Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 109 Filed 06/17/21 Page 1 of 49
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`Stephen A. Swedlow (admitted pro hac vice)
` stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 705-7400
`
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`Shana E. Scarlett (Bar No. 217895)
` shanas@hbsslaw.com
`715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
`Berkeley, CA 94710
`(510) 725-3000
`
`Interim Co-Lead Consumer Class Counsel
`
`[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
`
`BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
`Yavar Bathaee (Bar No. 282388)
` yavar@bathaeedunne.com
`445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
`New York, NY 10022
`(332) 205-7668
`
`SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LLP
`Kristen M. Anderson (Bar No. 246108)
` kanderson@scott-scott.com
`230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
`New York, NY 10169
`(212) 223-6444
`
`Interim Co-Lead Advertiser Class
`Counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`This Document Relates To: All Actions
`
`
`
`
`
` Consolidated Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`
`CONSUMER CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ AND
`ADVERTISER CLASS PLAINTIFFS’
`JOINT OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`The Hon. Lucy H. Koh
`
`Hearing Date:
`
`July 15, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.
`
`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 No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-1-
`CONSUMER AND ADVERTISER PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 109 Filed 06/17/21 Page 2 of 49
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................1
`
`RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS AND BACKGROUND .......................................................3
`
`A.
`
`Consumers: Anticompetitive Conduct in the Social Media and Social
`Network Markets ........................................................................................................3
`
`1)
`
`2)
`
`Systematic and Repeated Deception of Consumers .......................................3
`
`Surveillance of Competitive Threats Using Deceptively Obtained
`Data ................................................................................................................4
`
`3)
`
`Harm to Competition ......................................................................................4
`
`B.
`
`Advertisers: Anticompetitive Conduct in the Social Advertising Market ..................5
`
`1)
`
`2)
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`API Access Removal, Data Demands, and Whitelist Agreements ................5
`
`Use of Onavo to Surveil Competitors and Advertising Targets .....................6
`
`Anticompetitive Back-end Integration of Acquired Businesses ....................7
`
`Market Allocation Agreement with Google ...................................................7
`
`Harm to Competition ......................................................................................7
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`5)
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..........................................................................................................7
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Section 2 Claims Are Timely ....................................................................7
`
`1)
`
`Plaintiffs Allege Actionable Conduct and Injuries Inside the
`Limitations Period ..........................................................................................8
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Consumers Detail Continued Conduct and New Injuries ..................8
`
`Advertisers Detail Continued Conduct and New Injuries ................10
`
`2)
`
`Fraudulent Concealment Tolls Plaintiffs’ Section 2 Claims ........................11
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Consumers Adequately Allege Concealment ...................................11
`
`Advertisers Adequately Allege Concealment ..................................13
`
`3)
`
`Laches Does Not Bar Plaintiffs’ Requests for Equitable Relief ..................14
`
`B.
`
`Facebook Possesses Monopoly Power in Cognizable Product Markets ..................15
`
`1)
`
`Consumers’ Social Network and Social Media Markets..............................16
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-i-
`CONSUMER AND ADVERTISER PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 109 Filed 06/17/21 Page 3 of 49
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The Markets Are Well-Defined and Recognized and Address
`Substitutes ........................................................................................16
`
`Facebook Has Monopoly Power in Both Markets Alleged by
`Consumers ........................................................................................18
`
`2)
`
`Advertisers’ Social Advertising Market Is Well-Defined and
`Recognized and Addresses Substitutes ........................................................19
`
`C.
`
`Facebook Obtained and Maintained Monopoly Power by Anticompetitive
`Means .......................................................................................................................21
`
`1)
`
`2)
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`Facebook’s Unrelenting Deception of Consumers Violates Section 2 ........21
`
`Facebook’s Anticompetitive Serial Acquisition Conduct ............................24
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Consumers’ Claims ..........................................................................24
`
`Advertisers’ Claims ..........................................................................25
`
`Plaintiffs Do Not Allege “Product Improvement” Claims ...........................26
`
`Facebook Mischaracterizes Plaintiffs’ Allegations Regarding
`Developers ....................................................................................................27
`
`a)
`
`Consumers’ Claims Do Not Implicate a “Duty to Deal” .................27
`
`b)
`
`Advertisers’ Claims ..........................................................................27
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiffs Adequately Allege Antitrust Standing and Injury ....................................28
`
`1)
`
`2)
`
`Consumers Suffered Direct, Quantifiable, Antitrust Injury .........................28
`
`Advertisers Allege Antitrust Standing and Injury ........................................32
`
`E.
`
`Consumers State a Cognizable, Standalone Unjust Enrichment Claim ...................34
`
`IV.
