`13
`Plaintiffs 1-6, the latter individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`E-FILED
`1/8/2021 5:01 PM
`
`SuperiorCourt of CA
`County of Santa Clara
`21CV375169
`Reviewed By: R. Walker
`
`NORTH RIVER LAW PLLC
`Times Wang (State Bar No. 281077)
`twang@northriverlaw.com
`1300 I Street NW, Suite 400E
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 838-6489
`
`SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS
`HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
`Paul L. Hoffman (State Bar No. 71244)
`hoffpaul@aol.com
`200 Pier Avenue, #226
`Hermosa Beach, CA 90245
`Tel: (310) 396-0731
`
`Counselfor Plaintiffs and the proposed Class
`(Additional counsellisted on signature page)
`
`SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
`
`(1) Declaratory and injunctiverelief that
`certain practices and contractual
`provisions are unlawful and
`unenforceable
`(2) Violations of the California
`constitutional right to privacy
`(3) Violations of the California
`constitutional right to free speech
`(4) Violations of the California
`constitutional right to equal protection
`Intrusion on seclusion
`(5)
`(6) Conversion and trespass to chattels
`(7)
`Intentional infliction of emotional
`distress
`(8) Negligence
`(9) Unjust enrichment
`(10) Violations of the California Unfair
`Competition Law
`(11) Violations of the California Invasion of
`Privacy Act
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`AMOUNT DEMANDED EXCEEDS
`$25,000
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`14
`
`27
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`Tencent America LLC and Tencent
`International Service Pte. Ltd.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`27
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION..u...ccccccsssessescesssessrsesseesesesncensncaesacsecscsveseessacsesessssesveessseesavsnsaesseeeeees 1
`
`Il.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUEuu. csesseseseesecssseessecessecvssecesareassecusseeneansassesnsneenecnssseeeseeeaneenenees 3
`
`ILL.
`
`PARTIES o.oeeseesecsessssessesessssessesessesssessssnsescesescsusacsneeceseseeseassnsaesesssuceseaeaesatsesassesacansassasessesaeeneaeeneaseeesees 3
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs oe seeseseeveesseeeesesescesevescevescncseeessseseevesssesevsesseseencesacesesescaeeseseseavensesacareeseseeeeseers 3
`
`1.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Citizen PowerInitiatives for China... essesseseceesecseseeessecesseeeeseeneaneesseenenee 3
`
`Doe Plaintiff Looe cece ceseseeecseseseescseseseescaesesseseaesesscseeeessseseeeeaeseneesneassseeeneaeeas 4
`
`Doe Plaintiff2 eee seesseseeeeseeesesescseesssescarsesseseaveesseseeveseseseessecsesteesseaseneeseeaeess 4
`
`Doe Plaintiff 3 ce eeseesssseesseseenececsseecsnescnssseseensansassesscseeneersnseecsesecneereneeeeanseenss 4
`
`Doe Plaintiff 4 occ ceecceesesessessseescseseeecscsesesseneaesacscseeeeasseseetsasseneeesneasseeeeneaeees 4
`
`Doe Plaintiff 5eee seesseseesessseeeenessneescseseersecsescaveesseseeveseeeseessecsrsteesseaseneetseneess 4
`
`Doe Plaintiff 6 oe eseseesssseecseseenececsseecsnescsesseseensareassessesseneesnseecsesecnsereaeeeearseenss 4
`
`B.
`
`Defendants ........cecceccceesseeseeseseseseeseseeessescaestssescaesneacseccneacseeeeaeasseeesscaenesesseaesteesneaseteeeneataeaes 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Tencent America LLC 000... eesseesesesceeeseneerereseneeneresenestensassessessassesnesseceeseeseeseeres 5
`
`Tencent International Service Pte. Ltd... seseseeecsssseessecesseceseeeeanesseenenee 5
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENTOF FACTS o0oe.cecccecscsescsssessssesessssessesessesessesessesnesesesseeneansacsesassseeaeeaesesseeeeesaeeasaneateneess 5
`
`A.
