Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.696 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`David R. Singer (Cal. Bar No. 204699)
`dsinger@jenner.com
`Kate T. Spelman (Cal. Bar No. 269109)
`kspelman@jenner.com
`515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246
`Telephone: (213) 239-5100
`Facsimile:
`(213) 239-5199
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD
`
`The Hon. Larry Alan Burns
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`Hearing date: November 15, 2022
`Hearing time: 11:15 AM
`Courtroom: 14A (Carter Courthouse)
`
`L.W., minor child through her legal
`guardian Jane Doe, on behalf of herself
`and all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SNAP INC.; APPLE INC.; and GOOGLE
`LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.697 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................ iii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 2
`
`A. Apple Operates the App Store Where Users Can Download
`Third-Party Apps Containing Third-Party Content. ............................. 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Chitter and Snap, Inc. Operate Third-Party Messaging Apps. ............. 4
`
`Plaintiffs Seek To Hold Apple Liable for Making Snapchat and
`Chitter Available on the App Store. ......................................................... 5
`
`III. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint Must Be Dismissed for Lack of Article III
`Standing. ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`Section 230 Bars Plaintiffs’ Claims Because They Seek To Hold
`Apple Liable as the Publisher of Third-Party Content on a Third-
`Party App. ................................................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Apple Satisfies the Three-Prong Test for Section 230
`Immunity. .......................................................................................... 7
`
`Plaintiffs’ Products Liability and TVPA Claims Cannot
`Evade Apple’s Section 230 Immunity. ......................................... 10
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Section 230 Bars Plaintiffs’ Products Liability
`Claims Under Lemmon. ....................................................... 10
`
`Internet Brands Supports Dismissal. .................................. 11
`
`FOSTA’s Narrow Exemption Is Inapplicable to
`Plaintiffs’ TVPA Claim. ...................................................... 12
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because It Fails To
`State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. ............................. 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs Fail To State a Civil Claim Under the TVPA. ............ 14
`
`Plaintiffs Fail To State a Products Liability Claim. ................... 17
`
`
`
`
`i
`MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.698 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiffs Fail To State A Failure To Warn Claim. .................... 18
`
`Plaintiffs’ Misrepresentation Claims Fail Under Rule 9(b). ...... 20
`
`Plaintiffs Fail To Allege Essential Elements of Their
`Consumer Protection Claims. ....................................................... 22
`
`Plaintiffs’ Negligence Claims Fail for Lack of an
`Affirmative Duty. ........................................................................... 24
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Remaining Claims Fail as a Matter of Law. .............. 25
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.699 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`A.B. v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., 484 F. Supp. 3d 921 (D. Or. 2020) ......... 17
`
`AF Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 12CV02048, 2012 WL 4747170 (N.D. Cal.
`Oct. 3, 2012) ....................................................................................................... 24
`
`Altman v. HO Sports Co., No. 09-CV-1000, 2009 WL 4163512 (E.D. Cal.
`Nov. 23, 2009) .................................................................................................... 19
`
`Anthony v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment Inc., No. 215CV009593, 2016
`WL 6836950 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016) ............................................................ 18
`
`In Re: Apple Inc. App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, No.
`21-md-02985, 2022 WL 4009918 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2022) ......................... 9–10
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................... 21
`
`Avakian v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 827 F. App’x 765 (9th Cir. 2020) .................. 20
`
`Estate of B.H. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 21-CV-06561, 2022 WL 551701 (N.D.
`Cal. Jan. 12, 2022) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`B.M. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 20-CV-00656, 2020 WL
`4368214 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2020) ............................................................... 15, 17
`
`18
`
`Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) ......................................... 7, 8
`
`Beckman v. Match.com, No. 13-CV-97, 2013 WL 2355512 (D. Nev. May 29,
`2013), aff’d in relevant part, 668 F. App’x 759 (9th Cir. 2016) .......................... 9
`
`Blantz v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 727 F.3d
`917, 926–27 (9th Cir. 2013).............................................................................. 6–7
`
`Boruta v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 19-CV-03164, 2019 WL
`4010367 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) ..................................................................... 7
`
`Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 483 P.3d 159 (Cal. 2021) ............................................. 24
`
`Cagwin v. Centralized Showing Service Inc., No. 20-CV-03033, 2022 WL
`952875 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2022) ................................................................. 21, 23
`
`
`
`iii
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.700 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`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
`
`Calise v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 21-CV-06186, 2022 WL 1240860 (N.D.
