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 3:22-cv-00401-JD Document 94 Filed 07/25/22 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`KRISTIN A. LINSLEY, SBN 154148
`klinsley@gibsondunn.com
`ROSEMARIE T. RING, SBN 220769
`rring@gibsondunn.com
`LAURA K. O’BOYLE, pro hac vice
`loboyle@gibsondunn.com
`JACOB T. SPENCER, pro hac vice
`jspencer@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
`San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
`Telephone: 415.393.8200
`
`ASHLEY M. SIMONSEN, SBN 275203
`asimonsen@cov.com
`PHYLLIS A. JONES, pro hac vice
` pajones@cov.com
`ISAAC D. CHAPUT, SBN 326923
`ichaput@cov.com
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415.591.6000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.
`f/k/a Facebook, Inc.
`
`
`
`JONATHAN H. BLAVIN, SBN 230269
` jonathan.blavin@mto.com
`ROSE LEDA EHLER, SBN 296523
` rose.ehler@mto.com
`LAUREN BELL, pro hac vice
` lauren.bell@mto.com
`LAURA M. LOPEZ, SBN 313450
` laura.lopez@mto.com
`ARIEL TESHUVA, SBN 324238
` ariel.teshuva@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
`560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415.512.4000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Snap, Inc.
`
`ALBERT Q. GIANG, SBN 224332
` agiang@kslaw.com
`GEOFFREY M. DRAKE, pro hac vice
` gdrake@kslaw.com
`DAVID P. MATTERN, pro hac vice
` dmattern@kslaw.com
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213.443.4310
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`TAMMY RODRIGUEZ, individually and as
`the Personal Representative of the Estate of
`Selena Rodriguez,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`f/k/a FACEBOOK, INC.; SNAP, INC.;
`TIKTOK INC.; and BYTEDANCE INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
` CASE NO. 3:22-CV-00401-JD
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF JOINT
`MOTION AND JOINT MOTION TO
`DISMISS SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`Declaration of Rosemarie T. Ring and
`[Proposed] Order filed concurrently
`
`Hearing:
`October 13, 2022
`Date:
`10:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Hon. James Donato
`Judge:
`Courtroom: 11, 19th Floor
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-00401-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00401-JD Document 94 Filed 07/25/22 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on October 13, 2022, or as soon thereafter as the matter may
`
`be heard, before the Honorable James Donato, in Courtroom 11, Floor 19, of the United States District
`
`Court for the Northern District of California, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
`
`California 94102, Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc., Snap, Inc., TikTok Inc., and ByteDance Inc. will
`
`and hereby do move this Court, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for an order dismissing
`
`with prejudice all of the claims in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.
`
`This motion is based on the memorandum of points and authorities submitted herewith, any
`
`reply memorandum or other papers submitted in connection with the motion, the pleadings and other
`
`10
`
`documents filed in this action, any matter of which this Court may properly take judicial notice, and
`
`11
`
`any information presented at argument.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`Whether Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency
`
`14
`
`Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Whether Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the First Amendment.
`
`Whether Plaintiff has stated a claim for strict product liability, negligence, violations of
`
`17
`
`the Unfair Competition Law, or violations of federal trafficking laws.
`
`
`DATED: July 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: July 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Rosemarie T. Ring
`ROSEMARIE T. RING
`
`
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Ashley M. Simonsen
`ASHLEY M. SIMONSEN
`
`
`Attorneys for META PLATFORMS, INC.
`
`Additional Signatures on Next Page
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-00401-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00401-JD Document 94 Filed 07/25/22 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`DATED: July 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: July 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jonathan H. Blavin
`JONATHAN H. BLAVIN
`
`
`Attorneys for SNAP, INC.
