Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.439 Page 1 of 66
`
`
`
`
`
`Juyoun Han (pro hac vice)
`Eric Baum (pro hac vice)
`EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP
`24 Union Square East, PH
`New York, NY 10003
`Tel: (212) 353-8700
`Fax: (212) 353-1708
`
`John K. Buche (CA Bar No. 239477) (Local Counsel)
`Byron E. Ma (CA Bar No. 299706) (Local Counsel)
`BUCHE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`875 Prospect St., Suite 305
`La Jolla, CA 92037
`Tel: (310) 593-4193
`Fax: (858) 430-2426
`jbuche@buchelaw.com
`bma@buchelaw.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.:
`3:22-cv-0619-LAB-DDL
`
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`[CLASS ACTION]
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`L.W., minor child through her legal
`guardian Jane Doe; C.A., minor child
`through her legal guardian John Doe;
`and C.O., minor child through her legal
`guardian John Doe II on behalf of
`themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`SNAP INC., APPLE INC., and
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`1
`
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.440 Page 2 of 66
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 1
`FACTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
`L.W.’s Story ............................................................................................................................................. 5
`C.A.’s Story ........................................................................................................................................... 10
`C.O.’s Story ............................................................................................................................................... 13
`Snapchat’s Design Makes it a Safe Haven Perpetrators of For Child Sexual Abuse ............................ 15
`Snap’s CSAM Detection Technology is a Poor Fit for its platform and is Ineffective to Prevent Sexual
`Grooming ............................................................................................................................................... 17
`SNAP Either Knew About Sexual Crimes Committed Against Children Like Plaintiffs on Snapchat,
`Or It Falsely Represented that it Collects Data to Enable User Safety. ................................................. 21
`Apple’s App Store and Google Play Promote, Participate, and Benefit from Apps that are Known to
`Facilitate CSAM Distribution, by Allowing Inherently Dangerous Apps to be Purchased And/Or
`Downloaded. .......................................................................................................................................... 25
`Apple Builds Tools that Steer Users to Inherently Dangerous Apps Like Snapchat and Chitter, and
`Develops Analytic Algorithms that Fail to Monitor App Quality, and Apple Financially Benefits from
`Illegal Activity on Inherently Dangerous Apps Such As Snapchat and Chitter .................................... 27
`Google Play Store Builds Tools that Steer Users to Chitter, Develops Analytic Algorithms that Fail to
`Perform Tasks to Monitor App Quality. Google Benefits from Illegal Activity on Inherenetly
`Dangerous Apps Such as Snapchat and Chitter ..................................................................................... 34
`PARTIES ................................................................................................................................................... 38
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................................ 40
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS .......................................................................................................... 40
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION : STRICT LIABILITY PRODUCT DESIGN AND DEFECT ................. 45
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY (Failure to Warn) ........................ 49
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE PRODUCT DESIGN
`AND DEFECT .......................................................................................................................................... 50
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION : FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION & NEGLIGENT
`MISREPRESENTATION ......................................................................................................................... 52
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION : UNJUST ENRICHMENT ...................................................................... 53
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION : CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL CODE §§17200 &
`17500 (“UCL & FALSE ADVERTISING”_) .......................................................................................... 54
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT .......................... 56
`EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION : KENTUCKY CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT ............................ 57
`NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION : INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ......................................................................... 58
`TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591,
`1595 et seq. ................................................................................................................................................ 59
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`i
`
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.441 Page 3 of 66
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................................ 61
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ................................................................................................................. 63
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`ii
`
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.442 Page 4 of 66
`
`
`
`“We have been failed, and we deserve answers.
`
`Nassar is where he belongs, but those who enabled him deserve to be held
`
`accountable. If they are not, I am convinced that this will continue to happen
`
`to others across Olympic sports.”
