Case 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 1 of 26
`
`COOLEY LLP
`MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
`(rhodesmg@cooley.com)
`WHITTY SOMVICHIAN (194463)
`(wsomvichian@cooley.com)
`LAUREN J. POMEROY (291604)
`(lpomeroy@cooley.com)
`101 California Street, 5th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
`Telephone: (415) 693-2000
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`LAUREN R. GOLDMAN (pro hac vice)
`(lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com)
`MICHAEL RAYFIELD (pro hac vice)
`(mrayfield@mayerbrown.com)
`1221 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: (212) 506-2500
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`MATTHEW D. PROVANCE (pro hac vice)
`(mprovance@mayerbrown.com)
`71 Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 701-8598
`Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc.
`[Additional counsel in signature block]
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`KELLY WHALEN, S.M., a minor, by and
`through her guardian, Tachah Wade, and
`VICTORIA EDELSTEIN, individually and
`on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 4:20-cv-06361-JST
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND
`STAY LITIGATION
`Date: April 7, 2021
`Time: 2:00pm
`Location: Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor
`Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
`Trial Date: None
`Complaint Filed: January 26, 2021
`
`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
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 20-CV-06361-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 2 of 26
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2
`A.
`Plaintiffs Agreed To The Arbitration Clause In Instagram’s 2013 Terms.............. 2
`B.
`All Three Plaintiffs Again Agreed To Arbitrate In 2018 ........................................ 7
`1.
`Facebook Repeatedly Notified Users Of The Update To
`Instagram’s Terms In 2018 ......................................................................... 7
`The 2018 Terms Confirm That Disputes With Facebook Relating
`To Instagram Must Be Arbitrated ............................................................... 9
`The Arbitration Provision Includes Features Designed To Make
`Arbitration Convenient For Users ............................................................. 10
`Plaintiffs Sued Facebook Based On Their Use Of Instagram,
`Notwithstanding Their Arbitration Agreement ..................................................... 10
`Plaintiffs Agreed To The 2020 Terms After Filing This Lawsuit ........................ 12
`D.
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 13
`I.
`THE FAA REQUIRES ENFORCEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ARBITRATION
`AGREEMENT .................................................................................................................. 13
`A.
`Plaintiffs Entered Into A Valid Arbitration Agreement ........................................ 13
`B.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Fall Within The Arbitration Agreement .................................. 17
`C.
`S.M.’s Status As A Minor Does Not Permit Her To Avoid Arbitration ............... 18
`THE FAA REQUIRES A STAY OF THIS ACTION PENDING ARBITRATION ....... 19
`II.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 20
`
`C.
`
`- i -
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 3 of 26
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`In re Amica, Inc.,
`135 B.R. 534 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1992) ........................................................................................18
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
`563 U.S. 333 (2011) ............................................................................................................13, 18
`
`Babu v. Petersen,
`4 Cal. 2d 276 (1935) .................................................................................................................18
`
`C.M.D. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2014 WL 1266291 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2014) ..........................................................................19
`
`C.M.D. ex rel. De Young v. Facebook, Inc.,
`621 F. App’x 488 (9th Cir. 2015) .......................................................................................18, 19
`
`Carbajal v. H & R Block Tax Servs., Inc.,
`372 F.3d 903 (7th Cir. 2004) .....................................................................................................17
`
`Citizens Telecomms. Co. v. Sheridan,
`239 W. Va. 67 (2017) ................................................................................................................16
`
`Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp.,
`533 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................13
`
`E.K.D. ex rel. Dawes v. Facebook, Inc.,
`885 F. Supp. 2d 894 (S.D. Ill. 2012) .........................................................................................19
`
`In re Facebook Biometric Info. Privacy Litig.,
`185 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ....................................................................................15
`
`First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan,
`514 U.S. 938 (1995) ..................................................................................................................13
`
`Foreman v. George Foreman Assocs.,
`517 F.2d 354 (9th Cir. 1975) .....................................................................................................18
`
`Friends for Health: Supporting N. Shore Health Ctr. v. PayPal, Inc.,
`2018 WL 2933608 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2018) ............................................................................14
`
`Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.,
`500 U.S. 20 (1991) ....................................................................................................................20
`
`Herkenrath v. Move, Inc.,
`2018 WL 10705782 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) ........................................................................16
`
`- ii -
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 4 of 26
`
`Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co.,
`2008 WL 687224 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2008) ................................................................................14
`
`Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship v. Clark,
