Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
`(rhodesmg@cooley.com)
`KYLE C. WONG (224021)
`(kwong@cooley.com)
`SHARON SONG (313535)
`(ssong@cooley.com)
`GIA JUNG (340160)
`(gjung@cooley.com)
`3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-4004
`Telephone:
`+1 415 693 2000
`Facsimile:
`+1 415 693 2222
`Attorneys for Defendants
`BUMBLE INC. and
`BUMBLE HOLDING LIMITED
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`HARSH ALKUTKAR, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`BUMBLE INC. and BUMBLE HOLDING
`LIMITED,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:22-cv-00422-PJH
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
`AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`Declaration of Christopher Rosas and
`(Proposed) Order filed concurrently
`herewith
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Dept:
`Judge:
`
`
`Action Filed: January 22, 2022
`
`
`June 30, 2022
`1:30 p.m.
`Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor
`Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00422-PJH
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 30, 2022 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as this
`Motion may be heard in the above-titled Court, located at 1301 Clay Street, 3rd Floor, Courtroom 3,
`Oakland, CA 94612, Defendants Bumble Inc. and Bumble Holding Limited (collectively,
`“Defendants”) will and hereby do move this Court to dismiss Plaintiff Harsh Alkutkar’s
`(“Plaintiff”) Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) (ECF No. 1) for failure to state a claim under
`Rule 12(b)(6) and for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2).
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the concurrently filed Declaration of Christopher Rosas,
`all pleadings and papers on file in this matter, and upon such matters as may be presented to the
`Court at the time of hearing on this Motion or otherwise.
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`Defendants seek dismissal of the above-entitled action under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
`
`state a claim upon which relief can be granted and under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal
`jurisdiction as to Bumble Inc.
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`Whether Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for any of his five causes of action.
`Whether this Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Bumble Inc.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00422-PJH
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Statement of Facts ............................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Bumble App ............................................................................................................ 2
`B.
`Bumble App’s SuperSwipes and Spotlights ........................................................... 2
`C.
`Plaintiff’s Allegations ............................................................................................. 3
`D.
`Bumble Inc. Has No Involvement with the Bumble App or App User Data .......... 4
`
`Legal Standard .................................................................................................................... 5
`
`The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint For Failure to State a Claim
`Under Rule 12(b)(6) ............................................................................................................ 5
`A.
`No Reasonable Consumer Would Have Been Deceived By Bumble’s
`Allegedly False Advertising and Plaintiff Fails to Allege an Actionable
`Misrepresentation .................................................................................................... 6
`1.
`Bumble’s Advertising, Taken as a Whole, Is Not Misleading .................... 6
`2.
`A Reasonable Consumer Would Not Be Misled By Bumble’s
`Advertising Containing the “Up to” Qualifier ............................................ 9
`Plaintiff’s Complaint Fails to Satisfy the Heightened Pleading
`Requirements Under Rule 9(b) ............................................................................. 12
`1.
`Plaintiff’s Complaint as a Whole Is Subject to Rule 9(b) ......................... 12
`2.
`Plaintiff’s Allegations Do Not Satisfy Rule 9(b) ...................................... 13
`
`B.
`
`The Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Bumble Inc. ................................................ 15
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 17
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00422-PJH
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.,
`945 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2019) ......................................................................................... 6, 9, 10
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 5
`
`Bobo v. Optimum Nutrition, Inc.,
`No. 14CV2408 BEN (KSC), 2015 WL 13102417 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2015) ..................... 7, 9
`
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct.,
`137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) ............................................................................................................ 16
`
`Calvo v. MortgageIT Inc.,
`No. CV 10-9652 GAF, 2011 WL 13217801 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2011) ............................ 13, 14
`
`Coffee v. Google, LLC,
`No. 20-cv-03901-BLF, 2021 WL 493387 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021)..................................... 11
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) ................................................................................................................ 16
`
`Dinan v. Sandisk LLC,
`No. 18-cv-05420-BLF, 2019 WL 2327923 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2019) .................................... 7
`
`Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`Fink v. Time Warner Cable,
`714 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................ 9, 10
`
`Freeman v. Time, Inc.,
`68 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................... 6, 9
`
`Gilmore v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.,
`75 F. Supp. 3d 1255 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................................... 13
`
`Girard v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
`316 F. App'x 561 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`In re GlenFed, Inc. Secs. Litig.,
`42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00422-PJH
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`Goldsmith v. Allergan, Inc.,
`No. CV 09-7088 PSG (Ex), 2011 WL 147714 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2011) .............................. 15
`
`In re Google, Inc. Priv. Pol’y Litig.,
`58 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...................................................................................... 12
`
`Graham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`No. 15-cv-04220-JD, 2017 WL 86013 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2017) .......................................... 12
`
`Hutson v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc.,
`No. C 09-1951 PJH, 2009 WL 3353312 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2009) (J.