`
`- Simone Biles, Olympic Gymnast,
` Testimony in Senate Hearing (September 15, 2021)1
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Snapchat, a seemingly innocuous mobile application on a child’s phone, has been a
`
`breeding ground for numerous reported cases of child sexual abuse by perpetrators who
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`use Snapchat as the go-to platform to access children, conveniently, persistently, and with
`
`11
`
`the perception that one can get away with crimes, particularly on this platform. This
`
`12
`
`Complaint is brought by three young minor children who have been victims of physical
`
`13
`
`rape, sexual grooming, and production and distribution of Child Sexual Abuse Material
`
`14
`
`(“CSAM”). The three young minor children now stand against tech product developers and
`
`15
`
`owners, Snap Inc., Apple Inc., and Google, LLC, who have knowingly enabled, promoted,
`
`16
`
`and financially benefitted from the terrorizing acts of sex crimes and sex trafficking on this
`
`17
`
`platform.
`
`18
`
`The very design of the computer software products, namely, Snapchat, Apple App
`
`19
`
`Store, and Google Play Store, is inherently dangerous, deceptively advertised and
`
`20
`
`promoted in a way that facilitates the sex crimes against children. Knowing about these
`
`21
`
`harmful designs, the software product developers and owners failed to warn users, misled
`
`22
`
`consumers about their ability to address these crimes, and financially benefitted by
`
`23
`
`continuing to be in business with those who commit sexual crimes against children and
`
`engage in sex trafficking.
`
`
` 1
`
` Plaintiffs and representatives have no known connections or affiliations to Ms. Biles whatsoever. The
`inclusion of this quote in this document is solely based on similarities of concerns bearing upon sexual
`abuse that have harmed minors which was brought to light by the powerful words of Ms. Biles, and to
`highlight the responsibility of perpetrators and enablers that is similarly addressed in this Complaint.
`
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`1
`
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.443 Page 5 of 66
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Snapchat, by design, allows for any adult predator – even those who have a criminal
`
`record history or sexual offense against children – to freely make an account and be paired
`
`as “friends” on the Snapchat platform. This makes it inherently dangerous by design. Even
`
`before an innocent minor begins to talk to these strangers, the system on Snapchat’s product
`
`is set up so that multiple “burner accounts” or disposable accounts can be made by the
`
`same person without regard to their age or history or child sexual offense criminal record.
`
`Even before any messaging occurs, the adult perpetrators know to “quick add” young
`
`children by looking at recommended profiles of children. Even before messaging happens,
`
`the design of the platform is set up so that (1) messages and contents disappear by default,
`
`10
`
`which conveniently evades supervision by legal guardians or law enforcement, (2) no
`
`11
`
`warnings are in place regarding sexual crimes on the app, (3) representations about photo
`
`12
`
`and video scanning for law enforcement reporting are known to be ineffective and false.
`
`13
`
`Apple and Google, the stores that knowingly sell the defectively designed products
`
`14
`
`like Snapchat and Chitter apps, are primary actors in the supply chain of the online
`
`15
`
`ecosystem that fuels criminal activity. Apple and Google’s app stores, Apple App Store
`
`16
`
`and Google Play Store, take a percentage of sales and revenue from the apps that are
`
`17
`
`downloaded and used by troves of iPhone and Android phone users. Perpetrators of the
`
`18
`
`child sex crimes download the apps on one of these two app stores to commit harms to
`
`19
`
`children. These stores also promote harmful apps using their own recommendation
`
`20
`
`algorithms to the consumers including perpetrators. Ignoring customer reviews that report
`
`21
`
`child sexual abuse on the app stores’ web pages, Apple and Google’s app stores continue
`
`22
`
`to recommend, promote, and lure perpetrators of child sexual crimes to download these
`
`23
`
`dangerous apps, and consistently make profit from them.