`
`WeChatis the most popular and ubiquitous social media application in the
`global Chinese-speaking community and maintains an effective monopoly
`on electronic communications in that community, including in California.............. 5
`
`WeChatis censored and surveilled in California. ooo. ccceseeceseeceeseescescesseseveceeereeees 8
`
`in California harm
`WeChat’s censorship and surveillance practices
`California WeChat users 1 Many WAYS. .........:.csseseesseceseeseeeeeseeesteesseseseeneaeseeeeneaeaeneenes 8
`
`The challenged practices and provisions have inflicted significant harm on
`Doe Plaintiffs. oo... cece csessesesseseseeeeteseensesecseaneacecseeseseseseeesesesesesseseeesesaeseeeseeaeanensesseaneaes 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 1 oe eee eeeeseseeneeseeeeenceceesssscerevsecscseeeecscseeveasseseesearseseneaseeeseeeesees 10
`
`Doe Plaintiff 2 ee ceseesessesssesesesseneetsscenesesessesssneensersssessessensersaesesnseesseeneerensass 12
`
`Doe Plaintiff 3 i.e ceessesesseseseseseeseseeesscsesneacscseaneacscseeeasseseeeacseseseeseaeeeeeeneess 13
`
`Doe Plaintiff 4 oo... eee seesseseeneeseeeeenceceeesssceeeveecscereneecscseeveasseseessarseseeneaseeeseeeesees 15
`
`Doe Plaintiff 5 ce eecseessssssecesesseneeesscenssesessesssneeneersessesssnsensersaesesneeesseeeserensase 16
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`E.
`
`F,
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`6.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 6 occ ccc cecseceseccssseeecesccscesessccecseccsassasconcsecsscensensesscssesacsassaeeeneneaes 17
`
`Researchers at The Citizen Lab have conducted experiments proving that
`California WeChat users’ communications are censored and surveilled, and
`that WeChatuses those communicationsto “improve” WeChat’s censorship
`and surveillance apparatus. .........cccccssscsessecsssssssesseseseseseocsesesesesssecsesserssssersessessesseseeeseesesees 17
`
`A white-hat hacker has uncovered evidence that California WeChat user
`data and communications are made available to the Party-state.«0.0.0... 19
`
`Tencent’s censorship and surveillance practices have negative emotional,
`psychological, and behavioral consequences on California WeChatuserts............. 22
`
`Tencent broadly denies that the challenged practices OCCUL.
`
`....cceuseseseenseeeeseeeneee 24
`
`Tencent’s “WeChat Help Center” makes a slew of privacy-related
`ASSUIANCES. 0... eeesseeteteeneesecesersenescassceeecssecassessenssssassevsenesscosscueesecesocsasacsavesseestaveeeeeneneeaseees 25
`
`WeChat’s privacy policy and terms of service exacerbate the harms
`associated with the challenged practices, ....cccsesesseessesssessssesssesessssssssssatsessensassessenees 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4,
`
`WeChat’s privacy policy and terms of service are unclear as to
`whetherthe challenged practices are permitted or prohibited... 26
`
`to use
`WeChat’s terms of service relating to Tencent’s right
`California WeChat user data and communications to improve
`WeChat’s Offerings. ..........sssesesescsesssssssesesssseeessscseoesescseecesssereseevssesevessaeaeesssesenees28
`
`WeChat’s terms of service purport to require California WeChat
`users to give up a host of legal rights and remedies. .............eeeseeeeteeeeeeeees28
`
`WeChat’s terms of service purport to subject California WeChat
`users who happen to be PRCcitizens to even more onerous terms of
`SOLVICE. oosesessesesscsecesssesesesscsenececseaesscucseseesescscaesneseneaecacaeseessseasseeeaeassesnsseaeetsesseeseateete 30
`
`V.
