is accessed or enabled through Android’s settings, Google also discloses that it “[s]aves
`your activity from apps on this device.” Id., Ex. H. Thus, Google unambiguously tells users
`that when the additional WAA setting is enabled, Google may save app-activity data not just from
`“Google apps,” but from all “apps on this device,” as well as apps that “use Google services,”
`“partner with Google,” or “share” data “with Google.”
`Figure 1—WAA & Additional WAA Disclosures on Android (RJN, Exs. H & I)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ admission that they had the additional Web & App Activity setting enabled,
`(FAC ¶¶ 19 & Fig. 1, 21 & Fig. 2 (Hammerling); id. ¶¶ 29–32 (Jackson)), dooms their action.
`See In re Facebook, Inc., Consumer Priv. User Profile Litig., 402 F. Supp. 3d 767, 792 (N.D. Cal.
`2019) (dismissing fraud, privacy, and contract claims because “users who did not properly adjust
`their application settings are deemed to have agreed [to the data practice]”); Opperman v. Path,
`Inc., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1018, 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (holding that the plaintiffs did not even have
`
`iii
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`1881728
`
`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-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 10 of 34
`
`Article III standing to pursue claims for injunctive relief once they had access to privacy
`controls); see also Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir.
`2012) (dismissing fraud-based claims because the defendant had disclosed the practice).
`Fraud-based claims. Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims also suffer from the same issues that
`required dismissal of those claims in their previous complaint. In Plaintiffs’ previous complaint,
`they alleged Google misled them about how their data would be used in a prompt shown to users
`while setting up their Android smartphones. The Court rejected that theory because Plaintiffs
`could not have relied on a post-purchase setup prompt when deciding to purchase their devices.
`MTD Order at 11–12. Plaintiffs now identify three new statements that they claim are false or
`misleading—one in the WAA disclosure discussed above and two others in Google’s Privacy
`Policy—but again fail to allege that they saw or relied upon those statements before purchasing
`their Android smartphones. See FAC ¶¶ 23–24, 32–34, ¶¶ 146–48. Regardless of whether these
`are phrased as misrepresentations or partial omissions, Plaintiffs cannot claim they were induced
`to purchase their phones with statements they never say they relied upon. MTD Order at 11–12
`& nn.6–7 (citing Davidson v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-CV-04942-LHK, 2017 WL 976048, at *8 (N.D.
`Cal. Mar. 14, 2017); Moore v. Apple, Inc., 73 F. Supp. 3d 1191, 1200 (N.D. Cal. 2014)). See also
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp., 900 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1027 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (explaining that a plaintiff’s
`repeated failure to plead reliance on alleged misstatements warrants dismissal with prejudice).
`In any case, the new statements Plaintiffs identify are not false or misleading. Google’s
`statement in its Privacy Policy that, “[t]o help explain things as clearly as possible, we’ve added
`examples, explanatory videos, and definitions for key terms,” is accurate. RJN, Ex. A at 1. So,
`too, is Google’s statement that it may save activity from Google sites and apps when the Web &
`App Activity setting is enabled. RJN, Ex. D. Google further discloses that there is another
`activity control—called Additional Web & App Activity—for third-party app activity data. Id.
