Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 27 Filed 04/12/22 Page 1 of 31
`
`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
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`Shylah R. Alfonso, pro hac vice pending
`SAlfonso@perkinscoie.com
`Tiffany L. Lee, Bar No. 303007
`TiffanyLee@perkinscoie.com
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`Telephone: 206.359.8000
`Facsimile: 206.359.9000
`
`Jon B. Jacobs, pro hac vice pending
`JBJacobs@perkinscoie.com
`700 13th Street, NW
`Suite 800
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
`Telephone: 202.654.6200
`Facsimile: 202.654.6211
`
`Elliott J. Joh, Bar No. 264927
`EJoh@perkinscoie.com
`Lauren Trambley, Bar No. 340634
`LTrambley@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`505 Howard Street, Suite 1000
`San Francisco, CA 94105-3204
`Telephone: 415.344.7000
`Facsimile: 415.344.7050
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`LINKEDIN CORPORATION
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`LINKEDIN CORPORATION,
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`TODD CROWDER, KEVIN SCHULTE,
`Case No. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG
`
`and GARRICK VANCE, on behalf of
`DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORP.’S
`themselves and all others similarly situated,
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`
`Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`Date: September 8, 2022
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Crtrm: 2 - 4th Floor
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`LINKEDIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CASE NO. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 27 Filed 04/12/22 Page 2 of 31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 2
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................ 4
`A.
`LinkedIn Offers a Variety of Social Networking Services. ................................... 4
`B.
`LinkedIn is an Innovator..................................................................................... 5
`1.
`LinkedIn creates greater functionality through API partnerships. .............. 5
`2.
`LinkedIn protects its members’ control over their own data. ..................... 6
`3.
`LinkedIn uses cloud computing resources to enhance its offerings. ........... 6
`THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
`CLAIM. ........................................................................................................................ 7
`A.
`Claims That Lack Sufficient Facts To Be Plausible On Their Face Must Be
`Dismissed. ......................................................................................................... 7
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Facts Supporting a Viable Theory of Monopolization
`Under Section 2. ................................................................................................ 8
`1.
`LinkedIn’s success and innovations do not violate antitrust law. ............... 8
`2.
`None of LinkedIn’s specifically alleged conduct is exclusionary............. 10
`a.
`LinkedIn’s API agreements are inclusionary, not exclusionary. ... 10
`b.
`LinkedIn’s alleged refusal to deal with its competitors is not
`exclusionary. ............................................................................. 11
`LinkedIn’s use of the same cloud computing resources that are
`readily available to competitors is not exclusionary..................... 14
`Plaintiffs’ Attempted Monopolization Claim Under Section 2 Fails for the Same
`Reasons as Their Monopolization Claim. .......................................................... 17
`Plaintiffs’ Section 1 Claim Fails as a Matter of Law. ......................................... 18
`1.
`Plaintiffs have no direct evidence of the alleged agreement between
`LinkedIn and Facebook. ........................................................................ 18
`None of the alleged circumstantial evidence plausibly indicates an
`agreement. ............................................................................................ 19
`a.
`Facebook’s product launch does not plausibly imply an antitrust
`conspiracy. ................................................................................ 20
`LinkedIn and Facebook’s alleged data reciprocity negotiations do
`not plausibly imply a conspiracy. ............................................... 22
`Facebook’s alleged agreement with Google is irrelevant. ............ 23
`c.
`Plaintiffs’ market-division claim under Section 1 is time-barred. ............ 24
`3.
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 24
`
`- i -
`
`LINKEDIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CASE NO. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`c.
`
`b.