`Cal. Apr. 27, 2022) ........................................................................................... 8–9
`
`Cervantes v. Aurora Loan Servs. LLC, No. 11-CV-725, 2011 WL 13101273
`(S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011) ................................................................................... 22
`
`Christenson v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 12-CV-02600, 2015 WL 1757076 (D.
`Colo. Apr. 14, 2015) ........................................................................................... 23
`
`City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) ................................................. 5–6
`
`City of San Diego v. Monsanto Co., 334 F. Supp. 3d 1072 (S.D. Cal. 2018) ......... 25
`
`Coffee v. Google, LLC, No. 20-CV-03901, 2021 WL 493387 (N.D. Cal. Feb.
`10, 2021) ............................................................................................................... 8
`
`Conroy v. Ridge Tool Co., No. 20-CV-05882, 2022 WL 911138 (N.D. Cal.
`Feb. 3, 2022) ....................................................................................................... 20
`
`Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (W.D. Wash. 2004) ........ 9
`
`Dehen v. Does 1-100, No. 17CV198, 2018 WL 4502336 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19,
`2018) ..................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Dent v. NFL, 902 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................... 24
`
`Diep v. Apple, Inc., No. 21-cv-10063, 2022 WL 4021776 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2,
`2022) ..................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Doe #1 v. MG Freesites, LTD, No. 21-CV-00220, 2022 WL 407147 (N.D.
`Ala. Feb. 9, 2022) ......................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Doe 1 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., No. 19-CV-03840, 2020 WL 1872335 (N.D.
`Ga. Apr. 13, 2020) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`Doe 3 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., No. 19-CV-03843, 2020 WL 1872333 (N.D.
`Ga. Apr. 13, 2020), aff’d sub nom. Doe #1 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 21 F.4th
`714 (11th Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................ 14
`
`Doe No. 1 v. Uber Tech’s, Inc., 294 Cal. Rptr. 3d 664 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) ......... 24
`
`26
`
`Doe v. Epic Games, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .......................... 21
`
`Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016) .................... 8, 10, 11, 12
`
`
`
`iv
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`28
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.701 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`Doe v. Kik Interactive, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (S.D. Fla. 2020) ...................... 13
`
`Doe v. Reddit, Inc., No. SACV2100768, 2021 WL 5860904 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
`7, 2021) ............................................................................................................... 13
`
`Doe v. Reddit, Inc., No. SACV21768, 2021 WL 4348731 (C.D. Cal. July 12,
`2021) ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Doe v. Twitter, Inc., 555 F. Supp. 3d 889 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ........................ 11, 15, 16
`
`Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc., No. 17-CV-05359, 2017 WL 5665670
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2017), aff’d, 934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019)..................... 8, 9
`
`Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc., 934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019) .................. 24
`
`Estate of DeMoss ex rel. DeMoss v. Eli Lilly & Co., 234 F. Supp. 3d 873
`(W.D. Ky. 2017) ................................................................................................. 24
`
`In re Facebook, Inc., 625 S.W.3d 80 (Tex. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.
`1087 (2022) ......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com LLC, 521
`F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019) .............................................. 10
`
`Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.,
`528 U.S. 167 (2000) .......................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`G.G. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., No. 20-CV-02335, 2022 WL 1541408 (N.D. Ill.
`May 16, 2022) ................................................................................... 12, 13, 14, 16
`
`Geiss v. Weinstein Co. Holdings LLC, 383 F. Supp. 3d 156 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ....... 15
`
`Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021) ..................................... 7, 9, 10
`
`Grossi v. Bosco Credit, LLC, No. 16-CV-03100, 2017 WL 3453347 (N.D.