`137 S. Ct. 1421 (2017) ..............................................................................................................13
`
`Kohler v. Leslie Hindman, Inc.,
`80 F.3d 1181 (7th Cir. 1996) ...............................................................................................14, 18
`
`Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela,
`139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019) ........................................................................................................17, 18
`
`Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
`460 U.S. 1 (1983) ......................................................................................................................17
`
`Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc.,
`763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................14, 15
`
`NYC Mgmt. Grp. v. Brown-Miller,
`2004 WL 1087784 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2004) ...........................................................................18
`
`Paster v. Putney Student Travel, Inc.,
`1999 WL 1074120 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 1999) ............................................................................18
`
`Peers v. McLaughlin,
`88 Cal. 294 (1891) ....................................................................................................................18
`
`Ramirez v. Freescore, LLC,
`2011 WL 3812608 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011) ..........................................................................16
`
`Rodman v. Safeway Inc.,
`2015 WL 604985 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2015) (Tigar, J.) ............................................................16
`
`Rodriguez v. Instagram, LLC,
`No. 13-53287 (Cal. Super. Ct. Feb. 28, 2014) ..........................................................................15
`
`Sgouros v. TransUnion Corp.,
`817 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................14, 15, 16
`
`Sherman v. AT&T Inc.,
`2012 WL 1021823 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2012) ............................................................................15
`
`Silverman v. Move Inc.,
`2019 WL 2579343 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2019) ..........................................................................16
`
`Snow v. Eventbrite, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6135990 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2020) ...........................................................................14
`
`Spencer v. Collins,
`156 Cal. 298 (1909) ..................................................................................................................19
`- iii -
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 5 of 26
`
`Toon v. Mack Int’l Motor Truck Corp.,
`87 Cal. App. 151 (1927) ............................................................................................................18
`
`Tortoriello v. Gerald Nissan of N. Aurora, Inc.,
`379 Ill. App. 3d 214 (2008) .......................................................................................................17
`
`United States v. Borrero,
`771 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2014) .....................................................................................................13
`
`United States v. Sutcliffe,
`505 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2007) .....................................................................................................13
`
`Van Tassell v. United Mktg. Grp., LLC,
`795 F. Supp. 2d 770 (N.D. Ill. 2011) ........................................................................................15
`
`Woodling v. Garret Corp.,
`813 F.2d 543 (2d Cir. 1987) ......................................................................................................18
`
`Statutes
`
`740 ILCS 14/5 .................................................................................................................................11
`
`740 ILCS 14/10 ...............................................................................................................................11
`
`740 ILCS 14/15 ...............................................................................................................................11
`
`9 U.S.C. § 2 .....................................................................................................................................13
`
`9 U.S.C. § 3 .....................................................................................................................................20
`
`- iv -
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 6 of 26
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on April 7, 2021, at 2:00pm, before the Honorable Jon.
`S. Tigar, defendant Facebook, Inc. will and hereby does move to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’
`claims and stay this litigation. Facebook requests oral argument on this motion.1
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`Facebook seeks to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims and to stay this litigation.
`
`1
`If the Court denies this motion, Facebook will move to dismiss under Federal Rule of
`Procedure 12(b)(6).
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 7 of 26
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs have filed their claims in the wrong forum. They agreed to arbitrate disputes
`related to the Instagram service, including the claims asserted in this action. But instead, they filed
`a putative class action in federal district court. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”),
`plaintiffs should be compelled to arbitrate their claims in accordance with their arbitration
`agreement. In the meantime, this action should be stayed.
`The three plaintiffs are Kelly Whalen; S.M. (a minor who is suing through her mother); and
`Victoria Edelstein. They brought this action against Facebook, Inc., which owns and operates the
`Instagram service. Plaintiffs allege that Facebook violated the Illinois Biometric Information
`Privacy Act (“BIPA”) by improperly using facial recognition technology on photographs of them
`that were uploaded to Instagram, so that Facebook could identify them in subsequent images. This
`claim is meritless: Facebook does not use face recognition to identify people in content uploaded
`to Instagram. And plaintiffs’ claims fail for a host of other reasons.