`
`
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Albert Q. Giang
`ALBERT Q. GIANG
`
`
`
`Attorneys for TIKTOK INC. and BYTEDANCE 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-00401-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00401-JD Document 94 Filed 07/25/22 Page 4 of 33
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS....................................................................................... 2
`
`III. ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims Are Barred By Section 230 ........................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants’ Apps Are Interactive Computer Services .................................... 5
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims Treat Defendants As Publishers ........................................ 5
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims Depend On Content Provided By Third Parties ............... 10
`
`The First Amendment Bars Plaintiff’s Claims ......................................................... 11
`
`The SAC Fails To State Essential Elements Of Its Claims ....................................... 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff’s Strict Product Liability Claims Fail Because Defendants’
`Apps Do Not Satisfy The Legal Definition Of A “Product” .......................... 13
`
`Plaintiff’s Negligence Claim Fails Because Plaintiff Alleges No Legally
`Viable Duty ................................................................................................ 14
`
`Plaintiff Does Not Plausibly Allege Causation............................................. 16
`
`None of Plaintiff’s UCL Theories Is Adequately Pled .................................. 18
`
`Plaintiff Does Not State A Claim Under The Federal Trafficking Laws ........ 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 22
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-00401-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 3:22-cv-00401-JD Document 94 Filed 07/25/22 Page 5 of 33
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................................. 4, 21
`
`Est. of B.H. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`2022 WL 551701 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2022) ................................................................. 2, 9, 13, 14
`
`Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................ 5, 6, 7
`
`Batzel v. Smith,
`333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................................................. 13
`
`Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n,
`564 U.S. 786 (2011) ................................................................................................................. 12
`
`Brown v. USA Taekwondo,
`11 Cal. 5th 204 (2021) ....................................................................................................... 14, 15
`
`Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................ 4, 7
`
`Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co.,
`20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999) ............................................................................................................. 19
`
`Crosby v. Twitter, Inc.,
`921 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................... 17
`
`Daniel v. Armslist, LLC,
`926 N.W.2d 710 (Wis. 2019) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Doe #1 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.,
`21 F.4th 714 (11th Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................. 20, 21
`
`Doe 3 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.,
`2020 WL 1872333 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 13, 2020) ............................................................................ 22
`
`Doe II v. MySpace, Inc.,
`175 Cal. App. 4th 561 (2009) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Doe v. Cochran,
`210 A.3d 469 (Conn. 2019) ...................................................................................................... 15
`
`Doe v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 2019-16262 (151st Dist. Ct., Harris Cty., Tex. Oct. 4, 2019)............................................... 14
`
`Doe v. Kik Interactive, Inc.,
`482 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (S.D. Fla. 2020) ............................................................................. 6, 20, 21
`
`
`
`v
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-00401-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00401-JD Document 94 Filed 07/25/22 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`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
`
`Doe v. Myspace, Inc.,
`528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`Doe v. Myspace, Inc.,
`474 F. Supp. 2d 843 (W.D. Tex. 2007) ..................................................................................... 16
`
`Doe v. Reddit, Inc.,
`2021 WL 5860904 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021) ........................................................................ 20, 21
`
`Doe v. SexSearch.com,
`502 F. Supp. 2d 719 (N.D. Ohio 2007) ....................................................................................... 8
`
`Doe v. Twitter, Inc.,
`555 F. Supp. 3d 889 (N.D. Cal. 2021).............................................................................. 9, 20, 21
`
`People ex rel. DuFauchard v. U.S. Fin. Mgmt., Inc.,
`169 Cal. App. 4th 1502 (2009) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc.,
`934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019) ........................................................................ 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16
`
`Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc.,
`2017 WL 5665670 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2017)........................................................................... 16
`
`Ellis v. Advanta Bank,
`2017 WL 1436249 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2017) ............................................................................. 4
`
`Eurosesmillas, S.A. v. PLC Diagnostics, Inc.,
`2019 WL 1960342 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2019) ............................................................................. 18
`
`Fair Hous. Council v. Roommates.com, LLC,
`521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 4, 5, 9, 11
`
`Fields v. Twitter, Inc.,
`881 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 17
`
`Fields v. Twitter, Inc.,
`217 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ................................................................................. 8, 17
`
`Force v. Facebook, Inc.,
`934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019) ......................................................................................................... 7
`
`Franklin v. X Gear 101, LLC,
`2018 WL 3528731 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2018) .............................................................................. 5
`
`Gavra v. Google, Inc.,
`2013 WL 3788241 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2013) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Geiss v. Weinstein Co. Holdings LLC,
`383 F. Supp. 3d 156 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ....................................................................................... 20
`
`Godwin v. Facebook, Inc.,
`160 N.E.3d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020) ................................................................................ 15, 16
`
