Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`Elizabeth L. Deeley (CA Bar No. 230798)
` elizabeth.deeley@lw.com
`Whitney B. Weber (CA Bar No. 281160)
` whitney.weber@lw.com
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, California 94111-6538
`Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
`
`Michele D. Johnson (CA Bar No. 198298)
` michele.johnson@lw.com
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, California 92626-1925
`Telephone: +1.714.755.8113
`
`Susan E. Engel (Pro Hac Vice)
` susan.engel@lw.com
`Margaret A. Upshaw (Pro Hac Vice)
` maggie.upshaw@lw.com
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: +1.202.637.3309
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Twitter, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`LAUREN PRICE, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`Hearing: November 14, 2022
`Time: 9:30 a.m.
`Location: Courtroom C – 15th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Sallie Kim
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 14, 2022 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter
`
`as the matter may be heard, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California, Courtroom C, 15th Floor, located at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102
`
`Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) through its undersigned counsel, will, and hereby does, move
`
`to dismiss Plaintiff Lauren Price’s (“Plaintiff”) Class Action Complaint (“Complaint” or
`
`“Compl.”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
`
`Twitter’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) is based on this Notice, the supporting
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“Memorandum”), the Declaration of Susan E. Engel and
`
`the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice and Incorporation by Reference, the complete files
`
`and records in this action, and any additional material and arguments as may be considered in
`
`connection with the hearing on the Motion.
`
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`(1) Whether the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint because Plaintiff fails to allege
`
`a particularized, concrete injury sufficient to establish Article III standing to bring her
`
`claims.
`
`(2) Whether the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 12(b)(6), because Plaintiff also fails to state each of her claims.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 15, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`
`By: /s/ Elizabeth L. Deeley
`
`
`
`Elizabeth L. Deeley (CA Bar No. 230798)
` elizabeth.deeley@lw.com
`Whitney B. Weber (CA Bar No. 281160)
` whitney.weber@lw.com
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, California 94111-6538
`Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
`
`Michele D. Johnson (CA Bar No. 198298)
` michele.johnson@lw.com
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, California 92626-1925
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`Telephone: +1.714.755.8113
`
`Susan E. Engel (Pro Hac Vice)
` susan.engel@lw.com
`Margaret A. Upshaw (Pro Hac Vice)
` maggie.upshaw@lw.com
`
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: +1.202.637.3309
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Twitter, 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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Twitter Informs Account Holders That the Contact Information
`They Share With Twitter May Be Used for Advertising Purposes ....................... 2
`
`B.
`
`FTC Complaint and Plaintiff’s Complaint ............................................................. 4
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Plaintiff Lacks Article III Standing........................................................................ 6
`
`Plaintiff’s Contract, Implied Contract, and UCL Claims Fail
`Because She Does Not Allege Cognizable Injuries ............................................. 10
`
`Plaintiff’s Requests for Equitable Relief Are Foreclosed by Sonner .................. 12
`
`The Limitation of Liability Provision in Twitter’s Terms of Service
`Bars Nearly All of Plaintiff’s Claims................................................................... 13
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Breach of Contract Claim.............................................. 14
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a UCL Claim .................................................................... 16
`
`Plaintiff’s Breach of Implied Contract and Unjust Enrichment
`Claims Should Be Dismissed ............................................................................... 20
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Abuelhawa v. Santa Clara Univ.,
`529 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ...................................................................................20
`
`Aguilera v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp.,
`223 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................11
`
`Ahern v. Apple Inc.,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 541 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .....................................................................................17
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................20
`
`Bass v. Facebook, Inc.,
`394 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................................14
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Berkla v. Corel Corp.,
`302 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................22
`
`Birdsong v. Apple, Inc.,
`590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Block v. eBay, Inc.,
`747 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................14
`
`Cappello v. Walmart Inc.,
`394 F. Supp. 3d 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................................19
`
`Chowning v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc.,
`733 F. App’x 404 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................20
`
`City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
`461 U.S. 95 (1983) ...................................................................................................................10
`
`Cottle v. Plaid Inc.,
`536 F. Supp. 3d 461 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .....................................................................................11