`Hamilton) ................................................................................................................................ 13
`
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`In re iPhone 4s Consumer Litig.,
`637 F. App'x 414 (9th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................... 12, 15
`
`Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`Lokey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-04782-LB, 2020 WL 6822890 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2020) ...................................... 6
`
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................................. 15
`
`Lusson v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-00705-VC, 2016 WL 10932723 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) .................................. 12
`
`Maldonado v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 3:16-cv-04067-WHO, 2017 WL 818868 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2017)................................. 15
`
`Maloney v. Verizon Internet Servs., Inc.,
`413 F. App’x 997 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................. 9, 10, 11
`
`Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp.,
`873 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................. 16
`
`Najarian Holdings LLC v. Corevest Am. Fin. Lender LLC,
`No. 20-cv-00799-PJH, 2020 WL 5993225 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2020) (J.
`Hamilton) .................................................................................................................... 12, 13, 14
`
`Navarro v. Block,
`250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00422-PJH
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen,
`141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................. 15
`
`Ranza v. Nike, Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................. 5, 16
`
`Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,
`374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................... 5, 16
`
`Stanislaus Food Prods. Co. v. USS-POSCO Indus.,
`782 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (E.D. Cal. 2011) ..................................................................................... 5
`
`TI Ltd. v. Chavez,
`No. 3:19-cv-01830-WQH-KSC, 2020 WL 7078839 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2020) ...................... 17
`
`Tomek v. Apple Inc.,
`636 F. App’x 712 (9th Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................... 9, 12
`
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`Wallace v. Cellco P’ship,
`No. CV 14-8052-DSF (AS), 2015 WL 13908106 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2015) .......................... 16
`
`Welk v. Beam Suntory Imp. Co.,
`124 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (S.D. Cal. 2015) ..................................................................................... 6
`
`Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co.,
`552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`In re Zoom Video Commc'ns Inc. Priv. Litig.,
`525 F. Supp. 3d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .................................................................................. 11
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ................................................................................................................ passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00422-PJH
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Harsh Alkutkar seeks to hold Defendants Bumble Holding Limited (“Bumble”)1
`and Bumble Inc. liable for alleged misrepresentations arising out of his purchase of premium
`features—SuperSwipes and Spotlights—in the Bumble app. Specifically, he claims that Bumble’s
`statements that his purchases of these features would garner “up to 10x” more conversations or
`matches on the app were false and misleading and that he received no “discernable” benefit from
`their use. Bumble, however, used the qualifier “up to” in its statements to make clear that the use
`of these features could increase his connections with other Bumble users “up to 10 times,” and that
`such an outcome of 10x was not guaranteed. Moreover, the context of the statements is key; they
`were presented alongside several different purchase options—a user could buy packs of
`SuperSwipes or Spotlights in various quantities, including thirty, fifteen, five, or one—thus making
`it clear that the predicted range of outcomes (“up to 10x”) was related to the quantity purchased.
`Plaintiff’s arguments blithely ignore this context and in doing so strain credulity. For instance,
`under Plaintiff’s theory, a reasonable consumer would believe that purchasing a single SuperSwipe,
`which allows a user to let one potential match know that the user is particularly interested in him
`or her, would result in 10 times more matches. But one SuperSwipe by definition may be used only
`once on a single user profile. Taken in their proper context, Bumble’s clear statements would
`therefore not, as the law requires, deceive a reasonable consumer (let alone Plaintiff). The
`Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as Plaintiff cannot make out a required element in
`each of his claims as a matter of law.
