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