Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA Document 41 Filed 06/30/22 Page 1 of 36
`
`Michael P. Esser (SBN 268634)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`United States
`Telephone: +1 415 439 1400
`Facsimile: +1 415 439 1500
`michael.esser@kirkland.com
`
`K. Winn Allen, P.C. (admitted pro hac vice)
`Devin S. Anderson (admitted pro hac vice)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`United States
`Telephone: +1 202 389 5000
`Facsimile: +1 202 389 5200
`winn.allen@kirkland.com
`devin.anderson@kirkland.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Instagram, LLC,
`Facebook Operations, LLC, and Meta
`Platforms, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01101-WHA
`
`DEFENDANTS INSTAGRAM, LLC,
`FACEBOOK OPERATIONS, LLC,
`AND META PLATFORMS, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND STRIKE THE
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`Complaint Filed Date: February 22, 2022
`Judge:
`William Alsup
`Hearing Date:
`September 8, 2022
`Time:
`11:00 am
`Courtroom:
`12, 19th Floor
`
`
`DAWN DANGAARD, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`INSTAGRAM, LLC, et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`META’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01101-WHA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-01101-WHA Document 41 Filed 06/30/22 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`Please take notice that on September 8, 2022 at 11:00am, pursuant to this Court’s April 9, 2022
`order, the undersigned will appear before the Honorable William Alsup of the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, at the San Francisco Courthouse, 450
`Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, and shall then and there present defendants Instagram,
`LLC; Facebook Operations, LLC; and Meta Platforms, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss and Strike the First
`Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Motion”).
`
`The Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points
`and Authorities, the attached exhibits and Supporting Declaration of Devin S. Anderson (the “Anderson
`Decl.”), the pleadings and other papers on file in this action, any oral argument, and any other evidence
`the Court may consider in hearing this Motion.
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`Instagram, LLC; Facebook Operations, LLC; and Meta Platforms, Inc. (collectively, “Meta”)
`
`request that the Court strike or dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice.
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`On February 22, 2022, plaintiffs, who seek to represent a class of adult-entertainment performers,
`filed this lawsuit alleging that Meta employees have engaged in a multi-layered scheme to “blacklist” or
`remove, block, and otherwise reduce the visibility of plaintiffs’ posts and accounts on social media.
`Plaintiffs bring claims for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business
`relationships, and a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions code,
`§ 17200 et seq. Meta moves to strike the amended complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal.
`Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16, or alternatively, to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 12(b)(6). This Motion raises the following issues:
`1.
`Whether plaintiffs’ claims should be stricken under California’s anti-SLAPP statute,
`Section 425.16, because:
`a.
`Plaintiffs’ claims arise from allegations about conduct that is protected under the
`First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and is in connection with an issue of
`public interest, and therefore falls within the scope of Section 425.16.
`Plaintiffs have not shown a reasonable probability of prevailing on their claims.
`
`b.
`
`
`
`
`
`META’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01101-WHA
`
`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-01101-WHA Document 41 Filed 06/30/22 Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Whether plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`12(b)(6), because:
`a.
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
`b.
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
`c.
`Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged facts showing entitlement to relief.
`d.
`Meta is not vicariously liable for the alleged conduct of John Doe defendants.
`e.
`Plaintiffs have not alleged any interference with contracts or prospective economic
`advantage.
`Plaintiffs have not shown they lack adequate remedies at law.
`
`f.
`
`META’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01101-WHA
`
`
`
`
`
`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-01101-WHA Document 41 Filed 06/30/22 Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`II.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................................................. 5
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 6
`I.
`The Anti-SLAPP Statute Applies to Plaintiffs’ Claims ...................................................... 7
`A.
`The Complaint Targets Meta’s Protected Conduct .................................................. 7
`B.
`Plaintiffs’ Suit Targets Conduct in Connection with an Issue of Public
`Interest .................................................................................................................... 11
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Fail as a Matter of Law ........................................................................ 12
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Barred by the First Amendment ......................................... 12
`B.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims are Barred by Section 230 of the Communications
`Decency Act ........................................................................................................... 14
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations Are Not Plausible ............................................................... 18
`C.
`D. Meta Is Not Vicariously Liable for the Alleged Conduct of John Doe
`Defendants .............................................................................................................. 21
`Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged Any Interference With Contracts Or
`Prospective Economic Advantage .......................................................................... 23
`Plaintiffs’ UCL Claim Must Be Dismissed Under Sonner .................................... 24
`F.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 25
`
`
`
`E.