`Plaintiff’s Complaint likewise fails for a number of other dispositive reasons that all
`independently mandate dismissal of his claims. Because Plaintiff’s Complaint is based entirely on
`alleged fraudulent statements, every one of his claims must meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading
`standard. The Complaint does not come close: Plaintiff wholly fails to allege, inter alia, any
`specific facts as to why Bumble’s statements are misleading and whether he actually relied on these
`
`
`1 As described fully below, Bumble Inc. did not design the Bumble app, nor has it ever owned,
`operated, or controlled the app or its content.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00422-PJH
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`statements for his purchases of the premium features. Moreover, this Court lacks personal
`jurisdiction over Bumble Inc., a holding company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in
`Texas that does no business in California nor owns or operates the Bumble app.2
`For these reasons and those that follow, this Court should dismiss the Complaint in its
`entirety with prejudice.
`II.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A.
`Bumble App
`Bumble operates a popular dating, friendship, and professional networking application (the
`“Bumble app”), on which users can create a profile with photos and information about themselves.
`Compl. ¶ 1. The Bumble app launched in 2014 and has over 1 million paying users. Id. ¶ 17.
`Users of the Bumble app can create a profile and use the app to swipe through and potentially match
`with other Bumble app users for free. Id. ¶ 18. A user is presented with other user profiles that can
`be swiped left or right to “dislike” or “like” the other user, respectively. Id. ¶ 1. If two users
`mutually right-swipe each other’s profiles, a match is created. Id. ¶ 2 n.1. When a match is made
`between a man and a woman, a private line of communication is created between the two in the
`Bumble app, and the woman can initiate a conversation on that private line within 24 hours of its
`creation. Id. ¶ 2 n.1.
`
`B.
`Bumble App’s SuperSwipes and Spotlights
`The Bumble app offers for sale certain premium features that “increase the likelihood of
`matching with another user.” Id. ¶ 2; id. ¶ 18 (noting premium features may “increase the
`probability or speed of matching with other users). Two of those features are called SuperSwipes
`and Spotlights.
`SuperSwipes allow a user to let potential matches know that he or she is particularly
`interested in them. Id. ¶ 19. Specifically, a user can use a SuperSwipe to tap a yellow heart at the
`top right of other users’ profiles, which would inform the other users that they’ve been
`
`
`2 Defendants have also filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. Defendants respectfully submit that
`this Court should compel arbitration without having to consider the arguments presented in this
`Motion (which should be properly heard by the arbitrator). Alternatively, if the Court decides to
`address the merits first (which it should not), Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed in its
`entirety for failure to state any viable claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction over Bumble Inc.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00422-PJH
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`“SuperSwiped” by the user before they swipe left or right on the user’s profile.3 Id. ¶¶ 4 n.2, 19.
`As provided by the screenshots included in the Complaint, Bumble app users can purchase
`SuperSwipes in packs of various quantities, including thirty, fifteen, five, and one.4 Id. ¶¶ 3, 20.
`With Spotlights, a user can active the Spotlight mode, which advances a user’s profile to
`the top of the list of potential matches so that it can be more viewable by other users in a geographic
`area. Id. ¶¶ 8 n.7, 21. A user can use one Spotlight to activate the mode for 30 minutes or two
`Spotlights to activate the mode for 150 minutes. Id. ¶ 8 n.7. Bumble app users can purchase
`Spotlights in packs of various quantities, including thirty, fifteen, five, and one. Id. ¶¶ 3, 22.
`
`C.
`Plaintiff’s Allegations
`Plaintiff alleges that Bumble advertises Spotlights as providing “Up to 10x more matches”
`and SuperSwipes as providing “Up to 10x more conversations.” Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleges that such
`advertising is a “gross exaggeration[] of the actual benefits these features provide.” Id. ¶ 4.
`Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on March 21, 2021, he purchased a pack of 15 SuperSwipes from
`within the Bumble app. Id. ¶¶ 10, 33. Plaintiff claims that “[b]ased on” Bumble’s statement that
`SuperSwipes would provide “Up to 10x more conversations,” he believed he would receive “ten
`times, or close to ten times, more matches and conversations than he usually received without the
`use of SuperSwipes.” Id. ¶ 33. Plaintiff further alleges that there was no discernable increase in
`his number of matches or conversations as a result of using the SuperSwipes he purchased, and
`even if there was, it would be “negligible and/or nowhere close to the 10x multiplier promised.”