`
`REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND .............................................................................35
`
`V.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-ii-
`CONSUMER AND ADVERTISER PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 109 Filed 06/17/21 Page 4 of 49
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Abuelhawa v. Santa Clara Univ.,
` No. 5:20-cv-04045-LHK (N.D. Cal. March 29, 2021) .............................................................. 35
`
`Allflex USA, Inc. v. Avid Identification Sys., Inc.,
` 2010 WL 11405130 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2010) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Grp. LP,
` 592 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................... 26
`
`Am. Ad Mgmt., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. Co. of California,
` 190 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................... 28
`
`Am. Pro. Testing Serv., Inc. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal & Pro. Publications, Inc.,
` 108 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................... 23
`
`Apple Inc. v. Pepper,
` 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019) ............................................................................................................... 30
`
`Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
` 2018 WL 11230167 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2018) ......................................................................... 23
`
`Aspen Skiing Co v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.,
` 472 U.S. 585 (1985) ................................................................................................................... 28
`
`Backhaut v. Apple Inc.,
` 2015 WL 4776427 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2015) ........................................................................... 34
`
`Beasley v. Conagra Brands, Inc.,
` 374 F. Supp. 3d 869 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ....................................................................................... 14
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
` 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ..................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Bercut-Vandervoort & Co. v. Maison Tarride Ledroit & Cie,
` 2006 WL 8442285 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2006) ............................................................................. 14
`
`Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc.,
` 669 F. Supp. 998 (E.D. Cal. 1987) ............................................................................................. 29
`
`Brown Shoe Co. v. United States,
` 370 U.S. 294 (1962) ....................................................................................................... 17, 19, 33
`
`Brown v. Google LLC,
` 2021 WL 949372 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2021) ............................................................. 7, 11, 13, 14
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-iii-
`CONSUMER AND ADVERTISER PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 109 Filed 06/17/21 Page 5 of 49
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`Caribbean Broad. Sys., Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless P.L.C.,
` 148 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................... 21, 23
`
`Clayco Petroleum Corp. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.,
` 712 F.2d 404 (9th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`Cmty. Publishers, Inc. v. Donrey Corp.,
` 892 F. Supp. 1146 (W.D. Ark. 1995) ................................................................................... 15, 18
`
`Cmty. Publishers, Inc. v. DR Partners,
` 139 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................... 21
`
`CollegeNet, Inc. v. Common Application, Inc.,
` 355 F. Supp. 3d 926 (D. Or. 2018) ............................................................................................. 18
`
`Conmar v. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc.,
` 858 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................... 14
`
`Cont’l Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp.,
` 370 U.S. 690 (1962) ................................................................................................................... 26
`
`Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp.,
` 263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................... 15
`
`Datel Holdings Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 712 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ....................................................................................... 17
`
`Dial Corp. v. News Corp.,
` 165 F. Supp. 3d 25 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`Dodds v. Cigna Securities, Inc.,
` 841 F. Supp. 89 (W.D.N.Y. 1992) ............................................................................................. 13
`
`Doe 1 v. AOL LLC,
` 719 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ..................................................................................... 22
`
`Duarte v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp.,
` 2018 WL 2121800 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2018) ................................................................................ 8
`
`E.W. French & Sons, Inc. v. General Portland Inc.,
` 885 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir.1989) ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`Eagle v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc.,
` 812 F.2d 538 (9th Cir. 1987) ...................................................................................................... 30
`
`ESG Cap. Partners, LP v. Stratos,
` 828 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................. 34, 35
`
`F.T.C. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
` 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-iv-
`CONSUMER AND ADVERTISER PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 109 Filed 06/17/21 Page 6 of 49
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Dintino,
` 167 Cal. App. 4th 333 (2008) ..................................................................................................... 35
`
`Free FreeHand Corp. v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
` 852 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ............................................... 8, 9, 21, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32
`
`Garrison v. Oracle Corp.,
` 159 F. Supp. 3d 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ..................................................................................... 12
`
`Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Lannett Co., Inc.,
` 378 F. Supp. 3d 823 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ....................................................................................... 23
`
`Glen Holly Ent., Inc. v. Tektronix, Inc.,
` 352 F.3d 367 (9th Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................... 31, 32, 34
`
`Goldwasser v. Ameritech Corp.,
` 1998 WL 60878 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 4, 1998) .................................................................................... 31
`
`Greyhound Computer Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp.,
` 559 F2d 488 (9th Cir. 1977) ....................................................................................................... 20
`
`Hart v. TWC Prod. & Tech. LLC,
` 2021 WL 1032354 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2021) ..................................................................... 34, 35
`
`Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc.,
` 165 F. Supp. 3d 898 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ................................................................................. 20, 21