`
`META’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`i
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01101-WHA
`
`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-01101-WHA Document 41 Filed 06/30/22 Page 5 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`16630 Southfield Ltd. P’ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B.,
`727 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................20
`AlterG, Inc. v. Boost Treadmills LLC,
`388 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................................24
`Aschroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...........................................................................................................19, 21
`Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................................15, 16
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...........................................................................................................19, 20
`Brown v. Ent. Merchs. Ass’n,
`564 U.S. 786 (2011) ...................................................................................................................7
`Caraccioli v. Facebook, Inc.,
`167 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2016), aff’d, 700 F. App’x 588 (9th Cir. 2017) ..................15
`Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................15, 18
`In re Century Aluminum Co. Sec. Litig.,
`729 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................20
`Cross v. Facebook, Inc.,
`14 Cal. App. 5th 190 (2017) ......................................................................................................8
`Davison v. Facebook, Inc.,
`370 F. Supp. 3d 621 (E.D. Va. 2019), aff’d, 774 F. App’x 162 (4th Cir. 2019)........................8
`Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Sec’y of Pa.,
`830 F. App’x 377 (3d Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................20
`Ebeid v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2019 WL 2059662 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2019) .....................................................................15, 16
`Emery v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n,
`95 Cal. App. 4th 952 (2002) ..............................................................................................21, 22
`Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC,
`521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................16
`FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc.,
`7 Cal. 5th 133 (2019) .........................................................................................................12, 13
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO META’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01101-WHA
`
`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-01101-WHA Document 41 Filed 06/30/22 Page 6 of 36
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONT’D)
`
`Page(s)
`In re Firearm Cases,
`126 Cal. App. 4th 959 (2005) ..................................................................................................22
`Force v. Facebook, Inc.,
`934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019)...........................................................................................17, 18, 19
`In re Ford Tailgate Litig.,
`2014 WL 1007066 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2014) .........................................................................25
`Fraley v. Facebook, Inc.,
`830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .....................................................................................15
`Fyk v. Facebook, Inc.,
`808 F. App’x 597 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1067 (2021) .....................15, 16, 18
`Gonzalez v. Google LLC,
`2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................2, 15, 16, 18
`Greater L.A. Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc.,
`742 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 2014) .....................................................................................................9
`Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow,
`8 F.4th 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................................6
`Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co.,
`2 Cal. 3d 956 (1970) ................................................................................................................23
`JFF Publ’ns LLC, d/b/a JustFor.Fans v. Facebook Operations, LLC,
`Case No. 22-CIV-00782 ............................................................................................................3
`Kelsey K. v. NFL Enterprises, LLC,
`254 F. Supp. 3d 1140 (N.D. Cal. 2017), aff’d, 757 F. App’x 524 (9th Cir. 2018) ..................20
`Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc.,
`836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................17
`Klayman v. Zuckerberg,
`753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ...............................................................................................15
`La’Tiejira v. Facebook, Inc.,
`272 F. Supp. 3d 981 (S.D. Tex. 2017) .......................................................................................8
`Lancaster v. Alphabet Inc.,
`2016 WL 3648608 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2016) ............................................................................16
`Levitt v. Yelp!, Inc.,
`2011 WL 5079526 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2011), aff’d, 765 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2014) ..............16
`Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem’l Hosp.,
`12 Cal. 4th 291 (1995) .......................................................................................................22, 23
`Lusk v. Kellogg,
`2011 WL 13225140 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011) .......................................................................23
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO META’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01101-WHA
`
`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-01101-WHA Document 41 Filed 06/30/22 Page 7 of 36
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONT’D)
`
`Page(s)
`Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017) .............................................................................................6, 12
`Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck,
`139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019) ...............................................................................................................7
`Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo,
`418 U.S. 241 (1974) .......................................................................................................7, 10, 13
`Munning v. Gap, Inc.,
`238 F. Supp. 3d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................25
`Murphy v. Twitter, Inc.,
`60 Cal. App. 5th 12 (2021) ......................................................................................................16
`Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc. v. Super. Ct. of Alameda Cnty.,
`9 Cal. 5th 279 (2020) ...............................................................................................................24
`NetChoice, LLC v. Att’y Gen., Fla.,
`34 F.4th 1196 (11th Cir. 2022) ........................................................................................ passim
`NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton,
`2021 WL 5755120 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2021) .........................................................................10
`Nguyen v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.,
`2017 WL 1330602 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017) .........................................................................25
`O’Handley v. Padilla,
`2022 WL 93625 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2022) ....................................................................8, 10, 14
`People v. Toomey,
`157 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1984) .......................................................................................................22