`But this Court need not, and should not, consider the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, for the
`simple reason that they do not belong in court at all. Ms. Whalen signed up for an Instagram
`account in
` S.M. signed up in
`; and Ms. Edelstein signed up in
`. Since Instagram’s
`inception, the service has been subject to Instagram’s Terms of Use. And since 2013, the Terms
`have included a provision requiring individual arbitration of all claims relating to the Instagram
`service; an email was sent to users to notify them of this update. In 2018, the Terms were updated
`again and the arbitration provision was revised. Facebook sent both email and in-app notices to
`users describing the changes, providing links to the updated Terms, and reminding them that
`continued use of Instagram would constitute acceptance of the updated Terms. Each of the
`plaintiffs necessarily assented to at least one of those notices through an affirmative click of a button
`and through continued use of Instagram. Then, in 2020, after plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, the Terms
`were amended again—although the arbitration clause remained unchanged—and Instagram users
`(including plaintiffs) were given two notifications about the update. Each time the Terms were
`amended, Instagram users were given an opportunity to opt out of the arbitration clause; none of
`the three plaintiffs did so, and all of them use Instagram regularly to this day.
`
`- 1 -
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 8 of 26
`
`Because all three plaintiffs agreed to resolve this dispute by arbitration, and because that
`arbitration agreement is fully enforceable, the Court should compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their
`claims on an individual basis and stay this proceeding.
`BACKGROUND
`Instagram is a “photo and video-sharing social networking service.” Compl. (Dkt. 37) ¶ 2.
`The complaint alleges that the Instagram service “allows its users to create a personal page where
`users can upload photographs and videos, participate in live video broadcasts, and communicate
`and interact with other Instagram users.” Id. ¶ 30. Facebook acquired the Instagram service in
`2012. Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiff Kelly Whalen registered for an Instagram account on
`;
`plaintiff S.M. registered on
`; and plaintiff Victoria Edelstein registered on
`
` Declaration of Michael Duffey (“Duffey Decl.”) ¶¶ 18-19, 26-27, 36-37. Beginning in
`2013, each version of Instagram’s Terms of Use has included a detailed arbitration provision.
`A.
`Plaintiffs Agreed To The Arbitration Clause In Instagram’s 2013 Terms.
`Since Instagram’s launch in 2010, this free service has been made available subject to the
`Terms of Use on Instagram’s website. The original Terms of Use (the “2010 Terms”) contained a
`preamble stating: “By using the . . . Instagram service you are agreeing to be bound by the
`following terms and conditions (‘Terms of Use’).” Duffey Decl. Ex. 1 at 1. Instagram informed
`users of its right to modify the Terms upon notice via email: “We reserve the right to alter these
`Terms of Use at any time. If the alterations constitute a material change to the Terms of Use, we
`will notify you via internet mail according to the preference expressed on your account.” Id. Ex. 1
`at 2. The 2010 Terms did not contain an arbitration provision.
`After Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012, it modified the Terms (the “2013 Terms”). Id.
`¶ 2. Beginning around January 15, 2013, Facebook sent a notification about the update to all email
`addresses that users had provided when setting up or updating their accounts; Ms. Whalen was one
`of those users (S.M. and Ms. Edelstein had not yet signed up). Duffey Decl. ¶¶ 3, 19. As shown
`in the image below, the email stated that “we have updated our Terms of Service,” and that this
`update would “be in effect as of January 19th, 2013.” Id. Ex. 3. The phrase “Terms of Service”
`was a hyperlink that, if clicked, directed the user to the 2013 Terms. Id. ¶ 3.
`- 2 -
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 9 of 26
`
`Id. Ex. 3. Ms. Whalen continued to use Instagram after receiving this email notice, thereby
`accepting the 2013 Terms. Id. ¶¶ 20-23. These Terms were in effect when S.M. signed up in
`
`and when Ms. Edelstein signed up in
`.