`
`2.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 27 Filed 04/12/22 Page 3 of 31
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Adaptive Power Sols., LLC v. Hughes Missile Sys. Co.,
`141 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 1988) ........................................................................................ 10, 23
`
`Aerotec Int’l, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l., Inc.,
`836 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 12, 13
`
`Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Grp. LP,
`592 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................... 9, 16
`
`Am. Contractors Supply, LLC v. HD Supply Constr. Supply, Ltd.,
`2020 WL 10467232 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 26, 2020).....................................................................11
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Psytar Corp.,
`586 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................................8
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009).............................................................................................................7
`
`Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.,
`472 U.S. 585 (1985)........................................................................................... 9, 12, 13, 14
`
`Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters,
`459 U.S. 519 (1983).............................................................................................................7
`
`Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.,
`495 U.S. 328 (1990)...........................................................................................................16
`
`Bay Area Surgical Mgmt. LLC v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,
`166 F. Supp. 3d 988 (N.D. Cal. 2015).................................................................................24
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007).................................................................................................... passim
`
`City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders,
`20 F.4th 441 (9th Cir. 2021) ...............................................................................................16
`
`Complete Ent. Res. LLC v. Live Nation Ent., Inc.,
`2016 WL 3457177 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2016)......................................................................15
`
`Datel Holdings Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`712 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2010)...................................................................................6
`
`Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corp.,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 580 (N.D. Cal. 2019).................................................................................23
`- ii -
`
`LINKEDIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CASE NO. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 27 Filed 04/12/22 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`Falstaff Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewery Co.,
`628 F. Supp. 822 (N.D. Cal. 1986) .....................................................................................18
`
`Feitelson v. Google Inc.,
`80 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (N.D. Cal. 2015)...................................................................................7
`
`FTC v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 9, 12, 13, 16
`
`General Commc’ns Eng’g, Inc. v. Motorola Commc’ns & Elecs., Inc.,
`421 F. Supp. 274 (N.D. Cal. 1976) .....................................................................................18
`
`Goldwasser v. Ameritech Corp.,
`222 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................ 14, 16
`
`hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`485 F. Supp. 3d 1137 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ..................................................................... 3, 13, 14
`
`Hirsh v. Martindale-Hubbell, Inc.,
`674 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1982) ............................................................................................15
`
`Howard Hess Dental Lab’ys Inc. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc.,
`602 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................................17
`
`Hunter v. Tarantino,
`2010 WL 11579019 (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2010) ....................................................................17
`
`In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litig.,
`87 F. Supp. 3d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2015)...................................................................................7
`
`In re Elevator Antitrust Litig.,
`502 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................23
`
`In re Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig.,
`536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ..............................................................................................7
`
`In re Packaged Seafood Antitrust Litig.,
`2017 WL 35571 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2017).............................................................................20
`
`John Doe 1 v. Abbott Lab’ys,
`571 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................................... 8, 15
`
`Jones v. Micron Tech. Inc.,
`400 F. Supp. 3d 897 (N.D. Cal. 2019).................................................................................19
`
`Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
`518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................. 7, 19, 20
`
`Liveuniverse, Inc. v. Myspace, Inc.,
`2007 WL 6865852 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2007) .......................................................................16
`- iii -
`
`LINKEDIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CASE NO. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 27 Filed 04/12/22 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`LiveUniverse, Inc. v. MySpace, Inc.,
`304 F. App’x 554 (9th Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................17
`
`MCI Commc’ns Corp v. AT&T,
`708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1983) ............................................................................................12
`
`MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`869 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ......................................................................... 16, 24
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Trantham,
`156 F. Supp. 2d 855 (W.D. Tenn. 2001) ...............................................................................8
`
`Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc.,
`820 F. App’x 573 (9th Cir. 2020) .......................................................................................21
`
