Case 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
` cchorba@gibsondunn.com
`TIMOTHY LOOSE, SBN 241037
` tloose@gibsondunn.com
`ADRIENNE LIU, SBN 331262
` aliu@gibsondunn.com
`333 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
`Telephone: 213.229.7000
`Facsimile: 213.229.7520
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`BEHNAM DAYANIM (pro hac vice)
` bdayanim@paulhastings.com
`2050 M Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: 202.551.1700
`Facsimile: 202.551.1705
`
`SEAN D. UNGER, SBN 231694
`ANDY LEGOLVAN, SBN 292520
` seanunger@paulhastings.com
`101 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415.856.7000
`Facsimile: 415.856.7100
`Attorneys for Defendant META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`(f/k/a Facebook, Inc.), a Delaware corporation
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`KATHLEEN WILKINSON, et al.,
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`META PLATFORMS, INC. (f/k/a Facebook,
`Inc.), a Delaware corporation,
` Defendant.
`
`HANNELORE BOORN,
` Plaintiff,
`v.
`META PLATFORMS, INC. (f/k/a Facebook,
`Inc.), a Delaware corporation,
` Defendant.
`
` Case No. 5:21-cv-02777-EJD
`Case No. 5:21-cv-02818-EJD
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META
`PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS
`COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 230 OF
`THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
`Hearing:
`Date:
`Time:
`Place:
`Judge:
`
`
`
`
`
`August 4, 2022
`9:00 AM
`Courtroom 4 – 5th Floor
`Hon. Edward J. Davila
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CDA § 230
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02777-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on August 4, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard, before the Honorable Edward J. Davila, in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, of the United
`States District Court, Northern District of California, located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose,
`California, 95113, Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. will and hereby does move this Court, under Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for an order dismissing all of the claims in Plaintiffs’ Master
`Complaint with prejudice because they are barred under Section 230 of the Communications Decency
`Act.
`
`Meta brings this Motion in accordance with the Court’s Order dated March 15, 2022 (Wilkinson
`Dkt. 98), without prejudice to the other grounds for dismissal, which grounds are expressly preserved
`and which will be raised in a subsequent Motion to Dismiss, should Plaintiffs’ claims survive this
`Motion. Meta also brings this Motion without prejudice to its right to enforce any arbitration clauses
`between the Plaintiffs and/or putative class members and the third parties that have developed the
`games at issue.
`This Motion is based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities submitted herewith, any
`Reply Memorandum or other papers submitted in connection with the motion, the Master Complaint
`filed in this action, the Declaration of Christopher Chorba and accompanying exhibits, any matter of
`which this Court may properly take judicial notice, and any information presented at argument.
`
`Dated: April 8, 2022
`
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`
`By:
`
` /s/ Christopher Chorba
`Christopher Chorba
`Attorneys for Defendant META PLATFORMS, INC.
`(f/k/a Facebook, Inc.), a Delaware corporation
`
`
`
`i
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CDA § 230
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02777-EJD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................... 2
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................... 5
`III.
`IV. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 6
`A.
`Facebook Is an “Interactive Computer Service” ........................................................... 7
`B.