`A user who registered for Instagram on S.M.’s signup date could have signed up using either
`an iOS device or an Android device. Declaration of Gene Yoo (“Yoo Decl.”) ¶ 2; Declaration of
`Daniel Freitas (“Freitas Decl.”) ¶ 2. S.M. uses the Instagram application on an
`
`. Id. ¶ 28; see also Declaration of Matthew D. Provance (“Provance Decl.”) ¶¶ 7-8
`(describing Facebook’s process for identifying S.M.). A user who registered for the Instagram
`service on
` using the iOS mobile application was shown a screen that allowed
`users to create an account. Yoo Decl. ¶¶ 2-3 & Ex. 1. This screen contained a statement that read:
`“By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.” Id. The phrase “Terms of
`Service” contained a hyperlink that, if clicked, would direct users to a copy of the 2013 Terms. Id.
`To advance past this screen, users had to click an arrow on the top right corner of the screen,
`indicating their assent to the Terms. Id. A screenshot of this process is below:
`
`- 3 -
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 10 of 26
`
`Id. Ex. 1.2
`A user who registered for Instagram on Ms. Edelstein’s signup date could have signed up
`using either an iOS device or an Android device, or by visiting www.instagram.com with an
`Internet browser. Declaration of Jack Pope (“Pope Decl.”) ¶ 2. Ms. Edelstein uses the Instagram
`application on an
` Id. ¶ 38. As shown in the image below, a user who
`registered for the Instagram service on
` using the Android mobile application was
`shown a screen that allowed users to create an account in one of two ways. Declaration of Sushma
`Nayak ¶ 3 & Ex. 1. Users with an existing Facebook account could press a button to “Log in with
`Facebook” and use their Facebook account information to create an Instagram account. Id.
`Alternatively, users could press a button to “Sign up with email or phone number.” Id.3 Directly
`below each of these buttons was a statement that read: “By signing up, you agree to our Terms
`
`2
` using the Android mobile
`A user who registered for Instagram on
`application would have seen materially similar screens. See Freitas Decl. ¶¶ 2-3 & Ex. 1.
`3
`Facebook’s records do not indicate which option Ms. Edelstein selected.
`- 4 -
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 11 of 26
`
`& Privacy Policy.” Id. ¶ 4. The underlined word “Terms” contained a hyperlink that, if clicked,
`would direct users to a copy of the 2013 Terms. Id.4
`
`Id. Ex. 1.
`
`The first section of the 2013 Terms stated that use of the Instagram service would constitute
`an agreement by users to the Terms:
`By accessing or using the Instagram website, the Instagram service, or any
`applications (including mobile applications) made available by Instagram (together,
`the “Service”), however accessed, you agree to be bound by these terms of use
`(“Terms of Use”). . . . These Terms of Use affect your legal rights and
`obligations. If you do not agree to be bound by all of these Terms of Use, do
`not access or use the Service.
`Duffey Decl. Ex. 2 at 1 (bolded text in original).
`That same preamble contained the following bold, capitalized “arbitration notice”:
`
`ARBITRATION NOTICE: EXCEPT IF YOU OPT-OUT AND EXCEPT
`FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DISPUTES DESCRIBED
`IN THE
`ARBITRATION SECTION BELOW, YOU AGREE THAT DISPUTES
`BETWEEN YOU AND INSTAGRAM WILL BE RESOLVED BY BINDING,
`
`4
` using the iPhone mobile application
`A user who registered for Instagram on
`or an Internet browser would have seen materially similar screens. See Pope Decl. ¶¶ 2-3 & Ex. 1;
`Declaration of Will Camp ¶¶ 2-3 & Ex. 1.
`
`- 5 -
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 12 of 26
`
`INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO
`PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OR CLASS-WIDE
`ARBITRATION.
`
`Id.
`
`In a separate section titled “Arbitration,” the Terms provided as follows:
`
`Except if you opt out . . . you agree that all disputes between you and Instagram
`(whether or not such dispute involves a third party) with regard to your relationship
`with Instagram, including without limitation disputes related to these Terms of Use,
`your use of the Service, and/or rights of privacy and/or publicity, will be resolved
`by binding, individual arbitration under the American Arbitration Association’s
`rules for arbitration of consumer-related disputes and you and Instagram hereby
`expressly waive trial by jury.
`
`Id. Ex. 2 at 6 (emphases added).
`
`The clause provided that any arbitration would take place on an individual basis: “You may
`bring claims only on your own behalf. Neither you nor Instagram will participate in a class action
`or class-wide arbitration for any claims covered by this agreement.” Id.
