Case 4:22-cv-04437-YGR Document 61 Filed 01/20/23 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`CYNTHIA E. RICHMAN (D.C. Bar No.
`492089; pro hac vice)
`crichman@gibsondunn.com
`VICTORIA C. GRANDA (D.C. Bar No.
`1673034; pro hac vice)
`vgranda@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-5306
`Telephone: 202.955.8500
`Facsimile: 202.467.0539
`
`DANIEL G. SWANSON (SBN 116556)
`dswanson@gibsondunn.com
`DANA LYNN CRAIG (SBN 251865)
`dcraig@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
`Telephone: 213.229.7000
`Facsimile: 213.229.7520
`
`
`CAELI A. HIGNEY (SBN 268644)
`chigney@gibsondunn.com
`ELI M. LAZARUS (SBN 284082)
`elazarus@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`555 Mission Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415.393.8200
`Facsimile: 415.393.8306
`
`Attorneys for defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`SOCIÉTÉ DU FIGARO, SAS, a French
`simplified joint-stock company; L’ÉQUIPE
`24/24 SAS, a French simplified joint-stock
`company, on behalf of themselves and all
`others similarly situated; and LE GESTE, a
`French association, on behalf of itself, its
`members, and all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC., a California corporation,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 4:22-cv-04437-YGR
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`Hearing:
`Date:
`Time:
`Place:
`Judge:
`
`March 14, 2023
`2:00 p.m.
`Courtroom 1
`Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO 4:22-CV-04437-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04437-YGR Document 61 Filed 01/20/23 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 14, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Yvonne
`Gonzalez Rogers, in Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
`located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) moves this Court to
`dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), with prejudice, the
`amended claims, in whole, or alternatively, in part, brought by plaintiffs Société du Figaro, SAS,
`L’Équipe 24/24 SAS, and le GESTE. Apple’s motion is based on the grounds that (1) plaintiffs’
`foreign-sales claims are barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a;
`(2) plaintiffs lack Article III and statutory standing to challenge, and fail to state a claim challenging,
`Apple’s App Tracking Transparency functionality; (3) plaintiff le GESTE lacks Article III and
`statutory standing; (4) all claims are time-barred or barred by laches; and (5) plaintiffs fail to state a
`claim for restitution.
`This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the following Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities, the concurrently filed Request for Judicial Notice, the Declaration of Caeli A.
`Higney, the pleadings and papers on file, and the argument received by the Court.
`
`
`
`
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`Daniel G. Swanson
`Cynthia E. Richman
`Caeli A. Higney
`Dana Lynn Craig
`Eli M. Lazarus
`Victoria C. Granda
`
`
`By: /s/ Cynthia E. Richman
`
`Attorneys for defendant Apple 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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`i
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO 4:22-CV-04437-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04437-YGR Document 61 Filed 01/20/23 Page 3 of 36
`
`B.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Cameron and the Present Dispute ................................................................................. 3
`B.
`The Plaintiffs and Proposed Classes ............................................................................. 4
`C.
`The Amended Complaint’s Allegations ........................................................................ 5
`D.
`The App Store’s Foreign Storefronts ............................................................................ 6
`LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................................. 7
`PLAINTIFFS’ FOREIGN-SALES CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE FTAIA ..................... 8
`A.
`The FTAIA Applies to Alleged Restraints on Plaintiffs’ Foreign-Storefront
`Transactions That Involve Foreign Commerce ............................................................. 8
`Plaintiffs’ Arguments Against Application of the FTAIA Are Unavailing .................. 9
`1.
`The DPLA’s Choice-of-Law Clause Does Not Nullify the FTAIA ................. 9
`2.
`France-Resident Plaintiffs’ Allegation that Their Commerce Occurred
`“in America” Is a Fiction Entitled to No Deference ....................................... 10
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Do Not Arise from Any Alleged Domestic Effect ............ 11
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Do Not Arise from Any Alleged Effect on U.S.
`Exports ............................................................................................................ 12
`State Antitrust Law Does Not Reach Foreign Commerce .......................................... 13
`C.
`International Comity Favors Dismissal ....................................................................... 14
`D.