`The Complaint Impermissibly Treats Meta as the “Publisher” of Casino-
`Themed Video Games .................................................................................................. 7
`Meta Was Not Responsible for the “Creation” or “Development” of the Video
`Games .......................................................................................................................... 12
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 15
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`ii
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CDA § 230
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02777-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 4 of 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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ..........................................................................................................................5
`
`Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................1, 7, 8, 10
`
`Batzel v. Smith,
`333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................................9
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ..........................................................................................................................5
`
`Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n,
`564 U.S. 786 (2011) ..........................................................................................................................9
`
`Caraccioli v. Facebook, Inc.,
`167 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ........................................................................................6, 7
`
`Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................6, 9, 14, 15
`
`Coffee v. Google, LLC,
`No. 20-cv-03901-BLF, 2021 WL 493387 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021) ........................................9, 13
`
`Coffee v. Google, LLC,
`No. 20-cv-03901-BLF, 2022 WL 94986 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2022) .....................2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15
`
`Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc.,
`934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14
`
`Evans v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 13-02477-WHA, 2013 WL 4426359 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013) ............................................11
`
`Evans v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 13-02477-WHA, 2013 WL 5594717 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2013) ..............................................15
`
`Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC,
`521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................6, 7, 13, 14, 15
`
`Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`432 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ......................................................................................7, 15
`
`Force v. Facebook, Inc.,
`934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019) ..........................................................................................................7, 14
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`iii
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CDA § 230
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02777-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Gentry v. eBay, Inc.,
`99 Cal. App. 4th 816 (2002)..............................................................................................................9
`
`Goddard v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 08-cv-02738-JF, 2008 WL 5245490 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008) ..............................................15
`
`Gonzalez v. Google LLC,
`2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021)................................................................5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
`
`HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica,
`918 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2019) .....................................................................................................11, 12
`
`Jones v. Bock,
`549 U.S. 199 (2007) ..........................................................................................................................5
`
`Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc.,
`836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................2, 6, 7, 10, 13
`
`Klayman v. Zuckerberg,
`753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................................7
`
`La Park La Brea A LLC v. Airbnb, Inc.,
`285 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (C.D. Cal. 2017).................................................................................9, 10, 15
`
`Mai v. Supercell Oy,
`No. 20-cv-05573-EJD, 2021 WL 4267487 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2021) ............................................2
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC,
`488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................................................2, 6
`
`Sams v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`713 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................................................5
`
`Taylor v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-03906-RS (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2022) ..................................................................................2
`
`Taylor v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-3906-RS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2021) ..............................................................................12
`
`United States v. Ritchie,
`342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................................3
`
`STATUTES
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230 ...............................................................................................................6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 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
`
`
`
`iv
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CDA § 230
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02777-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Developer Products, Meta for Developers,
`https://developers.facebook.com/products ........................................................................................4
`
`Payments Terms, Meta for Developers,
`https://developers.facebook.com/policy/payments_terms ..........................................................4, 10
`
`Meta Platform Terms, Meta for Developers,
`https://developers.facebook.com/policy ......................................................................................3, 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CDA § 230
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02777-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 7 of 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
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`I.
`Through this lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to hold Meta liable for hosting certain third-party
`applications on the Facebook social media platform. Although people can play many different games
`on Facebook—including trivia games, puzzles, sports, and fantasy games—Plaintiffs’ claims focus on
`so-called “social casino” games that allegedly simulate slot machines in some respects, but with a
`fundamental difference: players cannot win any actual money.
`Plaintiffs allege that Meta (and Apple and Google) violated state anti-gambling statutes by
`hosting these games—games that Meta did not create, as Plaintiffs readily admit. Yet Plaintiffs still
`contend that Meta has engaged in an “illegal gambling” venture, despite the inability of players to win
`any real money from these third-party games. Meta disputes Plaintiffs’ view of the law, and Plaintiffs
`have not stated and cannot state a viable claim for relief. But this Court can and should dispose of all
`of Plaintiffs’ claims without reaching their dubious merits because Section 230 of the Communications
`Decency Act precludes claims that treat an internet intermediary like Meta as the publisher or speaker
`of content created by third parties.
`The Ninth Circuit repeatedly has held that Section 230 protects providers of interactive
`computer services from liability for content posted by third parties. See, e.g., Dyroff v. Ultimate
`Software Grp., Inc., 934 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2019). Plaintiffs not only seek to hold Meta liable
`for allowing third parties to publish casino-themed video games alongside other types of video games
`on the Facebook platform, but also request an injunction requiring Meta to remove such games from
`its platform. (Compl. ¶ 21, Wilkinson Dkt. 80; id. at 81.) These claims and requested remedies
`represent a textbook example of a publisher theory of liability that is barred by Section 230. See, e.g.,
`Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009).
`Plaintiffs try to plead around Section 230 by alleging that Meta (1) processed in-app purchases
`of virtual coins for use in the casino-themed video games, (2) allowed third parties to display
`advertisements for the games, and (3) provided data analytics tools to third-party developers. But this
`alleged conduct is all part and parcel of Meta’s hosting of any type of video game, and the underlying
`services and tools are available to all developers. Nothing about Plaintiffs’ allegations provides any
`basis to hold Meta independently liable for the supposed illegality of video games created by third
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`1
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CDA § 230
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02777-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`parties. Nor do these activities turn Meta into a “developer” or “creator” of the underlying casino-
`themed video games. Plaintiffs’ attempts at “creative pleading in an effort to work around” Section
`230 therefore fail as a matter of law, Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc., 836 F.3d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir. 2016), as a
`judge in this District recently held when confronting an attempt to hold internet intermediaries liable
`for games that purportedly constituted illegal gambling, see Coffee v. Google, LLC, No. 20-cv-03901-
`BLF, 2022 WL 94986, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2022).