`Cal. Aug. 10, 2017) ............................................................................................... 7
`
`Gulfside Casino Partnership v. Churchill Downs Inc., No. 20-CV-34, 2020
`WL 7034573 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 30, 2020), aff’d, 861 F. App’x 39 (6th Cir.
`2021) ................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Haskins v. Symantec Corp., 654 F. App’x 338 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................... 21
`
`
`
`v
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.702 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`Hauschild GMBH & CO. KG v. FlackTek, Inc., No. 20-CV-02532, 2022 WL
`392501 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2022) .......................................................................... 21
`
`Herrick v. Grindr LLC, 765 F. App’x 586 (2d Cir. 2019) ............................. 8, 11, 12
`
`Huitt v. Southern California Gas Co., 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 (Cal. Ct. App.
`2010) ............................................................................................................. 19, 20
`
`In re iPhone 4s Consumer Litigation, 637 F. App’x 414 (9th Cir. 2016) ......... 20, 22
`
`J. B. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC, No. 19-CV-07848, 2021 WL 4079207 (N.D.
`Cal. Sept. 8, 2021) ........................................................................................ 13, 16
`
`Johnson v. Honeywell International Inc., 101 Cal. Rptr. 3d 726 (Cal. Ct.
`App. 2009) .......................................................................................................... 25
`
`Johnson v. International Laboratories, LLC, No. 19-CV-0004, 2019 WL
`1877289 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 26, 2019) ..................................................................... 21
`
`Klaehn v. Cali Bamboo, LLC, No. 19-CV-1498, 2021 WL 3044166 (S.D.
`Cal. June 14, 2021) ............................................................................................. 23
`
`Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ....................................................... 3
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct., 246 P.3d 877 (Cal. 2011) ........................................... 23
`
`L.H. v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., No. 21-22894-CIV, 2022 WL 1619637 (S.D. Fla.
`May 23, 2022) ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021) ............................................. 10
`
`M.A. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Inc., 425 F. Supp. 3d 959 (S.D. Ohio
`2019) ................................................................................................................... 14
`
`M.H. v. Omegle.com, LLC, No. 21-CV-814, 2022 WL 93575 (M.D. Fla. Jan.
`10, 2022) ............................................................................................................. 13
`
`M. L. v. Craigslist Inc., No. C19-6153, 2020 WL 5494903 (W.D. Wash.
`Sept. 11, 2020) .................................................................................................... 13
`
`M.T. v. Saum, 7 F. Supp. 3d 701 (W.D. Ky. 2014) ................................................. 23
`
`Marroquin v. Pfizer, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 3d 1152 (E.D. Cal. 2019) ......................... 19
`
`
`
`vi
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.703 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`Maynard v. American Medical & Life Insurance Co., No. 10-CV-00157,
`2012 WL 2571160 (W.D. Ky. July 2, 2012) ...................................................... 21
`
`Miles v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, No. 08CV1195,
`2009 WL 4795826 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2009) ...................................................... 21
`
`Miriyeva v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, No. 20-CV-2496, 2022
`WL 837422 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2022) ............................................................... 25
`
`Morgan v. Apple Inc., No. 17-CV-05277, 2018 WL 2234537 (N.D. Cal. May
`16, 2018) ............................................................................................................. 25
`
`Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 1993) .................................................. 21
`
`Noble v. Weinstein, 335 F. Supp. 3d 504 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ..................................... 15
`
`Opperman v. Path, Inc., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1018 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ............................. 21
`
`Quinteros v. InnoGames, No. C19-1402, 2022 WL 898560 (W.D. Wash. Mar
`28, 2022) ............................................................................................................. 18
`
`Renfro v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc, 25 F.4th 1293 (10th Cir. 2022) ............... 22
`
`Rhino Linings USA, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Rhino Lining, Inc., 62 P.3d 142
`(Colo. 2003) ........................................................................................................ 23
`
`S.J. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., 473 F. Supp. 3d 147 (E.D.N.Y.