`
`CPIFC HAS STANDING TO BRING THESE CLAIMSG. ......ccesessssssessssetsseseeseseresesenseneneseess 30
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`CPIFC’s mission is to help Chinese people defend their human rights and
`to advance a peaceful transition to democracy in the PRC, ...... ee eeseeeeeeeseeeeees 30
`
`Tencent’s policies and practices, including those challenged here, have
`significantly hampered CPIFC’S mission...........:.cssscsessscsesseeesssesesssesesssesesssrsesnensessesees 31
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`WeChat’s censorship and surveillance practices and policies
`frustrate CPIFC’s ability to communicate with Chinese people
`inside and outside the PRC.oes csessssesceeseeseseeeescsesteeeneeesteeeseeeeteeeneetseaes 32
`
`The personal experience of CPIFC’s founderis illustrative. .....0.00.0 te 33
`
`The challenged provisions also harm CPIFC.........ucssseseesesseseesesseessenenseeseeses 34
`
`Cc,
`
`The requested relief would redress the harms experienced by CPIFC..........0..0.0..+. 39
`
`VI.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 00.0... cceecceesessscesessescessenescesesessrsssncsveseevsersessesossneveeresseesneanenes 41
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`VIL.
`
`STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS00. eee eeeceseeeeeeaeseeeeneasseeeeseaseeeeeaeansnsasseessnsaseseneneataneeseata 43
`
`VI.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 0.0. eceseeseesessescsesnessesesvenseveavenssvevenveveevsnssvensneensevsasevsaseseseansneenearensaseneas 43
`
`COUNTI: Declaratory judgment that the challenged practices are unlawful and
`that the challenged provisions are unenforceable, and related injunctive
`
` TONE one eeeeeee cece teeeseseesesesesseseeceseseseeeescsesesseneassesseneneeseseneaeessaeneaesssassesesseasseseessasseseeneaeseseeneaeeees 43
`
`COUNTII: Violation of the right to privacy under the California constitution.................. 45
`
`COUNTIIE: Violation of the right to free speech under the California constitution.......... 47
`
`to equal protection under the California
`COUNT IV: Violation of the right
`CONSTITUTION... csescsvsereesserscssevsesessesresssssscsavesssevssssensensassevesssasssssesssssoesassosavesevavessssseasesseavaogs 48
`
`COUNTV:: Intrusion upon Seclusion ......cccccccescccsssesessssssescseseacsesescaesescensceesaeseneasseseassesescenseeeees 49
`
`COUNTVI: Intentional infliction of emotional distress ........... esse eeereeeeseeeeesteseereeeseneeeeeees 50
`
`COUNTVII: Negligence uo... cccssessesssssessssesssesseresssnsssncssansssscsseresssesseressseseeneaesesseneaesesesscseanenseces 51
`
`COUNTVIII: Conversion and trespass to chattels .........cccsscscsssesesesesesesesesseessseeseeseenseseeteasens 53
`
`COUNTIX: Unjust enrichment ......0... ce ceeseccesesesesssesesseesssesessscsescarscseveceeeressversssseseesasasssseaseners 53
`
`COUNTX: Violation of the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof.
`Code § 17200, et SCG... scsssssesssssessscsesssvscssscscssecesssssesssesescscsesvessssessussessssssaeaeseasensesesnanenenees 54
`
`COUNTXI: Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal.