`
`24
`
`We must now narrate how this has caused tragic harms to three Plaintiffs all of whom
`
`25
`
`are young children. Plaintiff L.W., through her legal guardian Jane Doe and counsel
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.444 Page 6 of 66
`
`
`Eisenberg & Baum,2 LLP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, brings this
`
`Complaint against Defendants Snap Inc., Apple Inc., and Google LLC. These claims arise
`
`from appalling online sexual grooming perpetrated by an adult against L.W., a child, over
`
`Snapchat, one of the most popular social media platforms in the country. The adult coerced
`
`and manipulated L.W. and many other children to send Child Sexual Abuse Material
`
`depicting themselves over the course of two-and-a-half years. To make matters worse, the
`
`adult then downloaded an application called Chitter and distributed those photos and videos
`
`to other adults. This adult has been convicted and sentenced for his crimes.
`
`Plaintiff C.A., through her legal guardian John Doe and through counsel Eisenberg
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`& Baum LLP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, brings this Complaint
`
`11
`
`against Defendants Snap Inc., Apple Inc., and Google LLC. From age 12, C.A. was a victim
`
`12
`
`of sexual grooming on Snapchat which then turned into physical rape. The adult perpetrator
`
`13
`
`was a repeat offender and used multiple Snapchat accounts to approach multiple young
`
`14
`
`children. The adult perpetrator sent and received CSAM depicting himself and other young
`
`15
`
`minor victims on Snapchat. Even after this adult was charged with crimes of sexual abuse,
`
`16
`
`he was still able to make a new Snapchat account and continued to target other young
`
`17
`
`children over Snapchat. Snapchat had no procedures in place to keep known offenders and
`
`18
`
`repeat-abusers away from its platform, yet Snapchat failed to warn users of this danger.
`
`19
`
`Plaintiff C.O., through her father John Doe II and through counsel Eisenberg &
`
`20
`
`Baum LLP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, brings this Complaint
`
`21
`
`against Defendants Snap Inc., Apple Inc., and Google LLC. From age 11, C.O. was a victim
`
`22
`
`of sexual grooming on Omegle and Snapchat. Between 2018 until now, C.O. was
`
`23
`
`approached by 4 or 5 adult perpetrators on Snapchat who connected with her using
`
`24
`
`Snapchat’s “Quick Add” function or through other contacts and apps. Some perpetrators
`
`25
`
`took time to coerce and manipulate C.O., making her believe they were friends of her age.
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Plaintiff’s Counsel thanks student interns Paul Ingrassia (Cornell Law School, 3L) and Patrick K. Lin
`(Brooklyn Law School, 3L) for their contribution to this case and Complaint.
`3
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.445 Page 7 of 66
`
`
`Other perpetrators explicitly made requests for nude photos and CSAM materials without
`
`any introduction. Perpetrators sent numerous unsolicited photos and videos of
`
`pornographic materials to C.O., and nude photos of young girls, then instructed C.O. to
`
`send similar photos and videos of herself. On occasion, C.O. felt pressured and coerced,
`
`and sent CSAM materials depicting herself to these perpetrators.
`
`All Plaintiffs bring claims against Snapchat for violations of consumer protection
`
`laws, products liability torts, misrepresentations, and the Trafficking Victims Protection
`
`Act. First, Snapchat’s product design is inherently dangerous and serves as a safe haven
`
`for perpetrators to commit child sexual abuse. Because the messages (“Snaps”) disappear
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`by default, it fosters a sense of impunity among perpetrators and are easy to hide from
`
`11
`
`authorities or guardians. Second, Snapchat’s design is incredibly inclusive of sex offenders
`
`12
`
`and known criminals. Its product design does not verify at all whether a user of the product
`
`13
`
`is a known sex offender or charged with similar crimes in the past, and allows users to gain
`
`14
`
`access to millions of minor children. Nor does Snapchat’s design verify one’s age. Instead,
`
`15
`
`a user may simply develop a new account each and every time to commit heinous crimes
`
`16
`
`against minors.