`Morris Commc’ns Corp. v. PGA Tour, Inc.,
`364 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2004) ..........................................................................................12
`
`N. Star Gas Co. v. Pac. Gas & Electric Co.,
`2016 WL 5358590 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016) (Gilliam, J.) ...................................................7
`
`Name.Space, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers,
`795 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................20
`
`Novation Ventures, LLC v. J.G. Wentworth Co., LLC,
`2015 WL 12765467 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2015) ...................................................................17
`
`Oliver v. SD-3C LLC,
`2016 WL 5950345 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016).....................................................................19
`
`Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.,
`797 F.2d 370 (7th Cir. 1986) ..............................................................................................11
`
`Opperman v. Path, Inc.,
`84 F. Supp. 3d 962 (N.D. Cal. 2015).....................................................................................6
`
`Pace Indus., Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co.,
`813 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1987) ..............................................................................................24
`
`Philadelphia Taxi Ass’n, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`886 F.3d 332 (3d Cir. 2018) ...............................................................................................16
`
`PNY Techs., Inc. v. SanDisk Corp.,
`2012 WL 1380271 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2012) .....................................................................19
`
`Rebel Oil Co. v. Atl. Richfield Co.,
`51 F.3d 1421 (9th Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................... 8, 17
`
`Reveal Chat Holdco, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`471 F. Supp. 3d 981 (N.D. Cal. 2020)........................................................................... 13, 15
`- iv -
`
`LINKEDIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CASE NO. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 27 Filed 04/12/22 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Panasonic Corp.,
`2011 WL 9529403 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2011) .....................................................................24
`
`Siva v. Am. Bd. of Radiology,
`418 F. Supp. 3d 264 (N.D. Ill. 2019)...................................................................................12
`
`Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan,
`506 U.S. 447 (1993)...........................................................................................................17
`
`State of Ill., ex rel. Burris v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.,
`935 F.2d 1469 (7th Cir. 1991) ...................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`U.S. v. Syufy Enters.,
`903 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................9
`
`Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices. of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP,
`540 U.S. 398 (2004)..................................................................................................... 13, 16
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1.................................................................................................................... passim
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) .............................................................................................................7
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`API Terms of Use, LINKEDIN, https://legal.linkedin.com/api-terms-of-use..................................10
`
`Privacy FAQs, LINKEDIN, https://privacy.linkedin.com/faq .........................................................6
`
`Privacy Policy, LINKEDIN, https://www.linkedin.com/legal/privacy-policy#key-
`terms-intro (Aug. 11, 2020) ..................................................................................................6
`
`Privacy Settings, LINKEDIN, https://privacy.linkedin.com/settings (last visited Apr.
`6, 2022) ...............................................................................................................................6
`
`SNAP Partner Directory, LINKEDIN, https://business.linkedin.com/sales-
`solutions/partners/find-a-partner#select-category (last visited Apr. 6, 2022) ...........................6
`
`- v -
`LINKEDIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CASE NO. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 27 Filed 04/12/22 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`TO PLAINTIFF AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. or as
`soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., in
`Courtroom 2 of the United States Courthouse, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612,
`Defendant LinkedIn Corporation (“LinkedIn”) will and hereby does move the Court to dismiss
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 12(b)(6) in its entirety with prejudice for
`failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points
`and Authorities contained herein, any reply papers that may be submitted and on the arguments of
`counsel at any hearing that may be held, and all of the pleadings, files and records in this
`proceeding.
`
`DATED: April 12, 2022
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`By: __/s/ Elliott J. Joh__________
`Elliott J. Joh
`
`
`Attorney for Defendant
`LINKEDIN CORPORATION
`
`
`
`-1-
`LINKEDIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CASE NO. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 27 Filed 04/12/22 Page 8 of 31
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`Whether Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for monopolization under 15 U.S.C. § 2.
`1.
`Whether Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for attempted monopolization under 15
`2.
`U.S.C. § 2.
`
`Whether Plaintiffs fail to a state claim for per se market-division under 15
`3.
`U.S.C. § 1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendant LinkedIn Corporation (“LinkedIn”) is a case study in how a successful
`company is created, grown, and operated through hard work, ingenuity and innovation.
`LinkedIn launched its social networking service in 2003 with a “no-frills website” and members
`numbering in the low thousands. In the almost 20 years since, LinkedIn’s investments and
`innovation have created a dynamic service that now allows hundreds of millions of
`professionals worldwide to connect online. Plaintiffs Todd Crowder, Kevin Schulte, and
`Garrick Vance (“Plaintiffs”) assert claims of monopolization and a market-division agreement
`with Facebook. But the Complaint is replete with contradictory theories of harm, some of
`which have already been rejected in another case in this District based on these same facts.