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n,
`494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................22
`Philips v. Ford Motor Co.,
`726 F. App’x. 608 (9th Cir. 2018) .....................................................................................24, 25
`Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress,
`890 F.3d 828 (9th Cir.), amended, 897 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................6
`Publius v. Boyer-Vine,
`237 F. Supp. 3d 997 (E.D. Cal. 2017)........................................................................................8
`Reno v. ACLU,
`521 U.S. 844 (1997) ...................................................................................................................8
`Rhynes v. Stryker Corp.,
`2011 WL 2149095 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011) .........................................................................25
`Riggs v. MySpace, Inc.,
`444 F. App’x 986 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................16
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO META’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`
`
`iv
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01101-WHA
`
`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-01101-WHA Document 41 Filed 06/30/22 Page 8 of 36
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONT’D)
`
`Page(s)
`Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of N.C., Inc.,
`487 U.S. 781 (1988) ...................................................................................................................7
`Rodgers v. Kemper Constr. Co.,
`50 Cal. App. 3d 608 (1975) .....................................................................................................23
`San Miguel v. HP Inc.,
`317 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................................24
`Search King, Inc. v. Google Tech., Inc.,
`2003 WL 21464568 (W.D. Okla. May 27, 2003) ....................................................................10
`Sikhs for Just. “SFJ”, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`144 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2015), aff’d sub nom. Sikhs for Just., Inc. v.
`Facebook, Inc., 697 F. App’x 526 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................15, 16, 17, 18
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................24, 25
`Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.,
`564 U.S. 552 (2011) ...................................................................................................................7
`Stackla, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2019 WL 4738288 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2019) ........................................................................12
`Tietsworth v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
`720 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .....................................................................................6
`U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC,
`855 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................14
`Weston Fam. P’ship LLLP v. Twitter, Inc.,
`29 F.4th 611 (9th Cir. 2022) ....................................................................................................19
`Williams v. Apple, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6743911 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020) ..................................................................24, 25
`Wong v. Jing,
`189 Cal. App. 4th 1354 (2010) ................................................................................................12
`Worldwide, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`2017 WL 2210029 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2017) ...........................................................................10
`Zapata Fonseca v. Goya Foods Inc.,
`2016 WL 4698942 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2016) ..........................................................................25
`Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc.,
`129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................15
`Zhang v. Baidu.com Inc.,
`10 F. Supp. 3d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ........................................................................................10
`Statutes
`47 U.S.C. § 230 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`MEMORANDUM ISO META’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`v
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01101-WHA
`
`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-01101-WHA Document 41 Filed 06/30/22 Page 9 of 36
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONT’D)
`
`Page(s)
`47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2) .....................................................................................................................15
`47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3) .....................................................................................................................15
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ......................................................................................................6
`Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1) ..............................................................................................13
`Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(e)(4) ..............................................................................................11
`Court Rules
`Rule 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................................................................6
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO META’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`
`
`vi
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01101-WHA
`
`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-01101-WHA Document 41 Filed 06/30/22 Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Plaintiffs are three adult entertainers who use social-media services like Meta’s Facebook and
`Instagram to direct users to certain adult-entertainment platforms where users can subscribe and see the
`entertainers’ performances. Plaintiffs post their content on sites that compete with OnlyFans, which is a
`well-known adult-entertainment platform that saw recent explosive growth through extensive media
`coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic and as pop megastars joined or referenced the platform.
`Plaintiffs claim that engagement with their social-media accounts and corresponding traffic to their sites
`diminished as OnlyFans increased in popularity. Instead of chalking this up to OnlyFans’ ascendancy in
`the cultural spotlight, plaintiffs filed a putative class action that alleges—on “information and belief”—
`that their social-media posts and accounts were systematically removed and suppressed from Facebook
`and Instagram as part of a vast and sophisticated scheme involving manipulation of automated filtering
`and blocking systems by “John Doe” Meta employees. Plaintiffs contend that these unnamed employees
`received payments from OnlyFans through a web of complex offshore transactions in exchange for
`promoting OnlyFans creators’ content at the expense of adult entertainers who used competing platforms.
`Plaintiffs’ highly implausible allegations fall within the scope of California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
`On its own terms, plaintiffs’ lawsuit rests on claims about Meta’s exercise of its First Amendment-
`protected editorial decision to block, filter, or de-prioritize certain content created by adult-entertainment
`performers. Such editorial choices—whether plaintiffs think those decisions are fair or unfair—are fully
`protected by California law and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. As the Eleventh
`Circuit recently held, when social-media apps “choose to remove users or posts, deprioritize content in
`viewers’ feeds or search results, or sanction breaches of their community standards, they engage in First-
`Amendment-protected activity.” NetChoice, LLC v. Att’y Gen., Fla., 34 F.4th 1196, 1213 (11th Cir.