`Section 230 “establish[es] broad federal immunity to any cause of action that would make
`service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill
`LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). Because Plaintiffs’ claims necessarily treat
`Meta as the publisher and speaker of casino-themed video games that it did not create or develop, no
`amendment could remove these claims from Section 230’s scope. The Master Complaint should be
`dismissed with prejudice.1
`II.
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`Meta’s Facebook social media platform allows people to connect, share information, and
`engage socially (and virtually). This case is about casino-themed video games that are “playable from
`smartphones, tablets, and internet browsers” on a variety of gaming platforms including, but not limited
`to, Facebook. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Nearly 50 competing casino-themed video games appear as apps
`accessible on the Facebook App Center, the Google Play Store, and the Apple App Store. (Id. ¶¶ 73–
`74.) Within these games, players can bet virtual coins on “animated slot machines,” where the outcome
`of the spin decides whether the player wins or loses coins. (Id. ¶ 57.) The games provide players “an
`initial allotment of virtual chips for free.” (Id.) A player who runs out of free coins can wait a set
`
`
` 1 The Complaint should be dismissed on several additional grounds, and Meta has reserved its right
`to assert those additional arguments if necessary. (See, e.g., Wilkinson Dkts. 86, 93, 97.) In
`particular, this Court and other judges in this District have dismissed similar claims because the
`named plaintiffs lacked statutory standing and did not plead any violation of California law. See
`Coffee, 2022 WL 94986, at *13–23; Taylor v. Apple Inc., No. 20-cv-03906-RS (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4,
`2022); Mai v. Supercell Oy, No. 20-cv-05573-EJD, 2021 WL 4267487 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2021).
`2
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CDA § 230
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02777-EJD
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`amount of time before receiving more free coins. (Id. ¶ 59.) Or a player who wants to keep playing
`immediately may purchase more virtual coins using real money. (Id. ¶¶ 59, 61.)
`Unlike with a real-world slot machine, the players of casino-themed video games are not
`playing for keeps. A player who hits the jackpot with a good spin wins only virtual coins that cannot
`be redeemed for anything of real-world value and cannot be used in any way outside the casino-themed
`video game. (Compl. ¶¶ 57, 61–62.) Because virtual coins can never be “cash[ed] out,” players know
`that these games and their virtual coins are purely for entertainment purposes. (Id. ¶ 3.)
`Plaintiffs are former and current players of casino-themed video games on the Facebook App
`Center. (Compl. ¶¶ 101–125.) They seek to represent a nationwide putative class and 15 state-specific
`putative classes. (Id. ¶ 126(a)–(p).) And they raise a panoply of claims against Meta under laws of
`California, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New
`Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington, as well as the federal
`Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. (Id. ¶¶ 135–499.)
`At bottom, all of the claims turn on the proposition that the content of casino-themed video
`games constitutes “illegal gambling.” The Complaint does not allege that Meta created any of the 50-
`plus casino-themed video games challenged by Plaintiffs. To the contrary, Plaintiffs allege that all of
`these games were created and developed by third-party game developers even “[b]efore gaining access
`to . . . social media platforms.” (Compl. ¶ 69.) Facebook is merely a platform for developers to make
`these games available to others. (Id. ¶ 70.)
`When game developers wish to “publish[]” their casino-themed video games “in the Facebook
`App Center,” the “developers must submit their app for review” and agree to follow applicable laws.
`(Compl. ¶ 76.) This app-review process applies to all apps made available on the Facebook platform.
`(See Chorba Decl., Ex. A, Meta Platform Terms, Meta for Developers § 7(a), https://
`developers.facebook.com/policy (cited in Compl. ¶ 76 n.18).)2
`
` 2 In resolving a motion to dismiss, courts may consider “documents incorporated by reference in the
`complaint . . . without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”
`United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). For the convenience of the Court, Meta
`(Cont’d on next page)
`
`
`
`3
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CDA § 230
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02777-EJD
`
`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 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`In an apparent effort to avoid Section 230, Plaintiffs strain to allege that Meta (as well as Apple
`and Google) “directly assisted” the developers of casino-themed video games. (Compl. ¶ 68.) But by
`“directly assist[],” the Complaint apparently means that third-party game developers have made use of
`general resources available to all game developers of any sort, such as:
`In-App Payment System: The Complaint alleges that Meta processes in-app purchases for a
`•
`30% service fee. (See Compl. ¶¶ 60, 72, 88.) Meta also uses the same terms to process all in-
`app payments for all video games available on the Facebook platform. (See Chorba Decl., Ex.