`PLAINTIFFS ARE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING APPLE’S ATT FEATURE .......... 14
`PLAINTIFF LE GESTE IS BARRED FROM PURSUING ANY CLAIMS ........................ 17
`A.
`Le GESTE Cannot Sue in Its Own Right .................................................................... 17
`B.
`Le GESTE Lacks Article III Standing to Sue on Behalf of Its Members ................... 18
`1.
`Le GESTE cannot rely on of Figaro’s and L’Équipe’s standing .................... 18
`2.
`This litigation is not germane to le GESTE’s purpose .................................... 19
`Le GESTE Lacks Statutory Standing to Sue on Behalf of its Members ..................... 20
`C.
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED OR BARRED BY LACHES ..................... 21
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act Claims Are Untimely or Barred by Laches .......................... 21
`B.
`Plaintiffs’ UCL Claims Are Barred as Untimely or by Laches .................................. 24
`ii
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO 4:22-CV-04437-YGR
`
`3.
`4.
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04437-YGR Document 61 Filed 01/20/23 Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Cartwright Act Claims Are Untimely ........................................................ 25
`C.
`VIII. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR RESTITUTION ARE BARRED ........................................... 25
`IX.
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`iii
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO 4:22-CV-04437-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04437-YGR Document 61 Filed 01/20/23 Page 5 of 36
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Glanton ex rel. ALCOA Prescription Drug Plan v. AdvancePCS Inc.,
`465 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2006) .........................................................................................................19
`
`Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Super. Ct.,
`46 Cal. 4th 993 (2009) ....................................................................................................................21
`
`Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. FDA,
`13 F.4th 531 (6th Cir. 2021) ...........................................................................................................20
`
`Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp.,
`713 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2013) .........................................................................................................18
`
`Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters,
`459 U.S. 519 (1983) ........................................................................................................................16
`
`Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Coal. for Econ. Equity,
`950 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1991) .........................................................................................................19
`
`Aurora Enters., Inc. v. Nat’l Broad. Co.,
`688 F.2d 689 (9th Cir. 1982) ...........................................................................................................23
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................................................................7, 10
`
`Blix Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`2021 WL 2895654 (D. Del. July 9, 2021) ..................................................................................3, 16
`
`Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.,
`429 U.S. 477 (1977) ........................................................................................................................18
`
`California v. Texas,
`141 S. Ct. 2104 (2021) ....................................................................................................................16
`
`In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig.,
`2018 WL 4558265 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2018) ...........................................................................9, 13
`
`Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colo., Inc.,
`479 U.S. 104 (1986) ........................................................................................................................21
`
`Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush,
`386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004) ...........................................................................................................8
`
`Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp.,
`93 Cal. App. 4th 363 (2001) ...........................................................................................................25
`
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,
`568 U.S. 398 (2013) ........................................................................................................................16
`iv
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO 4:22-CV-04437-YGR
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04437-YGR Document 61 Filed 01/20/23 Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`Coal. for ICANN Transparency Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`452 F. Supp. 2d 924 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ............................................................................................21
`
`Coronavirus Reporter v. Apple Inc.,
`2021 WL 5936910 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021) ..................................................................................1
`
`Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co.,
`23 Cal. 4th 163 (2000) ....................................................................................................................24
`
`Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp.,
`263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) ...........................................................................................................25
`
`Darensburg v. Metro. Transp. Comm’n,
`611 F. Supp. 2d 994 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ............................................................................................19
`
`David Orgell, Inc. v. Geary’s Stores, Inc.,
`640 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1981) ...........................................................................................................23
`
`Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`392 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ..........................................................................................14
`
`Dreamstime.com, LLC v. Google LLC,
`54 F.4th 1130 (9th Cir. 2022) .........................................................................................................17
`
`In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig.,
`546 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................8, 12, 18
`
`Eagle v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc.,
`812 F.2d 538 (9th Cir. 1987) ...........................................................................................................15
`
`Electroglas, Inc. v. Dynatex Corp.,
`497 F. Supp. 97 (N.D. Cal. 1980) ...................................................................................................22
`
`Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd.,
`417 F.3d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................................12
`
`Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`559 F. Supp. 3d 898 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ....................................................................................1, 2, 14
`
`Eurim-Pharm GmbH v. Pfizer Inc.,
`593 F. Supp. 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ................................................................................................12
`
`F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A.,
`542 U.S. 155 (2004) ..........................................................................................................8, 9, 12, 14
`
`Fin. & Sec. Prods. Ass’n v. Diebold, Inc.,
`2005 WL 1629813 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2005) ...................................................................................20
`
`In re Foreign Exch. Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig.,
`2016 WL 5108131 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2016) ..................................................................................9
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`v
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO 4:22-CV-04437-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04437-YGR Document 61 Filed 01/20/23 Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`FTC v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020) .....................................................................................................16, 17
`
`Great-W. Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson,
`534 U.S. 204 (2002) ........................................................................................................................25
`
`Hameed v. IHOP Franchising LLC,
`520 F. App’x 520 (9th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................24
`
`Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California,
`509 U.S. 764 (1993) ........................................................................................................................13
`
`Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman,
`455 U.S. 363 (1982) ........................................................................................................................17
`
`Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc.,
`897 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2018) .........................................................................................................17
`
`Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n,
`432 U.S. 333 (1977) ........................................................................................................................18
`
`Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp.,
`518 F.2d 913 (9th Cir. 1975) ...........................................................................................................23
`
`Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc.,
`304 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................................................25
`
`Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
`518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................................7
`
`Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) ...........................................................................................................22
`
`LA All. for Human Rights v. Cnty. of Los Angeles,
`14 F.4th 947 (9th Cir. 2021) ...........................................................................................................18
`
`La Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake Forest,
`624 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) .........................................................................................................17
`
`LaSalvia v. United Dairymen of Ariz.,
`804 F.2d 1113 (9th Cir. 1986) .........................................................................................................23
`
`Lotes Co. v. Hon Hai Precision Indus. Co.,
`753 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................................10
`
`Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) ........................................................................................................................15
`
`Med. Ass’n of Ala. v. Schweiker,
`554 F. Supp. 955 (M.D. Ala. 1983) ................................................................................................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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`vi
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO 4:22-CV-04437-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04437-YGR Document 61 Filed 01/20/23 Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.,
`775 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................................9
`
`Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc. v. Super. Ct.,
`9 Cal. 5th 279 (2020) ......................................................................................................................25
`
`Ohio v. Am. Express Co.,
`138 S. Ct. 2274 (2018) ....................................................................................................................16
`
`Oliver v. SD-3C LLC,
`751 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) .........................................................................................................23
`
`Openiano v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co.,
`829 F. App’x 829 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Pace Indus., Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co.,
`813 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1987) .....................................................................................................21, 23
`
`PLS.Com, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors,
`32 F.4th 824 (9th Cir. 2022) .............................................................................................................2
`
`Polaroid Corp. v. Disney,
`862 F.2d 987 (3d Cir. 1988) ............................................................................................................20
`
`Reilly v. Apple Inc.,
`578 F. Supp. 3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2022) ............................................................................................1
`
`Reveal Chat Holdco, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`471 F. Supp. 3d 981 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................................................24
`
`RLH Indus., Inc. v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc.,
`133 Cal. App. 4th 1277 (2005) .......................................................................................................14
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ...........................................................................................................25
`
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
`578 U.S. 330 (2016) ........................................................................................................................17
`
`In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litig.,
`2010 WL 5477313 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2010) ................................................................................13
`
`Summers v. Earth Island Inst.,
`555 U.S. 488 (2009) ........................................................................................................................18
`
`Sw. Suburban Bd. of Realtors, Inc. v. Beverly Area Plan. Ass’n,
