Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #1366
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`No. 3:22-cv-1455-DWD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
`
`
`
`)
`
`METROPLEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, )
`
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` v.
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOLDENBERG HELLER &
`ANTOGNOLI, P.C.
`
`Thomas P. Rosenfeld #06301406
`Kevin P. Green #06299905
`Thomas C. Horscroft #06327049
`2227 South State Route 157
`Edwardsville, IL 62025
`618-656-5150
`tom@ghalaw.com
`kevin@ghalaw.com
`thorscroft@ghalaw.com
`
`
`MARGULIS GELFAND, LLC
`
`
`Justin K. Gelfand
`Ian T. Murphy
`Gregory P. Bailey
`7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 750
`Clayton, MO 63105
`314-390-0234
`justin@margulisgelfand.com
`ian@margulisgelfand.com
`greg@margulisgelfand.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #1367
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Only Real People (Not Entities) Can Have a Facebook Account ........................... 2
`
`Only “Users” (i.e. Humans with Facebook Accounts) Agree to Meta’s
`Contract Terms........................................................................................................ 3
`
`III. Meta’s Arbitration Clause is for Disputes that Arise Out of or Relate to the
`User’s Access to or Use of the Meta Products for Business or Commercial
`Purposes .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`IV. Metroplex Neither Has a Facebook Account Nor Entered Into a Contract
`with Meta ................................................................................................................ 5
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................................................... 6
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 7
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Metroplex Never Entered Into an Arbitration Agreement with Meta..................... 7
`
`Even if Metroplex Entered the Arbitration Agreement, Unfair Competition
`Claims by a Competitor are Beyond the Scope of the Agreement ....................... 11
`
`The Arbitration Agreement is Not Enforceable Under Section 2 of the
`FAA....................................................................................................................... 14
`
`The Arbitration Agreement is Invalid Because it is Unconscionable or,
`Alternatively, Because it Bars Metroplex’s Statutory Right to Injunctive
`Relief ..................................................................................................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Arbitration Agreement is Unconscionable ........................................ 16
`
`The Agreement Improperly Bars the Statutory Right to Injunctive
`Relief ......................................................................................................... 18
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 3 of 27 Page ID #1368
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest.,
` 570 U.S. 228 (2013) .................................................................................................................. 18
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
` 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................................................................................................. 6-7
`
`Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.,
` 6 P.3d 669 (Cal. 2000) ................................................................................................... 16, 17, 18
`
`Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc.,
` 799 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
` 928 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2019) ..................................................................................................... 19
`
`Calderon v. Sixt Rent a Car, LLC,
` 5 F.4th 1204 (11th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................................. 10, 15
`
`Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Ahmed,
` 283 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Najd,
` 294 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`Coatney v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC,
` No. 21-cv-1368-DWD, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179873 (S.D. Ill. Sep. 30, 2022) ................ 9, 10
`
`Doctor’s Assocs. v. Casarotto,
` 517 U.S. 681 (1996) .................................................................................................................. 16
`
`Faulkenberg v. CB Tax Franchise Sys., LP,
` 637 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................... 12, 13
`
`First Options of Chic., v. Kaplan,
` 514 U.S. 938 (1995) .............................................................................................................. 6, 10
`
`Friedland v. Argentor Holding Corp.,
` 211 N.Y.S. 896 (App. Div. 1925) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`Gentry v. Superior Court,
` 165 P.3d 556 (Cal. 2007) ..................................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 4 of 27 Page ID #1369
`
`Gore v. Alltel Commc’ns, LLC,
` 666 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................. 12, 13
`
`Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,
` 561 U.S. 287 (2010) .................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Hodges v. Comcast Cable Communs., LLC,
` 12 F.4th 1108 (9th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................................. 19, 20
`
`Jackson v. Payday Fin., LLC,
` 764 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................... 16
`
`Lag Shot LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
` 545 F. Supp. 3d 770 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ....................................................................................... 17
`
`Land of Lincoln Goodwill Indus. v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp.,
` 762 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................... 12
`
`McGill v. Citibank, N.A.,
` 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017) ....................................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.,
` 473 U.S. 614 (1985) .................................................................................................................. 18
`
`Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.,
` 142 S. Ct. 1708 (2022)........................................................................................................... 7, 10
`
`Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
` 460 U.S. 1 (1983) ...................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Mulvania v. Sheriff of Rock Island Cnty.,
` 850 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira,
` 139 S. Ct. 532 (2019)................................................................................................................. 14
`
`O’Neal v. Reilly,
` 961 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho,
` 447 P.3d 680 (Cal. 2019) ........................................................................................................... 16
`
`Parm v. Nat’l Bank of Cal., N.A.,
` 835 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 5 of 27 Page ID #1370
`
`Perry v. Nat’l City Mortg., Inc.,
` No. 05-cv-891-DRH, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62419 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2006) ........................ 10