`2022).1 And there can be no dispute that the speech here constitutes conduct “in connection” with an issue
`of public interest under the anti-SLAPP statute.
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim as a matter of law for multiple reasons. For starters, even if plaintiffs’
`
`1 All case citations are cleaned up, unless otherwise noted.
`MEMORANDUM ISO META’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01101-WHA
`
`1
`
`
`
`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-01101-WHA Document 41 Filed 06/30/22 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`improbable allegations were true, they would run headfirst into the protections of the First Amendment.
`In particular, plaintiffs’ claims violate the bedrock principle that, “whatever the reasons” a speaker may
`have for choosing to display (or not to display) particular speech, that decision “is presumed to lie beyond
`the government’s power to control.” Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos., 515 U.S.
`557, 575 (1995). Plaintiffs’ claims are also barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
`(CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230, because this lawsuit seeks to hold Meta liable for the alleged removed content
`posted by plaintiffs. “Congress affirmatively immunized interactive computer service providers” like
`Meta “that publish the speech or content of others” from lawsuits like this one. Gonzalez v. Google LLC,
`2 F.4th 871, 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2021).
`Plaintiffs’ claims also fail Rule 8’s plausibility standard. The only well-pleaded allegations in the
`complaint are (1) that adult-entertainer content is sometimes removed from Facebook and Instagram (both
`of which prohibit posting or linking off-site to sexually explicit material); and (2) that web traffic on
`OnlyFans increased, while web traffic on other adult-entertainment platforms decreased. Those
`allegations do not show an entitlement to relief because they are just as (if not more) consistent with
`plausible alternative explanations—most obviously, Meta’s own content-moderation policies and the
`widespread popularity of OnlyFans during the relevant time period. Nor are there allegations of fact that
`Meta under-enforced its policies as to OnlyFans. Rule 8 requires more than simply positing “on
`information and belief” an alternative story of offshore bribery and manipulation of algorithms. Plaintiffs’
`claims fail for a variety of state-law reasons, because they fail to allege any facts that would support
`vicarious liability for the alleged actions of the “John Doe” Meta employees. This is especially true when
`the bizarre implication of plaintiffs’ claims is that these John Doe Meta employees were working to drive
`traffic off of Facebook and Instagram and onto OnlyFans. For these reasons and those that follow, this
`Court should strike or dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Facebook and Instagram are online services that enable millions of users worldwide to connect
`and share information, including photographs and videos with family, coworkers, friends, and the broader
`public (if they so choose). Plaintiffs Dawn Dangaard (stage name: Alana Evans), Kelly Gilbert (stage
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO META’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01101-WHA
`
`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-01101-WHA Document 41 Filed 06/30/22 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`name: Kelly Pierce), and Jennifer Allbaugh (stage name: Ruby) are adult entertainers. Feb. 23, 2022 First
`Am. Class Action Compl., ECF No. 4 (“Am. Compl.”) ¶¶ 8–10. Plaintiffs claim they used Facebook or
`Instagram (or both) to “promote” their “Adult Entertainment content,” usually by posting links or
`directions to third-party adult-entertainment platforms where plaintiffs display pornographic content. Id.
`¶¶ 43, 51–52. 2 “Consumers are charged to access the content on” the adult-entertainment platforms, “with
`the revenue split between” the platform and the adult entertainer. Id. ¶ 2. Posting or linking to sexually
`explicit content has at all relevant times violated Facebook and Instagram’s Community Standards, which
`prohibit offers of “pornographic material, including, but not limited to, sharing of links to external
`pornographic websites,” Ex. 1,3 and which “restrict the display of nudity or sexual activity,” Ex. 2.4
`Plaintiffs complain about the removal of some of their (unidentified) posts or that their accounts
`were suspended altogether. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43–52. For example, Evans claims that “her followers were
`receiving many fewer of her posts than they had previously received,” and that her Instagram account was
`deleted in January 2020. Id. ¶¶ 44–45. The account was restored, but she had fewer followers. Id. ¶ 45.
`Pierce and Ruby allege similar experiences, although Ruby’s Instagram account was never removed. Id.