`Petal Code §§ 630, et SCG. ..csecsesssssessscscssecsessssssssenenssesescsesesssrsesusssssessseserssesesssnaesesnseesesees 55
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEFuu. ccscssessessesecessesessecessecescenesesessesssneenearssssesseneenearsnseesseeeeveaesneceseeesseenens 63
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. une ceccccccesessessesesesseseessnsesecucsccscansncsessesesscansacensesseeneateaeensatsneaeeetes 64
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Citizen PowerInitiatives for China (“CPIFC”) and Doe Plaintiffs 1-6! (together with
`
`CPIFC, “Plaintiffs”), bring this action based upon knowledgeas to themselves and their ownacts,
`
`and upon information andbelief as to all other matters, against Tencent America LLC and Tencent
`
`International Service Pte. Ltd. (collectively “Tencent’”’), as follows:
`
`L
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`One out of approximately every six people in the world speaks Chinese. WeChat,
`
`a messaging-and-payments mobile application offered by Tencent (and which is sometimes used
`
`herein synonymously with the term WeChat), holds an effective monopoly on howthe inhabitants
`
`of that world communicate with each other electronically. This case is about the portion of that
`
`world that uses WeChatin California (“California WeChat users’). California WeChatusers are
`
`also referred to herein as the “Class.”
`
`2.
`
`This case arises from Tencent’s practices of profiting from politically motivated,
`
`pro-Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”) censorship and surveillance of California WeChat users
`
`(“challenged practices”), which includes the practice of turning over private user data and
`
`communications to the governmentof the People’s Republic of China (“PRC government,” and,
`
`together with the CCP, the “Party-state”), and which inflicts an array of harms. Specifically, the
`
`challenged practices include Tencent’s practices of: (1) turning over private California WeChat
`
`user data and communications to the Party-state; (ii) profiting by using California WeChat user
`
`data and communications to improve Tencent’s censorship and surveillance algorithms; (iii)
`
`censoring and surveilling California WeChat user communicationsfor content perceivedascritical
`
`" California Code of Civil Procedure § 367 does not requite the use of real names, but merely “that an
`action be broughtbythe real party in interest[,] ... to protect a defendant from harassment by other
`claimants on the same demand.” Dee v. Lincoln Unified Sch. Dist., 187 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1291 (Cal. Ct.
`App. 2010). Meanwhile, both California courts and the United States Supreme Court have recognized
`the propriety of allowing pseudonymous plaintiffs where, as here, important privacy considerations
`ate at stake, including the need to protect plaintiffs from potential retaliation. Id at 1292. As alleged
`herein, WeChat users and their family members have endured threats and harassment—including at
`the hands of the PRC government—merely for sending messages critical of that government over
`WeChat. It is therefore reasonable to expect that filing suit against Tencent in connection with
`Tencent’s enabling role in such oppression would result in even more threats and harassment. Thus,
`Doe Plaintiffs respectfully submit that they ate entitled to proceed pseudonymously.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`of the Party-state; (iv) suspending, blocking, or deleting California WeChat user accounts and/or
`
`data over such content; and (v) prohibiting California WeChat users from withdrawing funds
`
`stored in their WeChat accounts when those users do not possess an account with a PRC financial
`
`institution subject to monitoring by the Party-state.
`
`3.
`
`This action also challenges provisions in Tencent’s terms of service and privacy
`
`policy which,
`
`taken together, are oppressive, obfuscatory, and incoherent
`
`(“challenged
`
`provisions”). The challenged provisions include privacy-related termsthat are deliberately vague
`
`and ambiguous with respect to whether the challenged practices are permitted or prohibited
`
`(“vague and ambiguousprivacy provisions’’), which in turn benefits Tencent by reservingto it the
`
`right to adopt self-interested interpretations. However, California WeChat users are entitled to
`
`clear, unambiguous, and testable language with respect to the nature and scope oftheir privacy on
`
`WeChat—inother words, to honesty and transparency.
`
`4.
`
`Yet, even if the challenged practices were unambiguously prohibited under the
`
`challenged provisions, the challenged provisions include terms that makeit practically impossible
`
`for California WeChat users to seek meaningful redress for the harms caused by those practices
`
`(“remedy-limiting provisions”).
`
`5.
`
`Finally, the challenged provisions include terms that impermissibly discriminate
`
`against California WeChat users who happento be citizens of the PRC (“long-arm provisions”).
`
`6.