`
`17
`
`Second, Snapchat misrepresents that its product employs tools at hand to tackle
`
`18
`
`sexual grooming on its platform when it does not. The CSAM detection technology that
`
`19
`
`Snapchat uses does not flag CSAM images or videos that have not been previously
`
`20
`
`identified as CSAM – this means that newly created images and videos containing CSAM
`
`21
`
`are undetected on Snapchat. Also, Snapchat misrepresents that it uses various data
`
`22
`
`collected from users to enhance user safety. In reality, that is far from the truth. Instead,
`
`23
`
`the data collected from users is used for various profit opportunities for Snapchat.
`
`24
`
`Third, Snapchat failed to warn its users, both children and their guardians, of the
`
`25
`
`proliferation of pornography and CSAM materials produced on its platform while their
`
`26
`
`tools are not able to detect and identify them. It failed to warn its users that they have no
`
`27
`
`ability to keep sex offenders and persons charged with such crimes off the platform. It
`
`28
`
`failed to warn users that they have no way to verify the age of its users.
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.446 Page 8 of 66
`
`
`
`The facts alleged in this Complaint focus on the data-driven tools that the Defendant
`
`companies develop and deploy by collecting troves of personal data from their users,
`
`ostensibly to protect minor users from egregious harm. Yet, as experienced by L.W., C.O.
`
`and C.A., and so many more similar young children, these tools and policies are more
`
`effective in making these companies wealthier than protecting the children and teens who
`
`use them.
`
`Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members demand that Defendants bring their
`
`products into compliance with laws that prohibit child sexual abuse and enforce their stated
`
`policies to eradicate such criminal conduct from their products. Plaintiffs and similarly
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`situated class members also demand that the Defendant companies redress the harm they
`
`11
`
`have caused its users.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`FACTS
`
`L.W.’S STORY
`
`1. Minor child L.W. brings this class action through her legal guardian Jane Doe.
`
`15
`
`From age 12 to 16, L.W. was repeatedly sexually groomed and abused on Snapchat.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`2. On or about September 5, 2018, L.W. was approached by a stranger, B.P., on
`Instagram. At the time, B.P. was an adult and L.W. was only 12 years old, soon to turn 13.3
`
`3. Following a brief conversation on Instagram, B.P. asked L.W. to connect on
`
`19
`
`Snapchat.
`
`20
`
`4. After they formed a Snapchat connection, B.P. began to chat with L.W. on
`
`21
`
`Snapchat regularly.
`
`22
`
`5. Upon belief, Plaintiff, a young child, did not expect that malicious actors would be
`
`23
`
`on the Snapchat platform.
`
`
`
` 3
`
` In March 2019, Snap’s executives admitted to UK lawmakers that its age-verification process is not
`effective. Snap also claimed at the hearing that Snap’s web-cookies and inference signals are used for the
`purpose of actively determining a user’s real age. See Ongudi, The Science Times, Snapchat Age
`Verification Tool May not Be Effective At Preventing Children From Accessing It (March 22, 2019),
`https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/19015/20190322/snapchat-age-verification-tool-effective-
`preventing-children-accessing.htm
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.447 Page 9 of 66
`
`
`
`6. Less than a week later, on September 11, 2018, B.P. demanded that L.W. send him
`
`a nude photograph of herself. When L.W. refused B.P.’s request, saying that she did not
`
`want to send him a nude photograph, B.P. responded with a photograph of himself,
`
`unclothed, and with an erect penis.
`
`7. Over a period of two-and-a-half years, starting with the incident on September 11,
`
`2018, and continuing until April 15, 2021, B.P. manipulated and coerced L.W. into sending
`
`him pornographic images and videos of herself over Snapchat. B.P. would ridicule and
`
`berate her if L.W. refused and would compliment her when she would comply.
`
`8. B.P. first asked L.W. for photos and videos in her underwear, then photos in the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`shower, and eventually photos and videos of L.W. depicting L.W.’s face and body, as well
`
`11
`
`as exposed breasts and vaginal area. The videos include L.W. masturbating and penetrating
`
`12
`
`her vagina with foreign objects at B.P.’s instructions and requests.