`2020) ................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC, 258 Cal. Rptr. 3d 270 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) ......... 23
`
`Strojnik v. San Diego Farah Partners, L.P., No. 20CV358, 2021 WL 778652
`(S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2021) ....................................................................................... 6
`
`Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................. 20
`
`Taleshpour v. Apple Inc., No. 20-cv-03122, 2021 WL 1197494 (N.D. Cal.
`Mar. 30, 2021)....................................................................................................... 6
`
`Tapia v. Davol, Inc., 116 F. Supp. 3d 1149 (S.D. Cal. 2015) ................................. 22
`
`Torres v. City of Madera, No. CIVFF02-6385, 2005 WL 1683736 (E.D. Cal.
`July 11, 2005), aff’d sub nom. Torres v. Taser International, Inc., 277 F.
`App’x 684 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................. 19
`
`
`
`vii
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.704 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`Winter v. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 938 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1991) ............................... 18
`
`STATUTES
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1591 ...................................................................................................... 14
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) ................................................................................................. 14
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) ............................................................................................. 7, 8
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.705 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice because it fails to
`
`cure the pervasive deficiencies in the initial Complaint.
`
`According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs L.W., C.A., and C.O. were victims
`
`of heinous crimes committed by predators. The criminal perpetrators allegedly met
`
`Plaintiffs online, using popular messaging applications (“apps”) like Snapchat, and then
`
`“groomed” Plaintiffs over time by developing online relationships. In some cases, the
`
`perpetrators allegedly distributed to third parties obscene pictures or videos of Plaintiffs
`
`(also known as Child Sexual Abuse Material or “CSAM”) using another messaging app
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`called “Chitter.” Some of the perpetrators have already been convicted of their crimes in
`
`11
`
`separate criminal proceedings. But this civil lawsuit is a misguided attempt to hold Apple
`
`12
`
`Inc. (“Apple”) liable for the crimes committed against Plaintiffs, solely because Snapchat
`
`13
`
`and Chitter were among the millions of third-party apps available for download from
`
`14
`
`Apple’s App Store. Plaintiffs’ claims against Apple have no basis in law or fact.
`
`15
`
`Although Apple takes measures to ensure the App Store is safe and trusted, Apple is
`
`16
`
`not legally responsible for every bad act of a third party who transmits illicit content to other
`
`17
`
`third parties using an app created by yet another third party merely because the app is
`
`18
`
`available for download on the App Store. This is especially true where, as here, the
`
`19
`
`Amended Complaint (like the initial Complaint) does not specifically allege any connection
`
`20
`
`between a particular Plaintiff or perpetrator, on the one hand, and Apple, on the other.
`
`21
`
`Plaintiffs’ inclusion in the Amended Complaint of a single conclusory allegation “on
`
`22
`
`information and belief” that one or more of the Plaintiffs or perpetrators used an Apple
`
`23
`
`product is insufficient as a matter of law to establish standing under Article III of the United
`
`24
`
`States Constitution—a necessary predicate for any claim in federal court.
`
`25
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims also fail on the merits. All of Plaintiffs’ claims seek to hold Apple
`
`26
`
`liable for harm caused by third-party content on third-party apps distributed on the App
`
`27
`
`Store, bringing the claims squarely within the ambit of Section 230 of the Communications
`
`28
`
`Decency Act (“CDA”). Section 230 was enacted by Congress to incentivize online
`
`30
`
`
`
`31
`
`1
`MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.706 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`platforms to moderate illicit content by eliminating the threat of potentially endless liability
`
`if platforms engaged in moderation, and it shields neutral platforms (like the App Store)
`
`from legal claims that treat the platform as the publisher of third-party content.