`830 F.2d 1374 (7th Cir. 1987) .........................................................................................................20
`
`In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litig.,
`2012 WL 3763616 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2012) ................................................................................13
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`vii
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO 4:22-CV-04437-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04437-YGR Document 61 Filed 01/20/23 Page 9 of 36
`
`
`
`Turicentro, S.A. v. Am. Airlines Inc.,
`303 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................................10, 11
`
`UAW v. Brock,
`477 U.S. 274 (1986) ........................................................................................................................19
`
`Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp.,
`2013 WL 368365 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2013) ...................................................................................14
`
`United Food & Comm. Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc.,
`517 U.S. 544 (1996) ........................................................................................................................20
`
`United States v. Hui Hsiung,
`778 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................................8
`
`United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, & Allied Trades No. 40 v. Ins. Corp. of Am.,
`919 F.2d 1398 (9th Cir. 1990) .........................................................................................................18
`
`US Airways, Inc. v. Sabre Holdings Corp.,
`105 F. Supp. 3d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .............................................................................................22
`
`Warth v. Seldin,
`422 U.S. 490 (1975) ........................................................................................................................20
`
`Whitaker v. Sherwood Mgmt. Co.,
`2022 WL 2357003 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2022) ................................................................................14
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. § 2 ...........................................................................................................................................2
`
`15 U.S.C. § 6a .................................................................................................................................11, 12
`
`15 U.S.C. § 15 .......................................................................................................................................21
`
`15 U.S.C. § 15b ...............................................................................................................................21, 23
`
`15 U.S.C. § 26 .......................................................................................................................................20
`
`1941 Cal. Stat. 1836 ..............................................................................................................................21
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16700 et seq. ................................................................................................2
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16750(a) .......................................................................................................21
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16750.1 ........................................................................................................25
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. ................................................................................................2
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 ...........................................................................................................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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`viii
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO 4:22-CV-04437-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04437-YGR Document 61 Filed 01/20/23 Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 ...........................................................................................................24
`
`Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, Pub. L. No. 63-212, § 16, 38 Stat. 730 ................................................20
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 97-686 (1982) ........................................................................................................8, 9, 13
`
`Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law (5th ed. 2022) ...........................................8, 9
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) ...........................................................................................................................7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ...........................................................................................................................7
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`
`U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3 ....................................................................................................................13
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`ix
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO 4:22-CV-04437-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04437-YGR Document 61 Filed 01/20/23 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`Should the Court dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice because:
`1.
`plaintiffs’ claims based on foreign sales are barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust
`Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a;
`2.
`plaintiffs lack standing to challenge, and fail to state a claim challenging, Apple’s App
`Tracking Transparency functionality;
`3.
`plaintiff le GESTE lacks standing to sue;
`4.
`plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations and laches; and
`5.
`plaintiffs fail to state a claim for restitution?
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On July 15, 2022, “in accordance with the terms of the Settlement,” this Court entered final
`judgment in Cameron, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR (N.D. Cal.), a putative class
`action brought by U.S. iOS app developers. See Amended Final Judgment, Cameron Dkt. 494;
`Consolidated Complaint, Cameron Dkt. 53 (“Cameron Compl.”). Barely two weeks later, “fresh off
`the heels of [that] hard-won settlement with Apple,” plaintiffs, represented by the same counsel as the
`putative class in Cameron, filed this almost identical antitrust lawsuit. See Complaint, Dkt. 1
`(“Compl.”); Apple’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended
`Complaint (“RJN”), Ex. A, France-Based iOS Developers Team up with U.S. Firm Hagens Berman.
`Notwithstanding plaintiffs’ counsel’s prior assertion that the relief obtained through the Cameron
`settlement “will benefit” not just the Settlement Class but “other developers” too, Motion for
`Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Cameron Dkt. 396 at 20 (emphasis added), the
`present complaint claims the alleged conduct “will never abate unless Apple is called to account for its
`unlawful behavior,” First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 48 (“complaint” or “FAC”) ¶ 29.