`Id. But nowhere in the Complaint does Plaintiff allege how many matches and conversations he
`had prior to his purchase of the SuperSwipes, how many “he usually received,” or how many more
`he expected to receive after purchase of the feature that was “close to ten times” his “usual[]”
`numbers. See id. Nor does Plaintiff plead how many SuperSwipes he actually used, when he used
`them, or how many matches and conversations were obtained through the SuperSwipes he used.
`
`
`3 The current Bumble app allows a user to SuperSwipe by tapping a hexagonal star in the bottom-
`right corner of another user’s profile. This modification of the user interface does not affect the
`allegations in the Complaint or Defendants’ arguments in this Motion.
`4 The screenshots in the Complaint cut out a part of the last pack option, which offers a single
`Spotlight or SuperSwipe.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00422-PJH
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`Despite the allegedly deficient performance of his SuperSwipe purchase, Plaintiff
`nevertheless claims that he subsequently decided to purchase a pack of five and fifteen Spotlights,
`respectively, on August 15, 2021 and September 9, 2021, on the Bumble app. Id. ¶¶ 10, 34.
`Plaintiff alleges that based on Bumble’s statements that Spotlight would provide “Up to 10x more
`matches,” he believed he would receive “ten times, or close to ten times, more matches than he
`usually receives without the use of Spotlights.” Id. ¶ 34. Plaintiff further contends that there was
`no discernable increase in his number of matches as a result of using the Spotlights he purchased.
`Id. Plaintiff alleges that even if there was an increase in his number of matches, it “was negligible
`and/or nowhere close to the 10x multiplier promised.” Id. But, just like his allegations regarding
`the SuperSwipes he purchased, Plaintiff nowhere alleges how many matches he had prior to his
`purchase of the Spotlights, how many “he usually receive[d], or how many more he expected to
`receive from use of the Spotlights that was “close to ten times” his “usual[]” numbers. See id. Nor
`does he plead how many Spotlights he used, when he used them, or how many matches he obtained
`through such use.
`Aside from nebulous statements about his own experience, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding
`falsity are comprised mainly of a scattershot set of online posts from years ago, that “most men”
`who use SuperSwipes see no increase in their matches whatsoever. Id. ¶ 5. Plaintiff also concludes,
`from three online Reddit posts from two years ago, that SuperSwipes may actually harm a man’s
`changes at matching with a woman. Id. ¶¶ 6-8. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff claims that
`“[l]ike numerous other Bumble users,” he received no discernable benefit from the use of
`SuperSwipes and Spotlights and was “duped by Bumble’s false advertising.” Id. ¶ 9.
`Plaintiff brings the following five causes of action, all of which are based on Bumble’s
`alleged false advertising for SuperSwipes and Spotlights: (1) negligent misrepresentation, (2)
`intentional misrepresentation, (3) violation of the CLRA, (4) violation of the FAL, and (5) violation
`of the UCL under the unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair prongs.
`D.
`Bumble Inc. Has No Involvement with the Bumble App or App User Data
`Bumble Inc. did not design the Bumble app, nor has it ever owned, operated, or controlled
`the app or its content. See Declaration of Christopher Rosas (“Rosas Decl.”) ¶ 9. Bumble Inc. also
`
`
`4
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00422-PJH
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`has no involvement in the marketing or advertising for the Bumble app or the premium features
`that can be purchased in the app, and it does not generate any revenue from the Bumble app. Id. ¶¶
`8-9. Rather, Bumble Inc. is a holding company that has no employees in California and conducts
`no operating business anywhere. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. Bumble Inc. is incorporated under the laws of
`Delaware and its office and headquarters are located in Texas. See Compl. ¶ 11. As such, Bumble
`Inc. has no actual connection to California.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`The Court should dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) where “there is no cognizable legal
`theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory.” Navarro v.
`Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), “labels and
`conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not” survive a
`motion to dismiss. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The Court is “free to
`ignore legal conclusions, unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences and sweeping legal
`conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.” Stanislaus Food Prods. Co. v. USS-POSCO
`Indus., 782 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1064 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
`For motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), “the plaintiff
`bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper.” Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059,
`1068 (9th Cir. 2015). Uncontroverted allegations must be taken as true, but “the plaintiff cannot
`‘simply rest on the bare allegations of its complaint.’” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,
`374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int’l, Inc., 551 F.2d 784,
`787 (9th Cir. 1977)).