`The Terms provided users with the right to continue using Instagram without being bound
`by the arbitration clause: “You may opt out of this agreement to arbitrate. If you do so, neither
`you nor Instagram can require the other to participate in an arbitration proceeding. To opt out, you
`must do so in writing within 30 days of the date that you first became subject to this arbitration
`provision.” Id. (emphasis added). None of the plaintiffs opted out. Id. ¶¶ 17, 24, 34, 43.
`Finally, the 2013 Terms provided that Facebook was permitted to make changes to the
`Terms upon “reasonable advance notice” to users, and that by using the Instagram service after the
`effective date of the revised terms, users would agree to the modifications:
`We reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to change these Terms of Use
`(“Updated Terms”) from time to time. Unless we make a change for legal or
`administrative reasons, we will provide reasonable advance notice before the
`Updated Terms become effective. You agree that we may notify you of the Updated
`Terms by posting them on the Service, and that your use of the Service after the
`effective date of the Updated Terms (or engaging in such other conduct as we may
`reasonably specify) constitutes your agreement to the Updated Terms. Therefore,
`you should review these Terms of Use and any Updated Terms before using the
`Service.
`
`Id. Ex. 2 at 2 (emphases added).
`
`- 6 -
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 13 of 26
`
`All Three Plaintiffs Again Agreed To Arbitrate In 2018.
`B.
`In April 2018, Facebook amended the Terms a second time, with the changes effective on
`July 14, 2018 (the “2018 Terms”). Id. ¶¶ 4, 8 & Ex. 4. Users received up to four notifications
`about the update. Id. ¶ 5. All three plaintiffs necessarily received one or more of these notifications,
`and continued to use Instagram, manifesting their assent to arbitrate any claims related to the
`service.
`
`1.
`
`Facebook Repeatedly Notified Users Of The Update To Instagram’s
`Terms In 2018.
`
`Beginning around April 19, 2018, users received a notice of the 2018 Terms at the top of
`their “Activity” feed, which displays recent activity by other accounts the user is following,
`suggestions for new accounts to follow, and matters of general interest. See id. ¶ 5. This
`notification directed users to “Review changes to our Terms and Data Policy,” with an arrow on
`the right side of that message. See id. Ex. 5. If users pressed the arrow, they would be directed to
`a “full-screen” notification that summarized the updates to the Terms and directed users to indicate
`their agreement to those Terms by pressing a blue button that read: “Agree to Terms.” Id. ¶ 6
`& Ex. 6 at 3. The full-screen notice contained the statement: “Read the Full Terms and Data
`Policy.” Id. The phrase “Full Terms” contained a hyperlink in blue type that, if pressed, would
`direct users to a copy of the 2018 Terms. Id.
`Beginning around April 24, 2018, Facebook sent an email notification to all users who had
`not opened the Activity feed notice described above and who—like each of the three plaintiffs—
`had provided an email address to Instagram. Id. ¶¶ 7, 19, 27, 37. The email instructed users to
`“take a moment to review some changes to our Terms” and “[l]et us know if you agree to [the
`Terms] to continue using Instagram.” Id. Ex. 7 at 1. The email explained that, “[g]oing forward,
`our terms will reflect that Facebook, Inc. is responsible for Instagram.” Id. The email contained
`an “Agree” button immediately above an instruction to “Read the Full Terms”; the blue phrase
`contained a hyperlink to the 2018 Terms. Id. ¶ 7 & Ex. 7 at 2.
`Users who did not indicate their agreement to the 2018 Terms by clicking either the “Agree
`to Terms” button in the first (Activity Feed) notice, or the “Agree” button in the second (email)
`- 7 -
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 14 of 26
`
`notice, received two additional notifications. The first, beginning around June 11, 2018, was a
`full-screen notice in the app itself. See id. ¶ 8. The notice would appear when users opened
`Instagram using its Android or iOS mobile application, or using an Internet browser. Id. On June
`11, 2018, Ms. Whalen was using the Instagram
`; S.M. was using the Instagram
`; and Ms. Edelstein was using the
`. Id. ¶¶ 20, 29, 39. The top of the
`notices for both apps contained the phrase “Terms and Data Policy Updates.” Id. Ex. 8. They
`then stated:
`Please take a moment to review some changes to our Terms and Data Policy.