`
`Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc.,
` 897 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................. 16, 17
`
`Hoai Dang v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
` 2018 WL 6308738 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2018) ............................................................................. 35
`
`Hoopes v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.,
` 374 F.2d 480 (9th Cir. 1967) ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`Image Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
` 125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................. 18, 21
`
`In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig.,
` 94 F. Supp. 3d 224 (D. Conn. 2015) .................................................................................... 16, 29
`
`In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig.,
` 2010 WL 10947344 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2010) ........................................................................... 8
`
`In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litig.,
` 123 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................... 11, 12, 13, 14
`
`In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litig.,
` 796 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ..................................................................................... 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-v-
`CONSUMER AND ADVERTISER PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 109 Filed 06/17/21 Page 7 of 49
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig.,
` 105 F. Supp. 2d 618 (E.D. Mich. 2000) ..................................................................................... 24
`
`In re Glumetza Antitrust Litig.,
` 2020 WL 1066934 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2020) ............................................................................. 10
`
`In re Google Digital Advert. Antitrust Litig.,
` 2021 WL 2021990 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2021) ........................................................................... 21
`
`In re Google Inc.,
` 2013 WL 5423918 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2013) ........................................................................... 22
`
`In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig.,
` 383 F. Supp. 3d 187 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ........................................................................................ 21
`
`In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig.,
` 2014 WL 309192 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) .............................................................................. 11
`
`In re Loc. TV Advert. Antitrust Litig.,
` 2020 WL 6557665 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2020) ............................................................................... 20
`
`In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig.,
` 814 F.3d 538 (1st Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................... 29
`
`In re Magnesium Oxide Antitrust Litig.,
` 2011 WL 5008090 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2011) ........................................................................... 32, 33
`
`In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig.,
` 2017 WL 35571 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2017) ................................................................................... 11
`
`In re Super Premium Ice Cream Distribution Antitrust Litig.,
` 691 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Cal. 1988) .......................................................................................... 17
`
`In re Webkinz Antitrust Litig.,
` 695 F. Supp. 2d 987 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ....................................................................................... 18
`
`Insignia Sys., Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. In-Store, Inc.,
` 661 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (D. Minn. 2009) ...................................................................................... 20
`
`Intel Corp. v. Fortress Inv. Grp. LLC,
` 2021 WL 51727 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2021) .................................................................................. 32
`
`Jamsports & Ent., LLC. v. Paradama Prods., Inc.,
` 2003 WL 1873563 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 15, 2003) ............................................................................. 17
`
`Kaiser Found. v. Abbott Labs,
` 2009 WL 3877513 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2009) .............................................................................. 10
`
`Kickflip, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
` 999 F. Supp. 2d 677 (D. Del. 2013) ........................................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-vi-
`CONSUMER AND ADVERTISER PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 109 Filed 06/17/21 Page 8 of 49
`
`
`
`Kinderstart.com LLC v. Google, Inc.,
` 2007 WL 831806 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2007) ....................................................................... 21, 23
`
`Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp.,
` 521 U.S. 179 (1997) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc.,
` 232 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................ 7, 28, 30
`
`Korea Kumho Petrochemical v. Flexsys Am. LP,
` 2008 WL 686834 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2008) ............................................................................. 19
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co.,
` 390 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (M.D. Fla. 2005) ..................................................................................... 19
`
`Lucas Auto. Eng’g, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
` 140 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................... 32
`
`Mayor of Baltimore v. Actelion Pharms. Ltd.,
` 995 F.3d 123 (4th Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................................... 10
`
`Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc.,
` 966 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`Morton’s Mkt., Inc. v. Gustafson’s Dairy, Inc.,
` 198 F.3d 823 (11th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................... 12
`
`Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Off. Sol.,
` 513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................. 15, 16
`
`Nobody in Particular Presents, Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc’ns, Inc.,
` 311 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (D. Colo. 2004) ................................................................................. 18, 20
`
`NSS Labs, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
` 2019 WL 3804679 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2019) ........................................................................... 17
`
`Obertman v. Electrolux Home Care Prod., Inc.,
` 482 F. Supp. 3d 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................................... 35
`
`Oliver v. SD-3C LLC,
` 751 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 14, 15
`
`Omni Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Columbia Outdoor Advert., Inc.,
` 891 F.2d 1127 (4th Cir. 1989)
`(rev’d on other grounds) ............................................................................................................. 20
`
`Packaging Sys., Inc. v. PRC-Desoto Int’l, Inc.,
` 268 F. Supp. 3d 1071 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-vii-
`CONSUMER AND ADVERTISER PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 109 Filed 06/17/21 Page 9 of 49