`There is only one consistent and coherent story told by the Complaint, and it is neither
`exclusion nor collusion. Rather, it is LinkedIn’s success story as an innovator.
`None of Plaintiffs’ three monopolization theories alleges the kind of exclusionary
`behavior required to state a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Nowhere do Plaintiffs
`identify a single company prevented from competing due to LinkedIn’s conduct. Instead, the
`Complaint describes LinkedIn’s investments to optimize its services, which Plaintiffs
`themselves allege were beneficial to consumers. The Court should reject each of these three
`theories.
`First, Plaintiffs’ allegations that LinkedIn aggregates and “sells” member data through
`its application programming interfaces (“APIs”) to third-party business partners — a practice
`that Plaintiffs concede allows those partners to create additional functionality for LinkedIn’s
`
`-2-
`LINKEDIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CASE NO. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 27 Filed 04/12/22 Page 9 of 31
`
`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
`
`services — fall far short of stating any kind of claim for excluding competition from the alleged
`market for professional social networking. If anything, LinkedIn’s sharing of member data with
`other businesses that are actual or potential competitors is the exact opposite of a Section 2
`violation: it is inclusionary, not exclusionary.
`Second, Plaintiffs’ allegation that LinkedIn’s efforts to protect its members’ control over
`their own data against automated “scraping” by suspicious third party bots amounts to
`exclusionary conduct ignores Supreme Court precedent holding that companies do not have a
`duty to deal to help rivals. It also ignores Judge Chen’s holding in a 2020 case that a complaint
`challenging these same efforts did not state a Section 2 claim. hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`485 F. Supp. 3d 1137 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Moreover, this theory flatly contradicts Plaintiffs’ first
`theory. On the one hand, Plaintiffs allege that LinkedIn’s “sale” of member data to third parties
`is anticompetitive; on the other, they allege that LinkedIn’s refusal to share such data is
`exclusionary. Both theories cannot be correct, and, in fact, neither is.
`Third, Plaintiffs’ allegations that LinkedIn uses Microsoft’s high-quality cloud
`computing services to boost its operating efficiency and enhance its services fail to support any
`theory of exclusion. Plaintiffs concede that anyone can use such services not only from
`Microsoft, but also from Google and Amazon. Nor do Plaintiffs allege any LinkedIn
`competitors were excluded as a result. Nothing about this or any other conduct alleged by
`Plaintiffs is anticompetitive. In fact, it is Plaintiffs’ requested relief here — to hamstring
`LinkedIn from improving its services by preventing it, and it alone, from using a tool available
`to everyone else — that would harm competition and consumers.
`Finally, Plaintiffs’ claim that LinkedIn violated Section 1 by agreeing not to compete
`with Facebook is not supported by any facts plausibly suggesting that the two companies agreed
`to anything. Plaintiffs’ theory here is that Facebook agreed not to enter the alleged market in
`exchange for nothing on LinkedIn’s part. There are no facts suggesting that LinkedIn agreed in
`any way not to compete with Facebook. Without any quid pro quo, Plaintiffs’ alleged
`agreement is implausible. A Section 1 agreement cannot be inferred from the bare allegation
`that Facebook never launched a competing service; that would upend antitrust law because
`
`-3-
`LINKEDIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CASE NO. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 27 Filed 04/12/22 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`antitrust plaintiffs could then file lawsuits whenever companies do not expand into new
`markets. Plaintiffs even admit they do not have the facts they need to plausibly allege an
`agreement, repeatedly invoking the need for discovery. But the Supreme Court’s opinion in
`Twombly prohibits such a fishing expedition. Finally, even if this Section 1 claim had been
`adequately pled, it is barred by the four-year statute of limitations because the alleged
`agreement occurred no later than 2016.