`
`Even if Section 230’s immunity did not apply here (which it does), each of the claims
`
`must be dismissed on independent grounds. Plaintiffs’ civil TVPA claim fails because
`
`Plaintiffs do not and cannot allege that Apple “participated in a venture” with any of the
`
`sex-trafficking perpetrators or that Apple knew or should have known about the crimes
`
`against Plaintiffs. Even if one of the millions of third-party apps available on the App Store
`
`was used by criminals to abuse Plaintiffs, that fact cannot satisfy the elements of a TVPA
`
`claim. Plaintiffs’ products liability claims are equally flawed because they do not identify
`
`any defective physical product that caused the alleged injuries in this case.
`
`The Amended Complaint also fails to plead (let alone with the required particularity)
`
`any false statements by Apple or actual reliance by Plaintiffs, which dooms their fraudulent
`
`and negligent misrepresentation and consumer protection claims. And Plaintiffs do not
`
`identify any legally cognizable duty that Apple owed to Plaintiffs, which is fatal to their
`
`negligence claims. Finally, while the Amended Complaint purports to assert separate
`
`claims for unjust enrichment and injunctive relief, neither is a standalone cause of action
`
`under California law. The Amended Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`19
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`A. Apple Operates the App Store Where Users Can Download Third-Party
`Apps Containing Third-Party Content.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple sells devices like iPhones, through which users can access and use digital apps.
`
`23
`
`(Am. Compl. ¶ 135.) Apple also operates the App Store, a “digital distribution platform
`
`24
`
`where individuals can buy and download digital software and applications” onto their Apple
`
`25
`
`devices. (Id.) The App Store offers for download apps created by third-party developers
`
`26
`
`and serves over “half a billion users” each week. (Id. ¶ 136.)
`
`27
`
`Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) establish procedures and
`
`28
`
`requirements for app developers seeking to have their apps approved for distribution on the
`
`30
`
`
`
`31
`
`32
`
`2
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.707 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`App Store. (Ex. A, Guidelines at 2–3.)1 The Guidelines expressly provide guidance to app
`
`developers (not App Store users) regarding Apple’s standards for the safety, technical
`
`performance, business models, design, and legal compliance of apps submitted for
`
`distribution through the App Store. (See generally Guidelines.) Apple reserves the right to
`
`enforce its Guidelines against any developers whose apps are found to be in violation,
`
`including through removal of the app from the App Store. (Id.)
`
`When a user launches the App Store, they must read and confirm their understanding
`
`of Apple’s App Store & Privacy Policy (the “Privacy Policy”). (Am. Compl. ¶ 141.) The
`
`Privacy Policy, unlike the Guidelines, is directed to consumers, and explains how Apple
`
`uses their data to “help [them] discover the content that’s most relevant to [them].” (Ex. B,
`
`Privacy Policy at 29.) Apple also explains that it analyzes what a user has “previously
`
`searched for, viewed, downloaded, updated, or reviewed in the App Store,” a user’s
`
`“purchase history,” and “app usage data stored on [a user’s] device.” (Id.) Apple also
`
`analyzes non-individual data, like “aggregate information about app launches, installs, and
`
`deletions . . . and [] information about app ratings.” (Id.) Apple clearly explains that it uses
`
`this data in its algorithms and analytical tools to recommend apps to App Store users. (Am.
`
`Compl. ¶ 142.) Users “can turn off personalization features in the App Store” at any time.
`
`(Privacy Policy at 29.) Apple does not sell personal user data. (Ex. D, Apple Privacy Policy
`
`at 48.)2
`
`
`1 The Guidelines are incorporated by reference into the Amended Complaint (e.g., Am.
`Compl. ¶ 141) and can thus be considered on a motion to dismiss. See Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding documents incorporated by reference where
`“plaintiff’s claim depends on the contents of a document, the defendant attaches the
`document to its motion to dismiss, and the parties do not dispute [its] authenticity”).
`Apple’s Terms of Service and App Store & Privacy Policy, infra, can also be considered on
`a motion to dismiss. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 141.)
`
`2 This policy is incorporated by reference into the App Store Privacy Policy, and, therefore,
`into the Amended Complaint. (See Ex. B, Privacy Policy at 31.) See supra n. 1.