`Gonzalez v. Google LLC,
`2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................................. 1, 4, 7, 8
`
`
`
`vi
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-00401-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00401-JD Document 94 Filed 07/25/22 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`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
`
`Graham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`2017 WL 86013 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2017) ............................................................................... 19
`
`Green v. ADT, LLC,
`2016 WL 3208483 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2016) ........................................................................... 13
`
`Gregory v. Albertson’s, Inc.,
`104 Cal. App. 4th 845 (2002) ................................................................................................... 19
`
`Grossman v. Rockaway Twp. Bd. of Educ.,
`2019 WL 2649153 (N.J. Super. Ct. June 10, 2019) ................................................................... 11
`
`Hamm v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`2022 WL 913192 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022) ............................................................................. 18
`
`Herrick v. Grindr LLC,
`765 F. App’x 586 (2d Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc.,
`891 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 19
`
`Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos.,
`515 U.S. 557 (1995) ................................................................................................................. 12
`
`Intellect Art Multimedia, Inc. v. Milewski,
`2009 WL 2915273 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 11, 2009) .................................................................... 14
`
`Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`321 Conn. 172 (2016) .............................................................................................................. 13
`
`J.B. v. G6 Hosp., LLC,
`2021 WL 4079207 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2021) ............................................................................ 20
`
`J.B. v. G6 Hosp., LLC,
`2020 WL 4901196 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2020)..................................................................... 20, 21
`
`James v. Meow Media, Inc.,
`300 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................... 11, 12, 14
`
`Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-CV-3626-JFW (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016), ECF No. 51 .............................................. 15
`
`Jones v. Dirty World Ent. Recordings LLC,
`755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................... 11
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 19
`
`Kimzey v. Yelp!, Inc.,
`836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 10, 11
`
`Klayman v. Zuckerberg,
`753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
`29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003) ........................................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`vii
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-00401-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00401-JD Document 94 Filed 07/25/22 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`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
`
`L. Cohen & Co. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.,
`629 F. Supp. 1425 (D. Conn. 1986) .......................................................................................... 13
`
`Lazo v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`2012 WL 1831577 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2012) ........................................................................... 19
`
`McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls Inc.,
`817 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 13
`
`Merritt v. Countrywide Fin. Corp.,
`2015 WL 5542992 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) ...................................................................... 2, 13
`
`Miami Herald Publ’n Co. v. Tornillo,
`418 U.S. 241 (1974) ........................................................................................................ 1, 11, 12
`
`Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Superior Court,
`15 Cal. App. 4th 547 (1993) ............................................................................................... 13, 16
`
`Modisette v. Apple Inc.,
`30 Cal. App. 5th 136 (2018) ............................................................................................ 2, 14, 17
`
`Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc.,
`966 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................. 19
`
`Murillo v. Seymour Ambulance Ass’n,
`823 A.2d 1202 (Conn. 2003) .................................................................................................... 14
`
`N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan,
`376 U.S. 254 (1964) ................................................................................................................. 11
`
`Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc.,
`591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`NetChoice, LLC v. Att’y Gen. of Fla.,
`34 F.4th 1196 (11th Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................. 1, 12
`
`NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton,
`142 S. Ct. 1715 (2022) ............................................................................................................. 12
`
`NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2021 WL 5755120 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2021) ............................................... 12
`
`O’Handley v. Padilla,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2022 WL 93625 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2022) ................................................... 12
`
`Palmer v. Savoy,
`2021 WL 3559047 (N.C. Super. July 28, 2021) .......................................................................... 6
`
`Perez v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.,
`218 Cal. App. 3d 462 (1990) .................................................................................................... 16
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC,
`488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`Poole v. Tumblr, Inc.,
`404 F. Supp. 3d 637 (D. Conn. 2019) ......................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`viii
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-00401-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00401-JD Document 94 Filed 07/25/22 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`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
`
`Quinteros v. InnoGames,
`2022 WL 898560 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 28, 2022)..................................................................... 9, 14
`
`Doe ex rel. Roe v. Snap, Inc.,
`2022 WL 2528615 (S.D. Tex. July 7, 2022) ............................................................................ 5, 6
`
`Ryan Transp., Inc. v. M & G Assocs.,
`832 A.2d 1180 (Conn. 2003) .................................................................................................... 14
`
`S.J. v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc.,
`473 F. Supp. 3d 147 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) ....................................................................................... 21