`At bottom, the Complaint is long on technical details and jargon, but it lacks the
`necessary facts that would support any legal claim under the antitrust laws. Because Plaintiffs’
`untenable legal theories cannot be fixed, the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`II.
`LinkedIn Offers a Variety of Social Networking Services.
`A.
`LinkedIn provides an online platform that allows users (called “members”) to connect
`with other professionals. Compl. ¶ 51. Membership to LinkedIn is free, as are the core social
`networking services members use to connect with others. Id. ¶¶ 54, 245. LinkedIn offers
`services to individual members as well as to enterprise and professional organizations. Id. ¶
`386.
`
`In 2005, LinkedIn started offering paid job postings and a subscription service allowing
`members enhanced access to LinkedIn’s network of professionals. Id. ¶¶ 109-10. That service
`allowed members to perform more sophisticated searches to look for others with particular
`experience, attributes or employment history. Id. ¶ 110. It allowed access to an enhanced
`communications feature called InMail, which permitted members to directly communicate with
`others on the network. Id. ¶¶ 111, 113. And it gave recruiters a more effective way to find
`suitable job candidates or experts. Id. ¶ 112. These premium services have since evolved into
`several types of subscription service plans — including a Career Plan, a Business Plan, a Sales
`Navigator product, and a Recruiter Lite product — each with their own menu of features
`directed at different types of members and uses, with prices “ranging from $29.99[] to $99.95”
`per month. Id. ¶¶ 407-12. The named Plaintiffs subscribed to just one of these products,
`LinkedIn Premium Career. Id. ¶¶ 42-44. Plaintiffs assert that LinkedIn operates in an alleged
`
`-4-
`LINKEDIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CASE NO. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 27 Filed 04/12/22 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`Professional Social Networking Market.1 Id. ¶ 373. According to Plaintiffs, companies like
`Xing, AngelList, Viadeo, and Lets Lunch — each with their own set of features and substantial
`userbases — compete with LinkedIn in this space. Id. ¶¶ 437-40. LinkedIn has also
`acknowledged in public filings that it “face[s] significant competition in all aspects of [its]
`business” in a “rapidly evolving” space. Id. ¶ 384 (citing LinkedIn’s 2015 10-K).
`LinkedIn is an Innovator.
`B.
`
`LinkedIn was an innovator from its founding in 2002; it was the first social network
`
`focused on professional connections. Compl. ¶ 96 et. seq. Far from a “sprint to dominance,” id.
`¶¶ 95-96, the Complaint describes thirteen years of LinkedIn’s hard work and perseverance,
`overcoming challenges along the way, before achieving an alleged dominant market position. Id.
`¶ 490 (“since at least 2015”). From 2002 to today, LinkedIn has been innovating and finding
`ways to enhance its services. For example, LinkedIn was one of the first companies to assemble a
`data science team. Id. ¶ 244. By 2015, it began developing cutting edge machine learning tools
`that could algorithmically serve content to its members to increase their engagement with the
`platform. Id. ¶ 13. And as explained in the following sections, the very conduct challenged by
`Plaintiffs has increased the value of LinkedIn’s products to its members.
`LinkedIn creates greater functionality through API partnerships.
`1.
`Like other online platforms, LinkedIn partners with third-party developers to create
`software applications that can interact with its members. Id. ¶ 196. To create such
`functionality, LinkedIn provides developers with access to certain data relating to its members
`via application programming interfaces (“APIs”). Id. ¶¶ 188-89. LinkedIn’s website identifies
`
`
`1 For purposes of this Motion, LinkedIn does not challenge Plaintiffs’ definition of the relevant
`market with respect to either product (the “Professional Social Networking Market”) or
`geography (the United States), despite its disagreement that such definitions are appropriate.
`
`-5-
`LINKEDIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CASE NO. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 27 Filed 04/12/22 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`many of the company’s developer partners.2 It also states that members are allowed to opt out
`of providing any of their information to such developers. 3
`LinkedIn protects its members’ control over their own data.