`To the extent that Plaintiffs continue to assert “pure” omission claims, they have not tried
`to allege that any alleged omission concerns a “central function” of Android smartphones. See
`MTD Order at 12–15 (citing Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 891 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2018)). Specifically,
`“Plaintiffs have not alleged that Google’s collection of data from non-Google apps renders their
`
`iv
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`1881728
`
`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-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 11 of 34
`
`smartphones ‘incapable of use’ or prevents their phones from ‘performing a critical or integral
`function.’” Id. at 15. Their omission claims thus should also be dismissed with prejudice.2
`And Plaintiffs still have not identified a sales transaction to support a claim under the
`CLRA. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs’ CLRA claim because they did not allege that
`Google manufactured or sold them their Android smartphones, or received a portion of the sale of
`their phones. Id. at 16–17. Plaintiffs attempt to cure this defect by newly alleging that Google
`earns revenue “from Android OS” (see FAC ¶ 45), but the FAC contains no allegation that such
`revenue comes from the sale of third-party Android smartphones as opposed to the sale of first-
`party, Google-manufactured Android devices (of which there are many kinds) or from advertising
`revenue on Android devices generally. Plaintiffs also allege that Google licenses a package of
`Google apps (including the Google Play Store), which is true, and that Google earns revenue from
`that license, which is false.3 Id. ¶ 46. But even if Google did earn revenue from licensing certain
`first-party apps, Plaintiffs still do not allege that Google either sold anything or earned any money
`from the sale of their Android smartphones, so they cannot state a CLRA claim. Cf. Decarlo v.
`Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 14-cv-00202, 2020 WL 1332539, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2020).
`Privacy-based claims. Plaintiffs reassert—with no material amendments—their
`
`previously-dismissed claims under the California Constitution, the common law, and CIPA that
`Google invaded their privacy by collecting data about how frequently and for how long they use
`third-party apps on their Android smartphones. FAC ¶¶ 119–42. Unable to cure those defective
`claims, Plaintiffs also assert a new theory of liability that targets the “additional Web & App
`Activity” setting discussed above. Id. ¶¶ 19 & Fig. 1 (“This activity was saved to your Google
`Account because the following settings were on: additional Web & App Activity.”), 21 & Fig. 2
`
`2 Google also reasserts that: (1) Plaintiffs have failed to allege actual reliance and causation in
`support of their fraudulent omission claims; and (2) Plaintiffs’ fraudulent omission claims are
`barred by California’s economic-loss rule. See infra at § III.B.3. But the Court again need not
`reach these issues to the extent that it dismisses these omission claims for failing to concern a
`central product-function. MTD Order at 15, n.9 (expressly reserving judgment on these issues).
`3 See Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1183, 1190–91 (2021); id. at 1216 (dissent)
`(stating that Google’s strategy is “to release Android to device manufacturers for free”); see also
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google LLC, No. C 10-03561 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Tr. Ex. 286 at § 4.1
`(“[Smartphone OEM] and Google shall each retain any and all revenue generated from provision
`of their respective products or services.”) (available at: https://perma.cc/YWV2-NSLL).
`v
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`1881728
`
`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-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 12 of 34
`
`(same). Plaintiffs complain that “nowhere” did Google disclose that this additional WAA setting
`would enable Google to collect their third-party app activity data (id. ¶¶ 76, 98, 148–49). In
`reality, Google discloses that it collects and saves app-activity data through the additional Web &
`App Activity setting in public disclosures online and on Android smartphones alike, including in
`the very name of the setting. And even if that were not the case, Plaintiffs fail to plausibly plead
`that Google’s saving of shopping data through the setting—which Plaintiffs admit they “enabled”
`(id. ¶¶ 34, 183)—amounts to anything more than “routine commercial behavior.” Low, 900 F.
`Supp. 2d at 1025. Plaintiffs’ privacy-based claims should thus be dismissed with prejudice.
`Nor have Plaintiffs alleged, with respect to their CIPA claim, that Google has intercepted
`in an “unauthorized manner” the “contents” of a “message, report, or communication while the
`same is in transit” within the territorial bounds of the State of California. See Cal. Pen. Code
`§ 631(a). Plaintiffs simply ignore the fact that their additional WAA setting was enabled, and
`plead no facts whatsoever regarding when, where, or how Google purportedly intercepted any of
`their communications. These pleading deficiencies are fatal to their CIPA claim. See Rodriguez
`v. Google LLC, No. 20-CV-04688-RS, 2022 WL 214552, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2022)
`(dismissing CIPA claim with prejudice where plaintiffs failed to allege “specific facts that make it
`plausible Google is intercepting their data in transit”); see also Facebook Consumer Priv. User
`Profile Litig., 402 F. Supp. 3d at 792 (failure to adjust privacy controls precludes privacy claims).