`
`Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A.,
`691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................4, 18, 20
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`
`DG3 Grp. (Holdings) Ltd. v. Lob.com, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-05287-SK, 2019 WL 13081489 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2019) ...................................23
`
`DiCarlo v. MoneyLion, Inc.,
`988 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................15
`
`Eidmann v. Walgreen Co.,
`522 F. Supp. 3d 634 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .....................................................................................19
`
`Elizabeth M. Byrnes, Inc. v. Fountainhead Com. Cap., LLC,
`No. CV-20-04149-DDP, 2021 WL 5507225 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2021) ................................12
`
`Flores v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,
`768 F. App’x 677 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................14
`
`Food Safety Net Servs. v. Eco Safe Sys. USA, Inc.,
`209 Cal. App. 4th 1118 (2012) ................................................................................................14
`
`In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.,
`536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................6
`
`In re Google, Inc. Privacy Pol’y Litig.,
`No. 5:12-CV-001382-PSG, 2015 WL 4317479 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2015) ...............................8
`
`Greenstein v. Noblr Reciprocal Exch.,
`No. 21-CV-04537-JSW, 2022 WL 472183 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2022) .....................................8
`
`Hammerling v. Google LLC,
`No. 21-cv-090004-CRB, 2022 WL 2812188 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2022) ...............18, 19, 22, 23
`
`Hinojos v. Kohl’s Corp.,
`718 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................11
`
`Huynh v. Quora, Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-07597-BLF, 2019 WL 11502875 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2019) ...........................9, 11
`
`I.C. v. Zynga, Inc.,
`No. 20-CV-01539-YGR, 2022 WL 2252636 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2022) ..................................8
`
`In re Intel Corp. CPU Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 3:18-MD-2828-SI, 2020 WL 1495304 (D. Or. Mar. 27, 2020) ..........................................9
`
`Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) .....................................................................................................2
`
`Klaehn v. Cali Bamboo, LLC,
`No. 19-CV-1498 TWR (KSC), 2021 WL 3044166 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2021), aff’d, No. 21-
`55738, 2022 WL 1830685 (9th Cir. June 3, 2022) ..................................................................19
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Klaehn v. Cali Bamboo LLC,
`No. 21-55738, 2022 WL 1830685 (9th Cir. June 3, 2022) ......................................................12
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct.,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) .............................................................................................................17
`
`Leite v. Crane Co.,
`749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Lewis Jorge Constr. Mgmt., Inc. v. Pomona Unified Sch. Dist.,
`34 Cal. 4th 960 (2004) .............................................................................................................14
`
`Lewis v. YouTube, LLC
`244 Cal. App. 4th 118 (2015) ..................................................................................................14
`
`Lifeway Foods, Inc. v. Millenium Prods., Inc.,
`No. CV 16-7099-R, 2016 WL 7336721 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2016) ........................................21
`
`In re LinkedIn User Priv. Litig.,
`932 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .....................................................................................9
`
`Morawski v. Lightstorm Ent., Inc.,
`599 F. App’x 779 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................22
`
`Morgan v. Harmonix Music Sys., Inc.,
`No. C08-5211BZ, 2009 WL 2031765 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2009) ..............................................20
`
`Murphy v. Twitter, Inc.,
`60 Cal. App. 5th 12 (2021) ......................................................................................................14
`
`Nacarino v. Chobani, LLC
`No. 20-cv-07437-EMC, 2021 WL 3487117 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021) ...................................12
`
`Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. v. George Perry & Sons, Inc.,
`338 F. Supp. 3d 1063 (E.D. Cal. 2018)....................................................................................15
`
`O’Shea v. Littleton,
`414 U.S. 488 (1974) .................................................................................................................10
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co.,
`971 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................21
`
`Orkin v. Taylor,
`487 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................21
`
`Paracor Fin., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp.,
`96 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................................22
`
`Patterson v. Med. Rev. Inst. of Am., LLC
`No. 22-cv-00413-MMC, 2022 WL 2267673 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2022)...................................8
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Plumlee v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`664 F. App’x 651 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................21
`
`Price v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 21-cv-02846-HSG, 2022 WL 1032472 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2022) ....................................20
`
`Pruchnicki v. Envision Healthcare Corp.,
`845 F. App’x 613 (9th Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................10, 11
`
`Reid v. Johnson & Johnson,