`
`The challenged practices and provisions inflict multiple harms on California
`
`WeChat users, including financial loss, emotional trauma, and psychological stress. They are
`
`unlawful under California law because they:
`
`°
`
`°
`
`°
`
`°
`
`°
`
`violate California WeChat users’ privacy, speech, and equal protection
`rights under the California constitution;
`
`unlawfully intrude on the privacy and seclusion of California WeChatusers;
`
`unlawfully interfere with California WeChat users’ property rights;
`
`unjustly enrich Tencentat the expense of California WeChatusers; and
`
`violate California WeChat users’ statutory rights under California law.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`7.
`
`There is no reasonable alternative to WeChat for anyone wishing to maintain
`
`regular contact with the Chinese-speaking world, and given the Party-state’s willingness and
`
`ability to suppress dissent inside the PRC, noneis likely to emerge so long as the Party-state is
`
`intent on continuing its policies of suppression. Because of Tencent’s effective monopoly,
`
`California WeChat users have no meaningful choice but to accept the challenged practices and
`
`provisions as a condition of using WeChat. Thus, because the challenged provisions require
`
`California WeChatusers to sacrifice a panoply of speech, privacy, and other rights as a condition
`
`of using WeChat, these requirements are unconscionable and void against public policy.
`
`8.
`
`Finally, the challenged practices and provisions hinder CPFIC’s ability to carry out
`
`its mission of advocating for a peaceful transition to democracy in China.
`
`Il.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`This action arises underthe lawsof the state of California.
`
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because the amount in
`
`controversy is over $25,000.
`
`11.
`
`Venueis properin this Court because Tencent America LLC hasits principal place
`
`of business in, and because a significant proportion of the misconductat issue occurred in, Palo
`
`Alto, California.
`
`Il.
`
`PARTIES
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`1.
`
`Citizen PowerInitiatives for China
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Citizen PowerInitiatives for China (“CPIFC”) is a 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)
`
`nonprofit organization located at 533 5th Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002, dedicated to
`
`advancing a peaceful transition to democracy in China, including by engaging in pro-Chinese
`
`democracy activities in the United States. But for the challenged practices and provisions, CPIFC
`
`would be a WeChat user. However, because of the challenged practices and provisions, CPIFC
`
`does not have a WeChat account, for fear that the challenged practices and provisions would either
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`allow the Party-state to spy on it with impunity, or would result in any account being blocked, or
`
`both.
`
`13.
`
`CPIFC has beeninvestigating Tencent’s conduct, including in California, for nearly
`
`a year. This ongoing investigation, which has been overseen by CPIFC’s attorneys, has included,
`
`among other things, hundreds of interviews with WeChat users throughout the United States,
`
`including many in California. CPIFC’s mission has been impeded by Tencent’s actions as it has
`
`dedicated resources to combating Tencent’s practices that, but for Tencent’s malicious actions,
`
`could have been dedicated to accomplish other aspects of CPIFC’s mission.
`
`1.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 1
`
`14.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 1 is a California resident and citizen of the United States. Doe Plaintiff
`
`1 first created a WeChat account in approximately 2014.
`
`2.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 2
`
`15.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 2 is a California resident and citizen of the PRC. Doe Plaintiff 2 first
`
`created a WeChat account in approximately 2013.
`
`3.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 3
`
`16.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 3 is a California resident and citizen of the United States. Doe Plaintiff
`
`3 first created a WeChat account in approximately 2015.
`
`4.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 4
`
`17.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 4 is a California resident and citizen of the United States. Doe Plaintiff
`
`4 first created a WeChat account sometime between 2012 and 2015.
`
`5.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 5
`
`18.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 5 is a California resident and citizen of the PRC. Doe Plaintiff 5 first
`
`created a WeChat account in approximately 2014.
`
`6.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 6
`
`19.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 6 is a California resident and citizen of the PRC. Doe Plaintiff 6 first
`
`created a WeChat account in approximately 2012.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`B.