`Your Instagram experience isn’t changing, and you still own your photos
`and videos. We are giving you better ways to access your data and
`understand how it’s used. By continuing to use Instagram on or after July
`14, 2018, you’re agreeing to these updates.
`Instagram has been part of Facebook since 2012, and we’re making some
`corporate changes. Going forward, our Terms will reflect that Facebook Inc.
`is responsible for Instagram.
`Id. (emphasis added). The blue word “Terms” contained a hyperlink to the 2018 Terms. Id. ¶ 9.
`At the bottom was a button that users could press to go “Back to Instagram.” Id. ¶ 9 & Ex. 8. Users
`who received this notice could not continue using Instagram until they had interacted with it. See
`id. ¶ 10. There was no cut-off date for this notice; it remained live until the user acknowledged it,
`even if the user did not open the Instagram service until months later. Id.
`This group of users also received a second email, beginning around June 12, 2018, which
`again explained that continued use of Instagram would constitute acceptance of the updated Terms.
`Id. ¶ 11 & Ex. 9. The email stated:
`You may have seen a notification or an email a few weeks ago telling you
`about our upcoming changes to our Terms and Data Policy. Your Instagram
`experience isn’t changing, and you still own your photos and videos. We
`are giving you better ways to access your data and understand how it’s used.
`We wanted to let you know that by continuing to use Instagram on or after
`July 14, 2018, you’re agreeing to these updates.
`
`Id. (emphasis added). The word “Terms” again contained a hyperlink. Id. ¶ 12.
` Instagram
`All three plaintiffs continued to use Instagram. Ms. Whalen engaged in
`“sessions”—periods during which she performed a stream of largely uninterrupted actions on
`Instagram—between June 11, 2018 and June 30, 2018 (when the full-screen notice was in place for
`- 8 -
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 15 of 26
`
`
`all users had not interacted with the prior notices), including
`
`. Id. ¶ 21. Ms. Whalen has posted at least
`on Instagram since July 14, 2018 (the date after which use of the service constituted acceptance of
`the 2018 Terms). Id. ¶ 22. S.M. engaged in
` between June 11, 2018 and June
`30, 2018, including
`
` Id. ¶ 30. She has posted at least
` since July 14, 2018. Id. ¶ 31. Ms.
`Edelstein engaged in
`
`
`
`. Id. ¶ 40. And she has posted
`
` on Instagram since July 14. Id. ¶ 41.
`
`2.
`
`The 2018 Terms Confirm That Disputes With Facebook Relating To
`Instagram Must Be Arbitrated.
`
`The 2018 Terms reiterate plaintiffs’ obligation to arbitrate any and all disputes relating to
`their use of the Instagram service. The preamble to the Terms provides:
`These Terms of Use govern your use of Instagram and provide information about
`the Instagram Service, outlined below. When you create an Instagram account or
`use Instagram, you agree to these terms. The Instagram Service is one of the
`Facebook Products, provided to you by Facebook, Inc. These Terms of Use
`therefore constitute an agreement between you and Facebook, Inc.
`Id. Ex. 4 at 1.
`The preamble then contains a bolded, all-caps notice of arbitration:
`ARBITRATION NOTICE: YOU AGREE THAT DISPUTES BETWEEN
`YOU AND US WILL BE RESOLVED BY BINDING, INDIVIDUAL
`ARBITRATION AND YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN
`A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OR CLASS-WIDE ARBITRATION.
`
`Id.
`
`The arbitration clause, titled “How We Will Handle Disputes,” explains that all disputes
`“related to . . . Instagram” must be resolved in individual arbitration:
`[Y]ou and we agree that any cause of action, legal claim, or dispute between you
`and us arising out of or related to these Terms or Instagram (“claim(s)”) must be
`resolved by arbitration on an individual basis. Class actions and class arbitrations
`are not permitted; you and we may bring a claim only on your own behalf and
`cannot seek relief that would affect other Instagram users.
`Id. Ex. 4 at 5 (emphases added).
`
`- 9 -
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, CASE NO. 4:20-CV-06361-JST
`
`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 4:20-cv-06361-JST Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 16 of 26
`
`Like the 2013