`780 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Reilly v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 21-cv-04601-EMC, 2022 WL 74162 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2022) .........................................12
`
`Rojas-Lozano v. Google, Inc.,
`159 F. Supp. 3d 1101 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ...................................................................................23
`
`S.W. Engr., Inc. v. Yeomans Chi. Corp.,
`No. 09-CV-110 JLS (RBB), 2009 WL 3720374 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2009) .............................15
`
`San Miguel v. HP Inc.,
`317 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................................19
`
`Schmitt v. SN Servicing Corp.,
`No. 21-CV-03355-WHO, 2021 WL 3493754 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021) ................................19
`
`Sharma v. Volkswagen AG,
`No. 20-cv-02394-JST, 2021 WL 912271 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2021) ........................................12
`
`Shuman v. SquareTrade Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-02725-JCS, 2021 WL 5113182 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2021) ...............................19, 20
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................12
`
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
`578 U.S. 330 (2016) ...............................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Tabler v. Panera LLC,
`No. 19-CV-01646-LHK, 2019 WL 5579529 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2019) .................................10
`
`Taleshpour v. Apple Inc.,
`549 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ...................................................................................20
`
`Total Coverage, Inc. v. Cendant Settlement Servs. Grp., Inc.,
`252 F. App’x 123 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................22
`
`TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
`141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) ...............................................................................................................6
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`
`In re Uber Techs., Inc., Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. CV 18-2826 PSG, 2019 WL 6522843 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2019)......................................8
`
`United States v. Twitter,
`No. 3:22-cv-3070, 2022 WL 1768852 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2022).............................................5
`
`Varga v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`796 F. App’x 430 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................11
`
`Vint v. Universal Studios Co. LLC,
`No. CV 20-6787-GW-MRWX, 2021 WL 6618535 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2021) ......................21
`
`Warren v. Whole Foods Mkt. Cal., Inc.,
`No. 21-CV-04577-EMC, 2022 WL 2644103 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2022)...................................18
`
`Wesch v. Yodlee, Inc.,
`No. 20-CV-05991-SK, 2021 WL 1399291 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2021) ................................9, 11
`
`White v. Lee,
`227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Williams v. Apple, Inc.,
`449 F. Supp. 3d 892 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .....................................................................................18
`
`Williams v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-4700-LHK, 2020 WL 6743911 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020) ..................................13
`
`Wu v. Sunrider Corp.,
`793 F. App’x 507 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................21
`
`In re ZF-TRW Airbag Control Units Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`No. LA ML19-02905 JAK (FFMx), 2022 WL 522484 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022) ...................12
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C.
`§ 45(a)(1) ...................................................................................................................................4
`§ 45(n) ........................................................................................................................................4
`
`Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 22576 ............................................................................................17, 18, 19
`
`Cal. Civ. Code
`§ 1641.......................................................................................................................................15
`§ 1668.......................................................................................................................................13
`
`Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 339(1) ........................................................................................................21
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
`12(b)(1) ......................................................................................................................................6
`12(b)(6) ......................................................................................................................................6
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) .........................................................................................................................4
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Lauren Price (“Plaintiff”) does not allege that Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”)
`
`obtained her contact information without consent or that Twitter shared her information with
`
`anyone. Her only allegation is that Twitter provided ads by matching contact information that she
`
`voluntarily provided to Twitter with the same contact information that third-party advertisers were
`
`already using for marketing purposes. According to Plaintiff, the problem with that conduct is that
`
`she allegedly provided her contact information to Twitter for security purposes alone, not for
`
`advertising purposes. But Twitter expressly disclosed in its Privacy Policy that contact information
`
`would be used for both security and for advertising. See Ex. B at 3 (2020 Privacy Policy) (“We
`
`use [contact information] for things like keeping your account secure and showing you . . . ads.”