`
`Defendants
`
`1.
`
`Tencent America LLC
`
`20.
`
`Tencent America LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place ofbusiness
`
`at 2747 Park Blvd, Palo Alto, California, 94306. According to the Tencent America LLC website,
`
`that “Tencent America is the US branch of Tencent.”” As used herein, “Tencent”refers to both it
`
`and Tencent International Service Ptd. Ltd.
`
`21.
`
`Tencent America LLC operates or participates in operating WeChat in California.
`
`Its website states its work “include[s] advertising, artificial
`
`intelligence, cloud services,
`99 be
`
`entertainment, investments, payments, and security.” Its “artificial intelligence,”
`
`“cloud services,”
`
`and “security” work includes assisting with the development, operation, and improvement of the
`
`censorship and surveillance practices and policies challenged herein.
`
`2.
`
`TencentInternational Service Pte. Ltd.
`
`22.
`
`Tencent International Service Pte. Ltd. is a Singaporean corporation located at 10
`
`Anson Road, #21-07 International Plaza, Singapore 079903. It is the relevant contracting entity
`
`for WeChat users residing in California, according to WeChat’s terms of service. As used herein,
`
`“Tencent” refers to both it and Tencent America LLC. It operates or participates in operating
`
`WeChatin California.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENTOF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`WeChatis the most popular and ubiquitous social media application in the
`global Chinese-speaking community and maintains an effective monopoly on
`electronic communications in that community, including in California.
`
`23.
`
`It is difficult to overstate the ubiquity of WeChat in the Chinese-speaking world.It
`
`is akin to Facebook, PayPal, WhatsApp, and Instagram combinedinto a single platform, and is
`
`used for business, family, and personal communications.
`
`24.
`
`For example, a user in, say, downtown Los Angeles might open WeChatto text a
`
`friend about lunch plans in Santa Monica. Then, the user might tap on a group they have created
`
`for people interested in a certain type of fashion item; let group members knowtheuseris receiving
`
`* About Tencent America, https://www.exploretencent.com/explote (last visited Dec. 31, 2020).
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`a shipment soon, and take orders. Then, the user might pay for the shipment; upload pictures of
`
`the items to the group; and receive payments for placed orders—all within WeChat’s constellation
`
`of services. Then, the user might upload a general missive about what a good moodthey are in
`
`directed at no one in particular, which anyonein their contact list can see. Then, the user might
`
`call their friend over WeChat to say they are on their way to lunch; upload pictures of the lunch to
`
`their other friends; and pay for the lunch—again, all within WeChat. Then,
`
`the user might
`
`participate in a video call with their family back in the PRC to check on howthey are doing during
`
`the coronavirus pandemic.
`
`25.
`
`Not only that, but if the user wants to communicate with people in the PRC, or with
`
`large swaths of the Chinese diaspora in the United States, including California, they have no choice
`
`but to use WeChat.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`26.—For people inthe PRC,the fact that the Party-state blocks platforms like WhatsApp,
`12
`
`27
`
`
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Facebook, Twitter, and even Gmail, means that
`
`there is no way to easily communicate
`
`electronically other than WeChat, with the exception of relatively expensive text messages or
`
`phonecalls.
`
`27.
`
`For people outside the PRC who want to communicate with people inside the PRC,
`
`WeChat is also the easiest method of communication. By comparison, most other methods are
`
`either expensive or inefficient, or require the person inside the PRC to circumvent government
`
`controls, or both.
`
`28.
`
`All this becomestruer by virtue of the well-recognized networkeffects contributing
`
`to the success of social media platforms. Today, a person facing the decision of how to
`
`communicate with people in the Chinese-speaking world can only reject WeChatat great practical
`
`and even economic cost, considering the time value of money. A feedback loop is created, and
`
`WeChat becomes even more ubiquitous.