`B, Payments Terms, Meta for Developers § 2.1, https://developers.facebook.com/policy/
`payments_terms (“Facebook will earn a 30% service fee, plus any applicable sales tax or VAT,
`in connection with each Facebook Payments transaction on our platform.”) (cited in Compl.
`¶¶ 60 n.9, 72 n.15, 88 n.30).)
`• Advertising: Meta offers App Ads to allow any app developer to try to reach “lookalike
`audiences to increase engagement” with their games and App Invite as a way to send all types
`of games to potentially interested new players. (Compl. ¶ 78.) Meta makes these neutral
`developer tools generally available to all app developers, not just those who create video game
`apps much less “social casino apps.” (Compl. ¶ 5; see Chorba Decl., Ex. C, Developer Products,
`Meta for Developers, https://developers.facebook.com/products (cited in Compl. ¶ 75 n.17).)
`• Data Analytics: Game developers had access to Facebook Analytics for Apps, which allegedly
`“track[ed] the time spent between installation and purchase.” (Compl. ¶ 78.) This tool also
`allegedly allowed game developers to “monitor the game activity.” (Id. ¶ 81.) The Complaint
`does not allege that Facebook Analytics for Apps was offered only to casino-themed video game
`developers or was specially designed for casino-themed video games. Again, these are neutral
`tools offered to all developers whose games are published on Facebook’s platform.
`• User Functions: Meta also allegedly assisted the third-party game developers by creating a
`general application login system (which “facilitates easy, familiar sign-up”) and a sharing
`
`
`is concurrently submitting copies of each webpage incorporated by reference into Plaintiffs’
`Complaint and cited in this Motion. (See Declaration of Christopher Chorba, Exs. A–C.)
`4
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CDA § 230
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02777-EJD
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 11 of 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
`
`function (which “creates viral social distribution”) that are made available to Facebook users
`who choose to use them. (Compl. ¶ 78.) Here, too, the Complaint does not allege that Meta
`designed either the Facebook login process or the sharing function specifically to facilitate
`casino-themed video games.
`Plaintiffs say that Meta should be held liable because the game developers used the Facebook
`platform to publish the games, because Meta allegedly processed users’ in-app purchases of virtual
`coins to play the game, and because Meta allegedly provided neutral advertising and analytic tools to
`game developers. (E.g., Compl. ¶¶ 248, 257, 263 (basis for all three types of claims under Illinois
`law).) Plaintiffs do not allege that processing transactions or providing analytical tools or advertising
`services are acts that are unlawful in and of themselves. Rather, Plaintiffs claim that Meta can be held
`liable for these content-neutral functions because certain third-party developers used them in
`conjunction with their casino-themed video games.
`In addition to the claims against Meta in two consolidated actions (Wilkinson and Boorn),
`multidistrict litigation raising materially identical claims against Apple and Google is also pending
`before this Court. See In re Apple Inc. Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litig., No. 5:21-md-02985-
`EJD; In re Google Play Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litig., No. 5:21-md-03001-EJD. As to
`all of these matters, the Court set a briefing schedule under which the parties will brief the applicability
`of Section 230 before other potential grounds for dismissal. (Wilkinson Dkt. 98.)
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
`as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
`(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Courts are “not bound to accept
`as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A motion to
`dismiss is proper when an affirmative defense is plain on the face of the complaint—that is, when “the
`allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215
`(2007); see, e.g., Sams v. Yahoo! Inc., 713 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2013). The Ninth Circuit has
`repeatedly held that courts can determine whether Section 230 precludes a claim at the pleadings stage.
`See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 2 F.4th 871, 890 n.8 (9th Cir. 2021); Dyroff, 934 F.3d at 1097
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`5
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CDA § 230
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02777-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`(“When a plaintiff cannot allege enough facts to overcome Section 230 immunity, a plaintiff’s claims
`should be dismissed.”); see also, e.g., Caraccioli v. Facebook, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1056, 1065–67
`(N.D. Cal. 2016) (Davila, J.) (dismissing complaint under Section 230(c)(1) without leave to amend).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`In enacting Section 230, Congress determined that Americans were turning to interactive
`computer services—frequently, websites—for (among other things) “entertainment services,” and that
`“Federal or State regulation” could dampen the innovation that characterized the digital marketplace.