`
`(emphasis added)).1 And Twitter also expressly informed account holders that they could “opt out
`
`of interest-based advertising” if they preferred. Id. at 10.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims in this case fail for several reasons that apply to all or many of her claims.
`
`First, Plaintiff lacks Article III standing because she has not (and cannot) allege a particularized,
`
`concrete injury from Twitter’s use of voluntarily provided contact information to display more
`
`relevant ads, much less any threat of future harm that could support standing for injunctive relief.
`
`Second, that failure to allege any actual injury is also fatal to Plaintiff’s contract, implied contract,
`
`and California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) claims, each of which requires actual injury—
`
`and for UCL, economic injury—to state a claim. Third, Plaintiff’s requests for equitable relief
`
`(including the entirety of her UCL and unjust enrichment claims) fail because Plaintiff does not
`
`sufficiently allege that she lacks adequate remedies at law, as she must. Fourth, the limitation of
`
`liability provision in Twitter’s Terms of Service independently bars Plaintiff’s contract, implied
`
`contract, and unjust enrichment claims because Plaintiff alleges no direct damages.
`
`Even aside from those overarching bases for dismissal, each of Plaintiff’s claims fails for
`
`claim-specific reasons:
`
`
`
`1 All Exhibit (“Ex.”) references herein are to the exhibits attached to the concurrently filed
`Declaration of Susan E. Engel in Support of Twitter’s Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint.
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`
`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
`
` Contract. Plaintiff’s contract claim fails because she does not allege any actual
`breach of the promises she identifies.
`
` UCL. Plaintiff’s UCL claim fails because Plaintiff does not plead actual reliance,
`or adequately allege any misrepresentation or any other underlying misconduct that
`could support a claim.
`
` Implied contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff’s implied contract and unjust
`enrichment claims fail because they are barred by the statute of limitations and the
`parties’ express contract, and Plaintiff cannot identify any breach or misconduct to
`support either claim in any event.
`
`For all of these reasons, the Complaint should be dismissed.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Twitter Informs Account Holders That the Contact Information They Share
`With Twitter May Be Used for Advertising Purposes
`
`Twitter “operates an online communication service” that allows “users to communicate
`
`with one another by posting ‘tweets,’ or short messages.” Compl. ¶ 1. When an account holder
`
`creates a Twitter account, she “agree[s] to be bound by” Twitter’s User Agreement, which
`
`incorporates the Twitter Terms of Service, Twitter Privacy Policy, and the Twitter Rules and
`
`associated policies, and she must provide certain basic information to Twitter including either “an
`
`email address or phone number.” See Ex. A at 1 (2018 Terms); Ex. B at 4 (2020 Privacy Policy).2
`
`Twitter account holders may also choose to share their contact information with Twitter at other
`
`points during their use of the service, including if they choose to enable one of Twitter’s security
`
`features, such as two-factor authentication, account recovery, or account re-authentication. See
`
`Compl. ¶¶ 33, 37, 42, 48. The phone number or email address provided for security purposes can
`
`be the same or different from the one provided during the account creation process.
`
`Like many free online services and social-media websites, Twitter’s “core business model”
`
`involves advertising to its account holders. See id. ¶ 24. Twitter’s Terms of Service provide that
`
`
`2 As explained in Twitter’s concurrently filed Request for Judicial Notice and Incorporation by
`Reference (“RJN”), the Court may properly consider Twitter’s Terms of Service and Privacy
`Policy as they are integral to Plaintiff’s claims, are referred to repeatedly in the Complaint, and are
`publicly available documents that are capable of ready and accurate determination. RJN at 2-4;
`see Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 1002 (9th Cir. 2018). This Motion looks
`to the 2018 Terms of Service and the 2020 Privacy Policy because those are the versions Plaintiff
`appears to invoke in her Complaint. See Compl. ¶¶ 64-67, 83, 88-89.