`
`29,
`
`There is perhaps no clearer indication of WeChat’s effective monopoly over
`
`electronic communications in the Chinese-speaking world than the reaction to the Trump
`
`administration’s August 6, 2020 executive order concerning WeChat.
`
`Immediately,
`
`it was
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`6
`
`
`
`recognized by people with varying views with respect to the CCP that a “ban” on WeChatin the
`
`United States would likely result in a significant decrease in communications between people in
`
`the two countries.
`
`30.
`
`For example, a prominent commentator on issues related to the PRC and the United
`
`States joked that without WeChat, communications between people in the two countries would
`
`have to take place by messengerpigeon:
`
`Chen Weihua (FRE) @
`@chenweihua34%
`& Chinastate-affiliated media
`
`20202F8A ta
`AOTES=IBAR
`RATER, Be
`
`If US bans WeChat, a lot of Chinese in the US could lose
`their contacts with families and friends in China.
`In fact,
`that applies to some Americans who have a lot China
`connections. Thatis a serious violation for the US govt.
`Pigeon will be the new messengeras some jokes go.
`
`FRCT.
`
`
`
`4:30 AM - Aug 7, 2020-Twitter for iPhone
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`31.
`
`As another example, on a public email list for people interested in Chinese legal
`
`issues, a Texas-based law professor wrote: “I’ve been using WeChat for many years, for both
`
`business and personalreasons. I run our school’s study abroad program in Beijing, and WeChatis
`
`essential to the communications between me and our Chinese partners. When students study in
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`7
`
`27
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`27 China, we use WeChatto connect individually and in group, which makeslife so mucheasier. I
`
`WeChat’s censorship andsurveillance practices in California harm California
`WeChatusers in many ways.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`C.
`
`* Message posted to Chinese Law Discussion List (chinalaw@hermes.gwu.edu) dated August 10, 2020.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`8
`
`am now worried about life without WeChat.’””
`
`32.
`
`Indeed, on August 21, 2020, a lawsuit wasfiled challenging the executive order on,
`
`inter alia, First Amendment grounds. See U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, et al., v. Donald J. Trump,
`
`et al., No. 20-cv-05910-LB (N.D. Cal.) (“Executive Order Lawsuit’). And, following extensive
`
`briefing, the district court found that ‘““WeChatis irreplaceable forits users in the U.S., particularly
`
`in the Chinese-speaking and Chinese-American community.” /d., Dkt. 59 at 5. The court then
`
`granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
`
`B.
`
`33.
`
`WeChatis censored and surveilled in California.
`
`Forall that a WeChatuser can do on the WeChatplatform, what they cannotreadily
`
`do—including in California—is send messages perceived ascritical of the Party-state, including
`
`euphemistic and satirical messages like cartoons depicting Xi Jinping as Winnie the Pooh. Such
`
`messages tend to be blocked, censored, deleted, and can lead to the blocking, suspension, or
`
`deletion of the user’s account—and,as discussed below, much worse.
`
`34, WeChat’s terms of service do not explicitly prohibit content critical of the Party-
`
`state. However, such content is de facto prohibited on WeChat, despite there being no technical
`
`reason that such a prohibition might be necessary for WeChat’s proper functioning.
`
`35.
`
`The Party-state’s censorship and surveillance policies are also a significant factor
`
`in WeChat’s ubiquity in the Chinese-speaking world. Because its major competitors are blocked
`
`in the PRC, WeChat hasessentially no competition in the Chinese-speaking world. Meanwhile,
`
`WeChat’s collaboration in the Party-state’s censorship and surveillance system ensures the Party-
`
`state will continue to protect and support it and to prevent the emergence of viable competitors
`
`who may beless willing to collaborate.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37.|These harmful consequences also include business losses in amounts as high as
`
`41.—_All this chills constitutionally protected speech. Indeed, many WeChat users have
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`told CPIFC that they feel real fear that the Party-state or its agents will retaliate against them or
`
`their family, and that, as a result, they self-censor—despite the fact that they live in California.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`9
`
`36. WeChat’s censorship and surveillance practices in California have significant
`
`harmful consequences on California WeChat users. CPIFC’s ongoing investigation has uncovered
`
`hundreds of examples of such harms,all flowing from WeChatusers in the United States, including
`
`in California, making comments perceived ascritical of the Party-state. They include emotional
`
`distress resulting from the loss of cherished memories and photos built up over extended periods
`
`of WeChat use, as well as from the inability to communicate with family members in the PRC
`
`during a pandemic, after accounts were blocked, suspended, or deleted.