`2.
`The success of LinkedIn’s platform depends heavily on members being able to decide
`the extent to which their data is collected, stored, viewed, and used, and by whom. LinkedIn
`employs software to protect its members’ choices and prevent third parties from taking and
`using that data without member consent. Compl. ¶¶ 288-99. According to the Complaint, such
`measures have included: (1) “FUSE,” which detects high volume requests and denies service to
`such requests; (2) “Quicksand,” which identifies bots; (3) “Sentinel,” which blocks requests
`from suspicious sources; and (4) “Org Block,” which contains a list of unauthorized IP
`addresses. Id. ¶¶ 293-97.
`LinkedIn uses cloud computing resources to enhance its offerings.
`3.
`Microsoft acquired LinkedIn in 2016, and LinkedIn announced plans for using
`Microsoft’s Azure cloud computing resources in 2019 to enhance its services. Id. ¶ 300. Azure
`constitutes only 20% of the global cloud computing infrastructure and is available to and used
`by other customers as well. See id. ¶ 309, 313. Amazon and Google also provide comparable
`cloud computing services. See id. ¶ 302.
`
`
`2 See, e.g., SNAP Partner Directory, LINKEDIN, https://business.linkedin.com/sales-
`solutions/partners/find-a-partner#select-category (last visited Apr. 6, 2022) (listing API partners).
`Courts may take judicial notice of statements on webpages that are “publicly available, standard
`documents that are capable of ready and accurate determination” and “relevant to [the plaintiff’s]
`claims.” Opperman v. Path, Inc., 84 F. Supp. 3d 962, 976 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (taking judicial
`notice of Apple’s Software Licensing Agreements and Privacy Policy); Datel Holdings Ltd. v.
`Microsoft Corp., 712 F. Supp. 2d 974, 983 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (taking judicial notice of Xbox’s
`warranty).
`3 Privacy Policy, LINKEDIN, https://www.linkedin.com/legal/privacy-policy#key-terms-intro
`(Aug. 11, 2020) (“You can ask us to erase or delete all or some of your personal data. . . . You
`can ask us to stop using all or some of your personal data . . . or to limit our use of it.”); Privacy
`Settings, LINKEDIN, https://privacy.linkedin.com/settings (last visited Apr. 6, 2022) (“See which
`apps and services of others you have allowed to access some of your data; you can stop access at
`any time.”); Privacy FAQs, LINKEDIN, https://privacy.linkedin.com/faq (“You can review the
`settings in each category [Account, Privacy, Advertising, and Communications] to better
`understand how LinkedIn uses your personal data and how you can control it.”).
`
`-6-
`LINKEDIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CASE NO. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 27 Filed 04/12/22 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`III. THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE
`A CLAIM.
`Claims That Lack Sufficient Facts To Be Plausible On Their Face Must Be
`A.
`Dismissed.
`A court should dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) if it lacks sufficient facts to
`“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
`(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This “facial plausibility”
`standard requires the plaintiff to allege facts that “raise a right to relief above the speculative
`level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The Court need not accept as true “allegations that are
`merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re
`Animation Workers Antitrust Litig., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1195, 1206 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting In re
`Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008)). “[E]ven where facts are
`accepted as true, a plaintiff may plead [him]self out of court if he plead[s] facts which establish
`that he cannot prevail on his claim.’” N. Star Gas Co. v. Pac. Gas & Electric Co., 2016 WL
`5358590, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016) (Gilliam, J.) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
`The “Supreme Court has noted precisely in the context of private antitrust litigation, ‘it
`is one thing to be cautious before dismissing an antitrust complaint in advance of discovery, but
`quite another to forget that proceeding to antitrust discovery can be expensive.’” Feitelson v.
`Google Inc., 80 F. Supp. 3d 1019, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558-
`59)). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has stressed the importance of the Twombly pleading
`standard, “because discovery in antitrust cases frequently