`
`IV.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
`CLAIM UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`The Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because (1) Plaintiff fails to allege
`an actionable misrepresentation and (2) Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to and fails to satisfy Rule
`9(b)’s heightened pleading standard.
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00422-PJH
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`A.
`
`No Reasonable Consumer Would Have Been Deceived By Bumble’s Allegedly
`False Advertising and Plaintiff Fails to Allege an Actionable Misrepresentation
`
`All of Plaintiff’s claims, based on Bumble’s allegedly false advertising practices, require an
`actionable misrepresentation by which “members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Becerra
`v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 945 F.3d 1225, 1228 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Williams v. Gerber
`Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008)). The standard for evaluating a deceptive advertising
`claim on a motion to dismiss is whether a reasonable consumer would have been misled. See
`Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 289 (9th Cir. 1995) (adopting the “reasonable person” standard
`and rejecting the “unwary consumer” standard). This is an objective test. See Williams., 552 F.3d
`at 938; Lokey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 20-cv-04782-LB, 2020 WL 6822890, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
`Nov. 20, 2020) (dismissing plaintiffs’ UCL and FAL claims “[b]ecause the label [was] not
`deceptive, and the plaintiff’s subjective interpretation fail[ed] the reasonable-consumer test”
`(citations omitted)); Freeman, 68 F.3d at 289 (“the false or misleading advertising and unfair
`business practices claim must be evaluated from the vantage of a reasonable consumer”); Welk v.
`Beam Suntory Imp. Co., 124 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1044 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (dismissing intentional
`misrepresentation claim because advertising at issue would not mislead a reasonable consumer);
`Girard v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 316 F. App'x 561, 563 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming district
`court’s dismissal of negligent misrepresentation claim because “reasonable consumers would not
`be deceived by the advertisements underlying each of [plaintiff’s] claims”).
`
`1.
`Bumble’s Advertising, Taken as a Whole, Is Not Misleading
`In examining whether a plaintiff has shown that a reasonable consumer would have been
`misled by the challenged statements, courts must look to the context of the statements. See
`Freeman, 68 F.3d at 289-90 (plaintiff’s argument that a reasonable consumer would “ignore the
`qualifying language in small print” was “unreasonable in the context of the entire document”).
`Courts have not hesitated under this standard to dismiss claims where the information that
`accompanies the alleged misrepresentation makes it impossible for the plaintiff to show that a
`reasonable consumer would have been misled. See id. at 290 (“Any ambiguity that [Plaintiff]
`would read into any particular statement is dispelled by the promotion as a whole.”). Indeed, courts
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00422-PJH
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`should consider the full context and contents of the allegedly false advertising instead of “only one
`statement to the exclusion of everything else.” Bobo v. Optimum Nutrition, Inc., No. 14CV2408
`BEN (KSC), 2015 WL 13102417, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2015) (a reasonable consumer “cannot
`look at only one statement to the exclusion of everything else and claim he has been misled”); see
`also Dinan v. Sandisk LLC, No. 18-cv-05420-BLF, 2019 WL 2327923, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 31,
`2019) (reasonable consumer could not be deceived regarding the number of bytes in the storage
`device, given that other statements in the packaging clarified the meaning of the alleged
`misrepresentation).
`Applied here, the overall context of the challenged statements clearly demonstrates that
`Bumble’s statements would not mislead a reasonable consumer. As the screenshots in the
`Complaint make clear, Bumble’s advertisement of “Up to 10x” more conversations or matches for
`SuperSwipes and Spotlights is displayed above the purchase options for the two features and signals
`a qualified range of outcomes based on those purchase options (see Compl. ¶ 3):
`
`
`The options show that SuperSwipes and Spotlights can each be purchased in packs of thirty, fifteen,
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00422-PJH
`
`7
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00422-PJH Document 28 Filed 04/19/22 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`five, or one. See id. ¶¶ 3, 20, 22. Given these four choices, the qualifier “up to” informs the user
`that he or she can get a range of “up to 10x” more engagement with one of these four choices.5 A
`reasonable consumer would not expect that a purchase of a pack of 30 SuperSwipes or Spotlights
`provides the same results as a pack of 5—specifically, that the purchase of either pack should result
`in “ten times, or close to ten times, more matches and conversations than he usually received.”
`Compl. ¶ 33. It would be nonsensical, for example, for a