`
`millions of dollars resulting from an inability to continue business discussions and negotiations
`
`conducted on WeChat, after accounts were blocked, suspended, or deleted.
`
`38.
`
`They also include harrowing consequences for California WeChat users’ family
`
`members
`
`in the PRC, where California WeChat users’ critical comments—made from
`
`California—haveled to visits from PRC security agents. Indeed, these consequences, and the fear
`
`of similar other consequences, have deterred at least one California WeChat user who was
`
`previously interested in being a plaintiff in this action from moving forward.
`
`39.
`
`They also include interference with California WeChat users’ private property
`
`rights. As WeChat itself recognizes, the contents of social media accounts are the property of the
`
`account holders. Indeed, WeChat’s terms of service explicitly provide that the only aspects of a
`
`WeChatuser’s account that constitute WeChat’s property are “Your account name, user ID and
`
`other identifiers you adopt within WeChat.” By necessary implication, other aspects of the account,
`
`including account content, constitute the user’s property.
`
`40.
`
`Despite that, WeChat routinely interferes with the property rights of California
`
`WeChatusers by blocking, suspending, or deleting their accounts for political reasons.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`27
`
`
`
`27
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Indeed, their experiences with WeChat, where even minor or glancing critiques of the Party-state
`
`haveresulted in non-trivial harms, confirm that their fears are well-founded.
`
`42,
`
`The net effect of the challenged practices is the suppression of open and honest
`
`communication on WeChaton a variety of topics, given that virtually any commentary relating to
`
`the PRC short of praise for the Party-state could potentially be interpreted as critical in nature and
`
`thereby lead to negative consequences.
`
`43.
`
`That the challenged practices and provisions inflict serious harm on California
`
`WeChatusers is confirmed by the experiences of, and harms suffered by, Doe Plaintiffs.
`
`D.
`
`The challenged practices and provisions haveinflicted significant harm on Doe
`Plaintiffs.
`
`1.
`
`Doe Plaintiff 1
`
`44,
`
`Doe Plaintiff 1 is a U.S. citizen born in the PRC. In 2014, he created a WeChat
`
`account using a U.S. phone number. One of his main uses for the accountis to stay m touch with
`
`classmates and professors from his time at university in the PRC. This group is composed of
`
`alumni, and comprises a diverse array of people, including people who work inside the PRC
`
`government, as well as professionals in the fields of education, economics, and law. Owing to the
`
`considerable amountofintellectual and political discussion occurring amongthis group offriends
`
`and acquaintances, including of news Doe Plaintiff 1 transmits from California that is unavailable
`
`in the PRC,
`
`they have had their WeChat group—of which Doe Plaintiff 1
`
`is usually the
`
`administrator—blocked or suspended dozensof times. Each time, he has reconstituted the group.
`
`45.
`
`In late 2019, Doe Plaintiff 1°s account was suspendedafter he posted politically
`
`sensitive information. He was informed the suspension was permanent, but when he complained,
`
`he wastold that he could get limited access to his account for the purpose of withdrawing any
`
`money remaining in his WeChatwallet. After being granted such limited access, he saw another
`
`link to unblock his account. Whenhetried this link, he was given some moreaccessto his account.
`
`Specifically, he was able to read messages posted by other people, but he could not post messages
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`