`Plaintiffs allege the same single-brand markets that have been considered and rejected by this
`Court and others. See, e.g., Reilly v. Apple Inc., 578 F. Supp. 3d 1098, 1107-09 (N.D. Cal. 2022);
`Coronavirus Reporter v. Apple Inc., 2021 WL 5936910 at *8-13 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021); Epic
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04437-YGR Document 61 Filed 01/20/23 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 559 F. Supp. 3d 898, 1021-26 (N.D. Cal. 2021).1 They challenge the same
`conduct—Apple’s centralized system of app distribution and the App Store’s 30% commission—at
`issue in Cameron, and carefully analyzed by this Court following a three-week trial in Epic. Plaintiffs
`selectively quote from this Court’s decision in Epic, see, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 13-14 (discussing alternative
`models for app distribution proposed by Epic), but conveniently ignore the portions that undermine
`their claims, see, e.g., Epic, 559 F. Supp. 3d at 1041 (rejecting Epic’s proposed alternative models);
`see also id. at 1049 (“Epic Games has failed to prove that Apple is an illegal monopolist in control of
`the iOS platform.”). Despite all this, plaintiffs, indifferent to the waste of party and judicial resources,
`demand the opportunity to relitigate these issues.
`There is only one meaningful difference between the instant case and Cameron: this action
`seeks relief related to transactions by putative classes of “France-resident iOS developers,” primarily
`on non-U.S. Apple storefronts. FAC ¶¶ 5, 220, 224-29. The complaint, in passing, also criticizes
`Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (“ATT”) feature, which gives consumers the choice to opt out of
`certain third-party tracking by developers. Id. ¶¶ 198-202. Neither of these differences suffices to give
`rise to a new, timely developer action subject to the proper jurisdiction of this Court. And plaintiffs’
`efforts to cure the complaint’s deficiencies through their amendment do not alter this conclusion.
`Plaintiffs’ litigation opportunism falters for several reasons:
`First, plaintiffs’ purely foreign claims, brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
`§ 2, the California Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16700 et seq., and California’s Unfair
`Competition Law (“UCL”), id. §§ 17200 et seq., are barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust
`Improvements Act (“FTAIA”). Transactions between French developers and foreign consumers, made
`on foreign App Store storefronts, in foreign currency, and through a foreign (non-party) Apple entity
`are foreign nonimport commerce, not subject to any FTAIA exception. Dismissing these bellwether
`
`
`1 Although it is not raised in this Motion as a basis for dismissal on the pleadings, Apple reserves its
`defense that plaintiffs’ single-brand market definition fails as a matter of law. Further, although the
`complaint describes the commerce at issue as “distribution services,” as this Court noted in Epic, the
`“Supreme Court has seemingly resolved the question: two-sided transaction platforms sell
`transactions. . . . Plaintiff[s] only sell[] to iOS users through the App Store on Apple’s platform. No
`other channel exists for the transaction to characterize the market as one involving ‘distribution
`services.’” Epic, 559 F. Supp. 3d at 1016; see also PLS.Com, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors, 32 F.4th
`824, 837-38 (9th Cir. 2022).
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`2
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO 4:22-CV-04437-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04437-YGR Document 61 Filed 01/20/23 Page 13 of 36
`
`
`foreign claims will also conserve U.S. court resources.
`Second, all plaintiffs lack standing to challenge ATT, a pro-consumer and privacy-enhancing
`feature that does not (and cannot) give rise to any injury in fact to plaintiffs. Even if plaintiffs could
`allege that some kind of loss flows from consumers’ exercising their options under ATT, those losses
`would not amount to injury to competition in any alleged relevant market. See, e.g., Blix Inc. v. Apple
`Inc., 2021 WL 2895654 at *4 (D. Del. July 9, 2021) (plaintiff failed to allege harm to competition
`caused by a requirement that developers offer consumers an optional sign-in process), aff’d, 2022 WL
`17421225 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2022).
`Third, plaintiff le GESTE, a self-described association of “online publishers” that lists on its
`website a diverse array of members such as Google, several French law firms, magazines, consulting
`businesses, and an adult entertainment company, lacks any injury to support Article III or statutory
`standing to sue on its own behalf and lacks associational standing. Among other problems, this
`litigation is not germane to le GESTE’s purpose and neither federal nor state antitrust or unfair
`competition laws provide a right of action to an uninjured association. Le GESTE must be dismissed.
`Fourth, plaintiffs’ claims are untimely. The App Store opened in 2008, and in-app purchase
`(“IAP”) was introduced a year later. Filed in late 2022, th