`Accordingly, all of Plaintiffs’ privacy-based claims fail and should be dismissed with prejudice.
`UCL claims. Plaintiffs’ claim under California’s unfair competition law again fails
`
`because its underlying fraud-based and privacy-based claims all fail for the reasons set forth
`above. MTD Order at 27. Further, because “the ‘conduct’ on which Plaintiffs base their claims
`under all three UCL prongs is the same,” and because Plaintiffs’ fraudulent-prong and unlawful-
`prong claims should be dismissed, their unfair-prong claim should be dismissed as well. Id. at
`27–28 (citing Eidmann v. Walgreen Co., 522 F. Supp. 3d 634, 647 (N.D. Cal. 2021)). Plaintiffs’
`UCL claims also collectively fail because they have failed to allege that Google’s misconduct
`subsequently caused them to suffer an economic injury. See Kwikset v. Super. Ct., 51 Cal. 4th
`310, 326 (2011) (discussing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203). Because Plaintiffs do not allege
`
`vi
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`1881728
`
`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-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 13 of 34
`
`they relied upon any alleged misrepresentation or omission before purchasing their Android
`smartphones, it is impossible for Plaintiffs to have incurred an economic injury “as a result” of
`Google’s conduct. See Backus v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 122 F. Supp. 3d 909, 925 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
`Contract-based claims. Plaintiffs still cannot identify any binding commitment that
`Google allegedly breached. They again point to a prefatory remark in Google’s Privacy Policy
`that provides: “To help explain things as clearly as possible, we’ve added examples, explanatory
`videos, and definitions for key terms.” RJN, Ex. A at 1. But that statement is not a contractual
`commitment. Instead, it describes only what Google has aspired to do with its Privacy Policy.
`See Morton v. Twitter, Inc., No. CV 20-10434, 2021 WL 1181753, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19,
`2021) (dismissing breach-of-contract claim because “merely aspirational statements” in terms of
`service were not actionable). Plaintiffs also allege that “Google promises that its privacy policy is
`comprehensive.” FAC ¶¶ 180–82. But, of course, Plaintiffs do not and cannot point to any such
`term in the Privacy Policy. Thus, once again, Plaintiffs have not identified a Google promise to
`take an action that it did not take, and again fail to plead a breach-of-contract claim. MTD Order
`at 28–29 (“Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for breach of contract without alleging a promise that is
`breached.”) (citing In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589, 610 (9th Cir.
`2020)). This claim should be dismissed with prejudice. See Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps.
`v. Sonoma Cty., No. C 09-4432 CW, 2015 WL 1849105, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2015) (noting
`the plaintiff’s repeated failure to identify a contractual term warranted dismissal with prejudice).
`Plaintiffs’ implied contract claim fails for the same reason as before: they admit that there
`is an express contract that governs the subject matter of the claim. MTD Order at 29–30 (citing
`Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 12-CV-03373-LHK, 2013 WL 5568706, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9,
`2013)). Given this repeated admission, Plaintiffs’ implied contract claim should be dismissed
`with prejudice. And Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim fails, regardless of whether it constitutes
`an independent claim, because Plaintiffs still cannot allege any actionable misrepresentation or
`omission. Id. at 30–31. Because they cannot, this claim, too, should be dismissed with prejudice.
`Declaratory judgment. Finally, because Plaintiffs’ other claims all fail, their request for
`
`relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act also must fail. See MTD Order at 31–32.
`
`vii
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09004-CRB
`
`1881728
`
`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-09004-CRB Document 57 Filed 09/09/22 Page 14 of 34
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ previous complaint for failing to state a claim.
`Plaintiffs’ previous complaint alleged that Google failed to disclose that it collects data
`about third-party app activity on Android smartphones—i.e., the dates and times when users open
`and close third-party apps—and that Google may use that data to develop and improve competing
`products. MTD Order at 2–3. Had they known about these dat

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