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`
`
`“through . . . use of [Twitter’s] Services,” account holders “consent to the collection and use” of
`
`their information “as set forth in the Privacy Policy.” Ex. A at 2. The Privacy Policy, in turn,
`
`informs account holders that Twitter “uses [their] contact information . . . to personalize [its]
`
`services, including ads” and “to market to [them].” Ex. B at 6.3 In fact, the Privacy Policy refers
`
`several times to Twitter’s use of contact information for advertising purposes, and it specifically
`
`addresses the use of contact information for both security and advertising in the same sentence.
`
`See id. at 3 (“You can choose to share additional information with us like your email address, [and]
`
`phone number. . . . We use this information for things like keeping your account secure and
`
`showing you . . . ads.”); id. at 10 (“We use the information described in this Privacy Policy to help
`
`make our advertising more relevant to you, to measure its effectiveness, and to help recognize your
`
`devices to serve you ads on and off of Twitter.”). Twitter also discloses that account holders may
`
`use a “consumer choice tool” to “opt out of interest-based advertising,” and Twitter includes the
`
`relevant hyperlink directly in its Privacy Policy. Id.
`
`Twitter “offers various services that advertisers can use to reach their existing marketing
`
`lists on Twitter.” Compl. ¶ 26. In particular, “Tailored Audiences” “allows advertisers to target
`
`specific groups of Twitter account holders by matching the telephone numbers and email addresses
`
`that Twitter collects to the advertisers’ existing lists of telephone numbers and email addresses.”
`
`Id. “Partner Audiences” “allows advertisers to import marketing lists from data brokers . . . to
`
`match against the telephone numbers and email addresses collected by Twitter.” Id. In both
`
`circumstances, advertisers share with Twitter contact information that people have already
`
`provided to advertisers. And unless account holders have opted out of interest-based ads, Twitter
`
`matches advertisers’ contact information to emails or phone numbers that account holders have
`
`associated with their Twitter accounts, and sends those account holders ads.
`
`
`3 Prior versions of Twitter’s Privacy Policy throughout the Class Period similarly disclosed that
`Twitter uses contact information provided by account holders for advertising and marketing
`purposes. See, e.g., Ex. C at 1 (2018 Privacy Policy) (stating that Twitter uses “email address
`[and] phone number” to show account holders “more relevant . . . ads”); id. at 4 (“Twitter also uses
`your contact information to market to you.”); Ex. D at 2 (2012 Privacy Policy) (“We may use your
`contact information to send you information about our Services or to market to you.”).
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03173-SK
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03173-SK Document 29 Filed 08/15/22 Page 14 of 34
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`FTC Complaint and Plaintiff’s Complaint
`
`While Twitter’s Privacy Policy clearly discloses that it may use information provided by
`
`account holders for interest-based advertising, Twitter did not specifically repeat that disclosure
`
`or provide a hyperlink to the Privacy Policy when it asked account holders to provide contact
`
`information for security purposes, in contrast to the account creation process. See Compl. ¶¶ 39,
`
`45, 52; Ex. B at 4, 10. Accordingly, in October 2019, when Twitter discovered that it had been
`
`using such information inadvertently in its Tailored Audiences and Partner Audiences services, it
`
`notified account holders of the issue, in line with its commitment to transparency and its view of
`
`best practices. Twitter explained to account holders that it had “recently discovered” the issue,
`
`that “[n]o personal data was ever shared externally with [] partners or any other third parties,” and
`
`that Twitter was taking action to remedy the issue. See Ex. E at 1-2 (Oct. 8, 2019 Twitter
`
`Announcement); see also Ex. G ¶ 38 (FTC Complaint) (referencing Twitter’s disclosure of issue
`
`in 2019).4 Twitter has since updated its secur