`
`13
`
`9. These conversations, images and videos were explicit CSAM depicting an apparent
`
`14
`
`child’s face and figure.
`
`15
`
`10. Both the perpetrator, B.P., and victim, L.W., acknowledge that B.P. persistently
`
`16
`
`and explicitly instructed L.W. to send those images and videos using verbal and
`
`17
`
`photographic coercion on Snapchat’s platform, over L.W.’s objections.
`
`18
`
`11. Moreover, during the two-and-a-half-year period between September 2018 and
`
`19
`
`April 2021, B.P. sent L.W. more than two hundred pornographic photos of his exposed
`
`20
`
`penis and videos of himself masturbating and ejaculating. B.P. would then write sexually
`
`21
`
`explicit messages on Snapchat to L.W., such as “lick this up.”
`
`22
`
`12. B.P. also tried to persuade L.W. to meet in-person at a hotel room or Airbnb to
`
`23
`
`have sex, but L.W. refused.
`
`24
`
`13. During the two-and-a-half-year period, there were multiple instances when L.W.
`
`25
`
`blocked B.P. because she did not want to speak with him. However, B.P. would either
`
`26
`
`contact L.W. through Instagram or a fake account and ask L.W. to reconnect with him on
`
`27
`
`Snapchat again until she yielded to his request.
`
`28
`
`14. At a formal investigation, B.P. admitted that he solely used Snapchat with L.W. –
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.448 Page 10 of 66
`
`
`and not any other social media platform – to gain new CSAM and transmit his pornographic
`
`images and videos to her because he “kn[e]w the chats will go away” on Snapchat.
`
`15. L.W. was not B.P.’s only victim. Snapchat enabled B.P. to use various Snapchat
`
`accounts. Upon information and belief, B.P. used various accounts on Snapchat like a
`
`disposable burner phone, to approach new victims and hide his tracks from previous
`
`victims, legal guardians, or law enforcement.
`
`16. B.P. used Snapchat to obtain photographs and videos of CSAM by connecting with
`
`approximately 27 other young users, questionable in age, on or around the same time. B.P.
`
`used a similar playbook of explicitly transmitting CSAM to these users and coercing them
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`to produce and send CSAM back to him. Many of these photos and videos transmitted over
`
`11
`
`Snapchat expose the face and nude body of apparent minor children. B.P. also maintained
`
`12
`
`a constant line of sexually explicit communication with minors over Snapchat.
`
`13
`
`17. One example of B.P.’s Snapchat dialogues, quoted below, explicitly mentions the
`
`14
`
`age of the minor victim (other than L.W.) followed by CSAM transmission:
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`B.P.: “Age?”
`
`Underaged Child: “Going to be 14”
`
`B.P.: “Bikini pic?”
`
`B.P.: “Snap me”
`
`B.P.: “Send more tit videos?”
`
`B.P.: “I’m older. I’m 20”
`
`B.P.: “I mean it doesn’t really matter now tho. No one will know.”
`
`B.P.: “N[ot] G[onna] L[ie] id still definitely fuck u”
`
`B.P.: “Pound t[he] f[uck] outta both your tight holes.”
`
`18. B.P.’s patterned behavior of exploiting minors includes sexually explicit
`
`25
`
`conversations revealing the minors’ geographic location, age, and photos and videos
`
`26
`
`containing CSAM.
`
`27
`
`19. B.P.’s exchanges of CSAM with L.W. and multiple other underaged children
`
`28
`
`began in 2018 and continued until May 2021. B.P. did not stop until he was subject to
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.449 Page 11 of 66
`
`
`criminal investigation.
`
`20. During this time, B.P. was living and located in the barracks of Marine Corps Base
`
`Camp Pendleton in California.
`
`21. After coercing underaged children to produce and transmit CSAM on Snapchat,
`
`B.P. then utilized another application called Chitter which allows strangers to connect and
`
`send anonymous messages and exchange photos and videos. Chitter is known to be used
`
`primarily for CSAM distribution.