`
`Sanders v. Acclaim Ent., Inc.,
`188 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (D. Colo. 2002) ...................................................................................... 12
`
`Sharma v. Volkswagen AG,
`524 F. Supp. 3d 891 (N.D. Cal. 2021)....................................................................................... 18
`
`Sharpe v. Puritan’s Pride, Inc.,
`466 F. Supp. 3d 1066 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ..................................................................................... 18
`
`Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc.,
`622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 18
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................... 18
`
`Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp.,
`2009 WL 4723366 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2009) ............................................................................. 18
`
`Taveras v. Resorts Int’l Hotel, Inc.,
`2008 WL 4372791 (D.N.J. Sept. 19, 2008) ............................................................................... 16
`
`Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc., v. FCC,
`512 U.S. 622 (1994) ................................................................................................................. 12
`
`United States v. Afyare,
`632 F. App’x 272 (6th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................. 22
`
`Watters v. TSR, Inc.,
`904 F.2d 378 (6th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................... 16
`
`Wilson v. Midway Games, Inc.,
`198 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D. Conn. 2002) ................................................................................. 12, 14
`
`Winter v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2021 WL 5446733 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 22, 2021) ............................................................................. 5
`
`Winter v. G.P. Putnam’s Sons,
`938 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1991) ............................................................................................ 13, 14
`
`Wistron Corp. v. Phillip M. Adams & Assocs., LLC,
`2011 WL 4079231 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2011) .......................................................................... 21
`
`Young v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2010 WL 4269304 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2010) ............................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`ix
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-00401-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00401-JD Document 94 Filed 07/25/22 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`STATUTES
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1591 .................................................................................................................. 2, 20, 21
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1591(e)(4) .................................................................................................................. 22
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1595 .................................................................................................................. 2, 20, 21
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) .......................................................................................................... 2, 3, 20, 21
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230 ............................................................................................................................... 1
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230(b)........................................................................................................................... 4
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) .................................................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(5)(A) ............................................................................................................... 20
`
`10
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 ..................................................................................................... 18
`
`11
`
`TREATISES
`
`12
`
`Restatement (Second) Torts § 315 (1965) ....................................................................................... 15
`
`13
`
`Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965) ................................................................................ 13
`
`14
`
`Restatement (Third) of Torts § 19(a) (1998) ................................................................................... 13
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`x
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-00401-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 3:22-cv-00401-JD Document 94 Filed 07/25/22 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Tammy Rodriguez seeks to hold Defendants liable for the untimely death of her
`
`daughter, Selena. ECF No. 67 (“SAC”) ¶ 1. Selena’s death is a tragedy, and Defendants deeply
`
`sympathize with Plaintiff and her family. But the SAC fails to state a claim on which relief can be
`
`granted.
`
`As a threshold matter, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, bars
`
`all of Plaintiff’s claims, which are fundamentally based on third-party content. Congress enacted
`
`Section 230 to promote free expression on the internet. To accomplish that goal, Section 230 forecloses
`
`any claim that seeks to impose liability on interactive computer service providers like Defendants for
`
`the alleged effects of third-party content—including, as in this case, third-party content neither
`
`condoned nor permitted by the provider. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 2 F.4th 871, 897 (9th Cir.
`
`2021). The SAC’s core theory is that Defendants’ apps allegedly publish third-party “content to
`
`children and teenagers” in an addictive manner and allegedly fail to provide “safeguards from harmful
`
`and exploitative content.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 78-79, 150. But any attempt to hold Defendants liable for third-
`
`party communications that take place on their apps—or to challenge whether and how Defendants
`
`select, present, recommend, aggregate, or monitor user content—necessarily violates Section 230’s
`
`proscription on treating providers as publishers of their users’ content. See Dyroff v. Ultimate Software
`
`Grp., Inc., 934 F.3d 1093, 1101 (9th Cir. 2019). That is precisely what the SAC’s claims would do.
`
`The SAC purports to “disclaim” seeking to treat Defendants as publishers of third-party content.
`
`SAC ¶¶ 92-93. That disclaimer cannot be reconciled with the actual allegations of the SAC. But even
`
`if the Court were to credit it, the SAC’s claims would still be barred by the First Amendment because
`
`they challenge Defendants’ content policies and practices used to organize and display third-party
`
`content. The First Amendment prohibits forcing a communications service to adopt or enforce
`
`particular content policies or practices, because such policies are themselves an exercise of a platform’s
`
`protected “editorial control and judgment.” See NetChoice, LLC v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 34 F.4th 1196,
`
`1210-11 (11th Cir. 2022) (citing Miami Herald Publ’n Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974)).