`¶¶ 48–52. Plaintiffs claim that their reduced presence on Instagram and Facebook has prevented them
`from directing more users off of Facebook and Instagram to their adult-entertainment websites, resulting
`in fewer visitors and subscribers. Id. ¶¶ 44–46, 49, 52. There are many adult-entertainment platforms:
`plaintiffs themselves reference cams.com, unfiltered.com, loyalfans.com, Chaturbate, and Streamate. Id.
`¶¶ 47–48. But the focus of plaintiffs’ complaint is OnlyFans.com, which is allegedly owned by defendants
`Fenix International Inc., Fenix Internet LLC, and Leonid Radvinsky. According to the complaint,
`OnlyFans began substantially increasing in popularity in 2019–21. Id. ¶ 39. While OnlyFans’ web traffic
`increased moderately in late-2019, traffic on the site skyrocketed beginning in March of 2020, which was
`the onset of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Id. In a 30-day period between March and April of 2020,
`
`2 There is a parallel putative class action pending in the Superior Court for the State of California, County
`of San Mateo, which is asserted on behalf of adult-entertainment platforms that compete with OnlyFans.
`See JFF Publ’ns LLC, d/b/a JustFor.Fans v. Facebook Operations, LLC, Case No. 22-CIV-00782. This
`case is brought only on behalf of adult entertainers.
`3 Anderson Decl. Ex. 1, Meta Community Standards – Sexual Solicitation.
`4 Anderson Decl. Ex. 2, Meta Community Standards – Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity.
`MEMORANDUM ISO META’S MOTION TO
`3
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01101-WHA
`DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`
`
`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-01101-WHA Document 41 Filed 06/30/22 Page 13 of 36
`
`
`
`60,000 content creators flocked to OnlyFans, and by December of 2020, more than one million content
`creators had joined the platform, a nearly ten-fold increase from the 120,000 content creators on OnlyFans
`in 2019.5 Supporting this influx of new adult entertainers were hundreds of millions of people confined
`to their homes with few sources of entertainment—in the first 12 months of the pandemic, OnlyFans’ user
`base grew from 20 million to 120 million.6
`High-profile celebrities also endorsed OnlyFans, generating substantial popular cultural cachet and
`elevating “OnlyFans” into the country’s pandemic lexicon. In April of 2020, popular recording artists
`Beyoncé and Megan Thee Stallion released the song “Savage Remix,” in which Beyoncé referenced
`OnlyFans. “Savage Remix” quickly shot to number one on Billboard’s Hot 100,7 and the song’s music
`video has been viewed nearly 80 million times. In the 24-hour period following the song’s release,
`OnlyFans experienced a 15% spike in internet traffic,8 and observed daily sign-ups of 200,000 users and
`7,000–8,000 creators.9 OnlyFans’ visibility was further amplified when, four months later, in August of
`2020, popular rapper Cardi B joined OnlyFans as a creator, promising to share previously unreleased
`footage related to the music video for her pandemic-era blockbuster song.10
`Plaintiffs nevertheless claim that OnlyFans’ increase in popularity and the decrease in popularity
`of some of its competitors was in fact the product of an elaborate scheme. As plaintiffs tell it, John Doe
`
`5 Anderson Decl. Ex. 3, Gabrielle Drolet, The Year Sex Work Came Home, N.Y. TIMES, (Apr. 10, 2020),
`https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/style/camsoda-onlyfans-streaming-sex-coronavirus.html.)
`6 Anderson Decl. Ex. 4, Anna Cooban, OnlyFans has boomed during lockdown. Users spent $2.4 billion
`on the adult-entertainment site in 2020, and 120 million people now use it, BUSINESS INSIDER (Apr. 27,
`2021), https://www.businessinsider.com/onlyfans-lockdown-boom-transactions-hit-24b-revenue-up-553-
`2021-4.
`7 Anderson Decl. Ex. 5, Gary Trust, Megan Thee Stallion & Beyoncé’s ‘Savage’ Surges to No. 1 on
`Billboard Hot 100, BILLBOARD, (May 26, 2020), https://www.billboard.com/pro/megan-thee-stallion-
`beyonce-savage-number-one-hot-100/.
`8 Anderson Decl. Ex. 6, Marlow Stern, Beyoncé Gives Adult Site OnlyFans Big Bump With ‘Savage’ Remix
`Shout-Out, THE DAILY BEAST, (Apr. 30, 2020), https://www.thedailybeast.com/adult-site-onlyfans-
`experiences-big-beyonce-bump-following-savage-remix.
`9 Anderson Decl. Ex. 7, Otillia Steadman, Everyone is Making Porn at Home Now. Will the Porn Industry
`NEWS,
`(5/6/2020),
`Survive?,
`BUZZFEED
`https://www.bu