`
`22. B.P. indicated that he uses Chitter to seek out Dropbox links which contain nude
`
`photos and videos of “teenagers.”
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`23. B.P. and another Chitter user with the account name “Trade Pics of F’s” connected
`
`11
`
`on Chitter and traded CSAM depicting Plaintiff and other minor children. For example,
`
`12
`
`B.P. and the Chitter user with the account name “Trade Pics of F’s” makes blatantly clear
`
`13
`
`that they were exchanging CSAM depicting children under the age of 16. B.P.’s Chitter
`
`14
`
`dialogues included their victims’ age, as well as photos and videos:
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`B.P.: “Got any underage?”
`
`Trade Pics of Fs: “Yuh. H[ow] b[out] [yo]u.”
`
`B.P.: “Yuh lemme see”
`
`[More CSAM transmitted and exchanged]
`
`Trade Pics of Fs: “Those both are”
`
` [More CSAM transmitted and exchanged]
`
`B.P.: “I got a 14 yr old”
`
`Trade Pics of Fs: “Yea send all”
`
`[More CSAM transmitted and exchanged]
`
`B.P.: “Shes 14”
`
`[More CSAM transmitted and exchanged including depictions of L.W.]
`
`B.P.: “any Vids” [More CSAM transmitted and exchanged]
`
`Trade Pics of Fs: “She’s 15 . . . and the top is 14”
`
`[More CSAM transmitted and exchanged]
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`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 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.450 Page 12 of 66
`
`
`
`B.P.: “any pussy”
`
`. . .
`
`24. On May 24, 2021, B.P. was investigated for his actions and charged with
`
`various crimes perpetrated against L.W. and other victims including Sexual Abuse of a
`
`Child involving Indecent Exposure; Production of Child Pornography; Distribution of
`
`Child Pornography; and Possession of Child Pornography. He pled guilty to these crimes.
`
`25. B.P.’s used Snapchat and Chitter to commit sexual crimes against underaged
`
`children like L.W.
`
`26. During the years when L.W. was being sexually groomed on Snapchat by B.P.,
`
`L.W. was unable to tell anyone about it. Enduring the pain alone, L.W. suffered various
`
`physical and psychological harms including depression, anxiety, self-harm, and multiple
`
`suicide attempts.
`
`27. Due to the physical and psychological harms, L.W. was assessed at a teen
`
`suicide outpatient program, and even at an emergency room after a suicide attempt. She
`
`sought care from a personal therapist, psychiatrist, and was prescribed antidepressants.
`
`28.
`
`In or around May 2021, L.W. was able to tell her mother about the two-and-a-
`
`half years of abuse she suffered by B.P.’s conduct on Snapchat.
`
`29. L.W. suffered and continues to suffer from embarrassment, shame, guilt, and
`
`fear related to her experience involving B.P.
`
`30. Because images and videos of her have been distributed on Chitter App, and
`
`these are not retractable, L.W. faces constant anxiety and fear that those CSAM are
`
`continuing to be spread and watched.
`
`31.
`
`In addition, L.W. is constantly tormented by the fact that such CSAM have the
`
`potential of resurfacing at any point in her life and used against L.W.
`
`32. L.W. stated that her 12-year-old self could have never foreseen this and that had
`
`she known what would transpire, she would have ended her life before it got this bad.
`
`33. At night L.W. lies awake feeling anxious, only falling asleep when she cannot
`
`keep her eyes open any longer.
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.451 Page 13 of 66
`
`
`
`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
`
`34. L.W. has lost all trust in men since these traumatic events. She believes it will
`
`take her much effort and countless hours of therapy to restore trust in dating relationships
`
`and to enjoy a level of general security.
`
`35. B.P.’s sexual grooming and abuse of L.W. on Snapchat continues to have
`
`corrosive effects on L.W. internally – most harrowingly of all, L.W. has said the pain “is
`
`killing me faster than life is killing me.”