`
`
`
`Palmer v. BRG of Ga., Inc.,
` 498 U.S. 46 (1990) ..................................................................................................................... 33
`
`Pfizer Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson,
` 333 F. Supp. 3d 494 (E.D. Pa. 2018) ......................................................................................... 24
`
`Pistacchio v. Apple Inc.,
` 2021 WL 949422 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021) ............................................................................. 17
`
`Pro. Tax Appeal v. Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc.,
` 29 Cal. App. 5th 230 (2018) ....................................................................................................... 35
`
`Rambus Inc. v. F.T.C.,
` 522 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 23, 24
`
`RealPage, Inc. v. Yardi Sys., Inc.,
` 852 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ................................................................................ 20, 21
`
`Rebel Oil Co. v. Atl. Richfield Co.,
` 51 F.3d 1421 (9th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................... 18
`
`Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.,
` 442 U.S. 330 (1979) ................................................................................................................... 29
`
`Retrophin, Inc. v. Questcor Pharms., Inc.,
` 41 F. Supp. 3d 906 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................... 19
`
`Reveal Chat Holdco, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
` 471 F. Supp. 3d 981 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ......................................................... 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 25
`
`Rheumatology Diagnostics Lab’y, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc.,
` 2013 WL 3242245 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2013) ........................................................................... 19
`
`Roy B. Taylor Sales, Inc. v. Hollymatic Corp.,
` 28 F.3d 1379 (5th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................... 25
`
`Safeway Inc. v. Abbott Labs.,
` 761 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ....................................................................................... 33
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Panasonic Corp.,
` 747 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 9, 10
`
`Smith v. eBay Corp.,
` 2012 WL 27718 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2012) .................................................................................... 9
`
`Stationary Engineers Loc. 39 Health & Welfare Tr. Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
` 1998 WL 476265 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 1998) ............................................................................. 28
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-viii-
`CONSUMER AND ADVERTISER PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 109 Filed 06/17/21 Page 10 of 49
`
`
`
`Steves & Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc.,
` 345 F. Supp. 3d 614 (E.D. Va. 2018)
`aff’d in part, vacated in part ....................................................................................................... 15
`
`Steves & Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc.,
` 988 F.3d 690 (4th Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................................... 15
`
`Tabler v. Panera LLC,
` 2020 WL 3544988 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2020) ........................................................................... 22
`
`Tele Atlas N.V. v. NAVTEQ Corp.,
` 2008 WL 4911230 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2008) ........................................................................... 25
`
`Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs.,
` 2007 WL 2989504 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2007) ............................................................................ 22
`
`Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v. United States,
` 345 U.S. 594 (1953) ................................................................................................................... 20
`
`TSI Prod., Inc. v. Armor All/STP Prod. Co.,
` 2019 WL 4600310 (D. Conn. Sept. 23, 2019) ........................................................................... 29
`
`U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distribution, Inc. v. Living Essentials, LLC,
` 2019 WL 4452966 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2019) ............................................................................. 24
`
`United Food & Com. Workers Loc. 1776 & Participating Emps. Health & Welfare Fund v.
`Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.,
` 74 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ....................................................................................... 29
`
`United Nat’l Records v. MCA, Inc.,
` 609 F. Supp. 33 (N.D. Ill. 1984) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`United States ex rel. Jones v. Sutter Health,
` 2020 WL 6544412 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) ............................................................................. 35
`
`United States v. Aetna Inc.,
` 240 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2017) ............................................................................................... 25
`
`United States v. Bazaarvoice, Inc.,
` 2014 WL 203966 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2014) ................................................................................ 16
`
`United States v. Brown,
` 936 F.2d 1042 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................... 33
`
`United States v. El Paso Nat. Gas Co.,
` 376 U.S. 651 (1964) ................................................................................................................... 26
`
`United States v. Grinnell Corp.,
` 384 U.S. 563 (1966) ............................................................................................................. 17, 26
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-ix-
`CONSUMER AND ADVERTISER PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 109 Filed 06/17/21 Page 11 of 49
`
`
`
`United States v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................... 23, 24
`
`United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc.,
` 405 U.S. 596 (1972) ............................................................................................................. 33, 34
`
`United States v. Tribune Publ’g Co.,
` 2016 WL 2989488 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2016) ........................................................................... 21
`
`United States v. Vill. Voice Media, LLC,
` 2003 WL 21659092 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2003) ........................................................................ 16
`
`Vesta Corp. v. Amdocs Mgmt. Ltd.,
` 129 F. Supp. 3d 1012 (D. Or. 2015) ..................................................................................... 18, 19
`
`Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.,
` 951 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................... 28
`
`Xechem, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
` 372 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`Z Techs. Corp. v. Lubrizol Corp.,
` 753 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................... 10
`
`Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,
` 401 U.S. 321 (1971) ................................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-x-
`CONSUMER AND ADVERTISER PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 109 Filed 06/17/21 Page 12 of 49
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Faceboo