`
`Beyond those threshold problems, the SAC also fails to plead essential elements of its claims
`
`
`
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-00401-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00401-JD Document 94 Filed 07/25/22 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`as a matter of law. To begin with, “strict liability extends only to tangible goods—not intangible goods
`
`or services.” Merritt v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 2015 WL 5542992, at *22 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015),
`
`aff’d, 783 F. App’x 717 (9th Cir. 2019). Defendants’ apps are “intangible” services—akin to video
`
`streaming services, video games, and other “forms of media”—which are not “products” for purposes
`
`of products liability. Est. of B.H. v. Netflix, Inc., 2022 WL 551701, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2022)
`
`(dismissing product liability claims alleging a suicide after watching content on streaming platform).
`
`The SAC’s negligence claim fails because courts have declined to impose legal duties of care on
`
`providers of websites and online apps. See, e.g., Modisette v. Apple Inc., 30 Cal. App. 5th 136, 144
`
`(2018); Dyroff, 934 F.3d at 1101. And both of the common-law claims fail because the SAC does not
`
`10
`
`plausibly allege causation. Rather, the SAC expressly alleges that Selena’s injuries were the
`
`11
`
`“proximate result” of the harmful acts of third parties who sent her exploitative, abusive messages and
`
`12
`
`engaged in “bullying” and worse. SAC ¶¶ 112, 133.
`
`13
`
`The SAC also cannot state a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). It has
`
`14
`
`not pled that Plaintiff is entitled to restitution or injunctive relief—the only remedies available to a
`
`15
`
`private plaintiff under the UCL—and the SAC has not alleged that Defendants’ purported conduct was
`
`16
`
`unlawful, fraudulent, or unfair. Nor does the SAC state a claim under the federal trafficking laws, 18
`
`17
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1595 and 1591. The SAC alleges no facts showing that Defendants knowingly
`
`18
`
`“participat[ed] in a venture” with anyone who allegedly engaged in trafficking. Id. § 1595(a).
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Because these defects cannot be cured, the SAC should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`II. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
`
`Defendants’ apps—Instagram (Meta Platforms, Inc.), Snapchat (Snap, Inc.), and TikTok
`
`22
`
`(TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Inc.)—allow users to create, share, and view content. Snapchat facilitates
`
`23
`
`communications between real friends that (like conversations in real life) disappear after being viewed
`
`24
`
`by the intended recipient; TikTok is a video-sharing platform that third-party users may use to create,
`
`25
`
`share, and view short-form videos; Instagram allows users to share content like videos and photos
`
`26
`
`through feeds, as well as communicate through direct messages. See generally SAC ¶¶ 25-60.
`
`27
`
`This case arises from the death of Plaintiff’s daughter, Selena. Plaintiff alleges that Selena
`
`28
`
`started using Defendants’ apps when she was nine years old, even though Defendants’ terms of use
`
`
`
`2
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-00401-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00401-JD Document 94 Filed 07/25/22 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`require their users to be at least 13 years old. SAC ¶ 64. Plaintiff alleges that Selena was “given a
`
`computer tablet to access the internet,” shortly thereafter “downloaded Defendants’ social media
`
`products,” and “quickly became addicted to” Defendants’ apps. Id. ¶¶ 103-04. She allegedly
`
`connected with “over 2,500 different individuals” on “social media.” Id. Some of these
`
`communications involved horrific wrongdoing by third parties. In particular, the SAC describes
`
`exploitative conversations that Selena had with several individuals who sent and solicited sexually
`
`explicit messages and photographs. Id. ¶¶ 115-32. Some images were “subsequently shared or leaked
`
`to her classmates.” Id. ¶¶ 110-11. As the “proximate result” of these harmful encounters, Selena
`
`developed a number of mental health conditions. Id. ¶¶ 112, 133. Plaintiff alleges that she tried
`
`10
`
`“multiple times to reduce or limit her daughter’s use of social media” but could not. Id. ¶ 105. Selena
`
`11
`
`tragically died by suicide on July