`
`30
`
`
`
`31
`
`32
`
`3
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.708 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`Upon launching the App Store on their device, the user must also read and agree to
`
`Apple’s Media Services Terms and Conditions (“Terms”). (Am. Compl. ¶ 141.) The Terms
`
`clearly warn users that “Apple is not responsible or liable for third party materials included
`
`within or linked from [third-party apps].” (Ex. C, Apple Media Terms and Conditions, at
`
`43.) By definition, this would include private messages between two or more people using
`
`a messaging app downloaded on the App Store.
`
`Conspicuously missing from the Amended Complaint is any allegation that any
`
`particular Plaintiff or perpetrator used an iPhone or other Apple device or accessed the App
`
`Store or other Apple services. Rather, Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that “[o]ne
`
`or more of the perpetrators downloaded software products like Snapchat, Chitter, and other
`
`dangerous apps on the Apple App Store . . . [and] one or more of [the victims] purchased
`
`and/or downloaded the apps from the Apple App Store.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 150.)
`
`B. Chitter and Snap, Inc. Operate Third-Party Messaging Apps.
`
`Snapchat is a popular photo and message sharing app created by Snap, Inc. (“Snap”)
`
`“used by hundreds of millions of people.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 83.) Apple did not create
`
`Snapchat. (See id.) The Amended Complaint alleges that Snapchat contains “inherently
`
`dangerous” features that make it “stand out from its competitors.” (Id. ¶¶ 85, 86–90.)
`
`Chitter is a company located and operated outside of the United States that developed
`
`a messaging and content-sharing app allowing users to exchange photos, videos, and
`
`messages anonymously. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 128.) Apple did not create the Chitter app. (Id. ¶ 131.)
`
`The Amended Complaint alleges that the Chitter app “is known to be used primarily for
`
`CSAM distribution,” has “gained notoriety for attracting users who seek to trade CSAM,”
`
`and that “CSAM is readily produced, distributed and traded” on the app. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 129,
`
`289.) Plaintiffs allege that four App Store user reviews for the Chitter app included
`
`comments flagging inappropriate behavior by Chitter users toward minors, but do not allege
`
`that any Apple employee read these reviews. (Id. ¶ 144.) The Amended Complaint does
`
`not name Chitter as a Defendant nor does it make any specific allegations against Chitter.
`
`(Id. ¶ 134.)
`
`30
`
`
`
`31
`
`32
`
`4
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00619-LAB-MDD Document 54-1 Filed 09/19/22 PageID.709 Page 14 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Seek To Hold Apple Liable for Making Snapchat and Chitter
`Available on the App Store.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs allege that they were sexually exploited by criminals who used the Snapchat
`
`and Chitter apps (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1–4, 42–45, 68–70), and that Apple “enable[ed],
`
`recommend[ed], and steer[ed] users . . . to inherently dangerous apps like Snapchat and the
`
`app Chitter” (id. ¶124). Plaintiffs allege that Apple states that it aggregates user information
`
`about app ratings to make better app recommendations for users, and that Apple is “keeping
`
`an eye out for kids” and will “reject apps for any content or behavior [it] believes is over
`
`the line.”3 (Id. ¶¶ 142–143 & nn.38–39.) Plaintiffs further allege that Apple recommends
`
`the Chitter and Snapchat apps to users, and thus “[t]he products that Apple has developed—
`
`namely
`
`its
`
`store which uses algorithmic
`
`recommendation
`
`tool and data
`
`aggregation/analytics system—fails to serve its intended function.” (Id. ¶ 209.)
`
`Based on these facts, Plaintiffs assert the following claims against Apple: (1) strict
`
`liability for “design defects in its services”; (2) strict liability for failure to warn; (3)
`
`negligence by providing defectively designed services, tools, and products to Plaintiffs; (4)
`
`fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation based on alleged statements that the App Store
`
`would reject and remove apps that contain