`
`36. L.W. believes she is likely to use Snapchat and Defendants’ app stores in the
`
`future because they are so integral to modern life where mobility and communication has
`
`become essential.
`
`37. Snapchat never reported any of the crimes committed against L.W. by the
`
`perpetrators to law enforcement or legal guardians.
`
`38. Upon information and belief, the perpetrators are iPhone and Android app users
`
`and downloaded Snapchat using Apple’s and Google’s App Stores.
`
`39. Upon information and belief, L.W.’s photos and videos containing CSAM are
`
`leaked and distributed by perpetrators, causing ongoing harm to L.W.
`
`40. Defendants’ products caused ongoing harm to L.W. Experiencing sexual
`
`grooming on Snapchat caused L.W. significant physical, psychological, economic harm.
`
`The harms are irreversible and felt by her family members.
`
`41. From her personal experience of harm on Snapchat, L.W. believes that
`
`Snapchat is designed in way that attracts sexual predators who target minor children and
`
`perpetuate the spread of CSAM.
`
`C.A.’S STORY
`42. Minor child C.A. brings this action through her legal guardian John Doe.
`
`43. From age 12, C.A. was a victim of sexual grooming on Snapchat.
`
`44.
`
`In 2021, C.A. connected with a sexual perpetrator on the application Twitter, a
`
`social media platform. The perpetrator sent C.A. a private message and offered her $500
`
`for an in person meet up.
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.452 Page 14 of 66
`
`
`
`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
`
`45. The perpetrator on Twitter then asked C.A. for her Snapchat account
`
`information and connected with her on Snapchat.
`
`46.
`
`It was understood by C.A. that the perpetrator selected Snapchat as the platform
`
`of choice because Snapchat was used by minors and had design features such as the
`
`ephemeral messaging and disposable accounts which was convenient for hiding the
`
`messages from legal guardians.
`
`47. The perpetrator identified himself as a 23 or 24-year-old man but was actually
`
`an older man. C.A. had no way to verify his age.
`
`48. According to law enforcement records, the perpetrator had used multiple
`
`accounts on Snapchat to approach multiple minor children. Once connected on Snapchat,
`
`the perpetrator would make explicit statements such as, “I can’t wait to be inside of you,”
`
`and “is it so hard to imagine that there is a just a horny dude who wants to fuck a tiny 15
`
`yo [year old] And not hurt her Lol Is that such a crazy thought.”
`
`49. Also, according to law enforcement records, the perpetrator was charged for
`
`crimes of sexual offense against minors and let out on bail. Yet, while he had been
`
`charged with serious sexual crimes against minor victims, Snapchat enabled him to make
`
`a new account without any issues. Using new accounts, the perpetrator repeatedly
`
`committed sexual crimes against minor victims, producing and distributing CSAM over
`
`the internet.
`
`50. Upon information and belief, Snapchat knew that this sex offender was using
`
`its platform but failed to stop him or other perpetrators with prior criminal records from
`
`accessing minor users on its platform.
`
`51. Once establishing a level of rapport with the victim, the perpetrator then asked
`
`C.A. to send nude photos of herself and to produce and transmit CSAM portraying
`
`herself.
`
`52. The perpetrator sent C.A. pictures of another underage victim’s private parts
`
`and face. The perpetrator also instructed C.A. to send similarly explicit videos depicting
`
`sexual acts.
`
`L.W. et al. v. Snap Inc. et al. – AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-DDL Document 43 Filed 08/22/22 PageID.453 Page 15 of 66
`
`
`
`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
`
`53. The perpetrator coerced and manipulated C.A. into sending over 20-30 photos
`
`of sexually explicit materials and 10 or 15 videos containing CSAM.
`
`54. The perpetrator pressured C.A. to engage in sexual acts via video chat about
`
`once a week.
`
`55.
`
`In March 2021, the perpetrator traveled to C.A.’s state and rented an Airbnb
`
`property 10 minutes from C.A.’s home. For