`47 U.S.C. § 230(a)(5), (b)(2). This concern about the potential chilling effect of overregulation led
`Congress to enact the limitation on claims against interactive computer services that forecloses
`Plaintiffs’ claims here: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the
`publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Id.
`§ 230(c)(1). This provision, along with the corresponding preemption provision, id. § 230(e)(3), bars
`Plaintiffs’ attempt to hold Meta liable for the casino-themed video games created and developed by
`third-party developers and published on Facebook.
`Section 230(c)(1) protects “providers of interactive computer services against liability arising
`from content created by third parties.” Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com,
`LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). This provision is “robust” by design. Carafano
`v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2003). Its protections apply to any cause of
`action that “inherently requires the court to treat the defendant as the ‘publisher or speaker’ of content
`provided by another,” not only to paradigmatic publisher claims like defamation and libel. Gonzalez,
`2 F.4th at 891 & n.9; see, e.g., Kimzey, 836 F.3d at 1267, 1270 (applying Section 230 to civil RICO
`claims). Section 230 thus shields providers of interactive computer services from liability whenever a
`claim “would make [them] liable for information originating with a third-party user” of their services.
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007). This protection extends to claims
`premised on “‘traditional editorial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, post-
`pone, or alter content,’” Roommates.com, 521 F.3d at 1184—as well as any “content-neutral tools” that
`service providers offer “to facilitate communications,” Dyroff, 934 F.3d at 1096.
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CDA § 230
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02777-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`Consistent with the plain terms of the statute, the Ninth Circuit has applied a “three-prong test
`for Section 230 immunity”: “(1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (2) whom a
`plaintiff seeks to treat as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information
`content provider.” Gonzalez, 2 F.4th at 891 (cleaned up) (quoting Barnes, 570 F.3d at 1100–01).
`Plaintiffs cannot “circumvent” Section 230 “through ‘creative’ pleading” that purports to challenge
`actions of an internet intermediary when the essence of the claim rests on alleged harms caused by
`third-party content. Kimzey, 836 F.3d at 1266. Such creative pleading (if permitted) would nullify the
`protections of Section 230, because a “clever lawyer” will always be able to argue that a website
`“promoted or encouraged—or at least tacitly assented to—the illegality of third parties.”
`Roommates.com, 521 F.3d at 1174.
`All of the claims in this case seek to hold Meta liable for third-party content (consisting of
`allegedly unlawful casino-themed video games) developed by third parties and made available on the
`Facebook platform. Because each element of Section 230 is established here, this Court should dismiss
`the Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
`Facebook Is an “Interactive Computer Service”
`A.
`An “interactive computer service” includes any “system” that “provides or enable computer
`access by multiple users to a computer server.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), (f)(2); see, e.g., Dyroff, 934
`F.3d at 1096–97. Here, the Complaint alleges that the Facebook platform makes online video games
`available to players via the internet. (Compl. ¶ 70.) That allegation alone establishes the definition in
`Section 230(f)(2). And as multiple courts have unanimously held, Meta is indisputably a provider of
`an “interactive computer service”—here, the Facebook platform. Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d
`1354, 1359–60 (D.C. Cir. 2014); see, e.g., Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53, 64 (2d Cir. 2019);
`Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2020); Caraccioli,
`167 F. Supp. 3d at 1065.
`
`B.
`
`The Complaint Impermissibly Treats Meta as the “Publisher” of Casino-Themed
`Video Games
`
`By attempting to hold Meta liable for allegedly illegal content posted through casino-themed
`video games Plaintiffs’ claims seek to treat Meta “as the publisher or speaker” of those games. 47
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT META PLATFORMS, INC. TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CDA § 230
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02777-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02777-EJD Document 99 Filed 04/08/22 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). The Complaint claims that Meta has joined “an illegal gambling enterprise” by
`making the Facebook App Center available as a “center[] for distribution and payment” for third-party
`games. (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 16.) But that is just the sort of claim that Section 230 bars. Plaintiffs cannot
`circumvent that bar by focusing on the neutral tools made available to all developers (processing in-
`app purchases, in-app advertising, or data analytic