`
`R.W. Dunteman Co. v. Vill. of Lombard,
` 666 N.E.2d 762 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`Revitch v. DIRECTV, LLC,
` 977 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................... 10, 15
`
`Sellers v. JustAnswer LLC,
` 73 Cal. App. 5th 444 (2021) ...................................................................................................... 16
`
`Smith v. Bd. of Dirs. of Triad Mfg., Inc.,
` 13 F.4th 613 (7th Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................... 18, 19, 20
`
`Swain v. LaserAway Med. Grp., Inc.,
` 57 Cal. App. 5th 59 (2020) .................................................................................................. 16, 17
`
`Sweet Dreams Unlimited, Inc. v. Dial-A-Mattress Int’l, Ltd.,
` 1 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 1993) ......................................................................................................... 13
`
`Tinder v. Pinkerton Sec.,
` 305 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`United States v. Castleman,
` 572 U.S. 157 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 14
`
`United States v. Shaw,
` 957 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`United States v. Terzakis,
` 854 F.3d 951 (7th Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`Vasquez v. Cebridge Telecom CA, LLC,
` 569 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ............................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Vold Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.,
` 489 U.S. 468 (1989) .................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Watts Indus., Inc.,
` 466 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................. 6, 10
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 6 of 27 Page ID #1371
`
`Statutes & Rules
`
` 9
`
` U.S.C. § 2 ......................................................................................................................... 2, 14, 16
`
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1116 ........................................................................................................................... 20
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), ....................................................................................................................... 1
`
`815 ILCS 510/1 ............................................................................................................................... 1
`
`815 ILCS 510/3 ............................................................................................................................. 20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ....................................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Benjamin Vaughan Abbott,
` I Dictionary of Terms and Phrases Used in American or English Jurisprudence (1879) .......... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 7 of 27 Page ID #1372
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Metroplex Communications, Inc. (“Metroplex”) and Defendant Meta Platforms,
`
`Inc. (“Meta”) both sell digital advertising to customers. Metroplex’s first amended class action
`
`complaint (“FAC”) alleges unfair competition arising out of Meta’s false and misleading
`
`statements in its advertising and promotions about the amount of people on the Facebook platform
`
`and Meta’s ability to deliver digital ads to people. Doc. 31. Metroplex seeks restitution and
`
`injunctive relief under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and injunctive relief under the Illinois
`
`Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“IDTPA”), 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.
`
`Metroplex’s claims exist regardless of whether Metroplex ever had a Facebook page or did
`
`business with Facebook. Nevertheless, Meta moves to compel arbitration based on a purported
`
`arbitration agreement between Meta and Metroplex. Meta’s motion should be denied.
`
`First, Metroplex did not enter into an arbitration agreement with Meta. Rather, the
`
`arbitration agreement Meta seeks to enforce (the “Agreement”) was entered into by a Facebook
`
`user with a Facebook account—which necessarily had to be a human, not an entity. Meta describes
`
`itself as a “real identity platform” and characterizes any Facebook account that is created by an
`
`entity rather than a human as a “false” account that should be removed. This is confirmed by the
`
`plain language of the Agreement, which repeatedly distinguishes between “you” (the human with
`
`a Facebook account) and “your business.” The Agreement clearly states: “[Y]ou are contracting
`
`solely with Facebook, Inc.,” “You agree to arbitrate Commercial Claims,” and “You will not
`
`transfer any of your rights or obligations under these Commercial Terms to anyone else.” In its
`
`voluminous pleadings, Meta offers no evidence that Metroplex created a Facebook account or
`
`entered into the Agreement—because no such evidence exists.
`
`Second, even assuming Metroplex entered the Agreement, these unfair competition claims
`
`by a competitor of Meta are beyond the Agreement’s scope. The Agreement only applies to a
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 8 of 27 Page ID #1373
`
`dispute that “arises out of or relates to any access or use of the Meta Products for business or
`
`commercial purposes [] between you and Meta.” Based on the plain language and typical rules of
`
`contract interpretation, “between you and Meta” modifies “access or use of the Meta Products for
`
`business or commercial purposes.” But this unfair competition case is unrelated to any access to,
`
`or use of, Meta Products for business or commercial purposes between Metroplex and Meta.
`
`Instead, it is focused on Meta’s false and misleading statements in its advertising and promotions,
`
`and the unfair competition that creates for Meta’s competitors including Metroplex and the Class.
`
`Thus, this lawsuit falls outside the scope of the Agreement.
`
`Third, even assuming Metroplex entered it, the Agreement is not enforceable under Section
`
`2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”). Section 2 only permits a contract evidencing a
`
`transaction to contain a provision “to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of
`
`such contract or transaction . . . .” 9 U.S.C. § 2 (emphasis added). This dispute does not arise out
`
`of any such contract or transaction between Metroplex and Meta, as it relates to unfair competition
`
`by Meta based on Meta’s fraudulent actions toward third parties.
`
`Fourth, the Agreement is still invalid because it is unconscionable or, alternatively, because
`
`it purports to prohibit Metroplex from seeking statutory remedies of public injunctive relief.
`
`I.
`
`Only Real People (Not Entities) Can Have a Facebook Account
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`1. Meta describes itself as a “real identity platform” and “require[s] people to connect
`
`on Facebook using the name they go by in everyday life.” FAC ¶¶ 38-39. Accordingly, Meta
`
`requires users to have just one master account that must be connected to a real person. Id. ¶ 36. A
`
`person creating a new Facebook account must provide his or her birthday and gender. Doc. 33-2,
`
`Pricer Decl. (“Decl.”) ¶ 6 (showing screenshot of page for creating a Facebook account). Meta
`
`does not permit businesses to create a Facebook account. FAC ¶ 40. Rather, a real person, using
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 9 of 27 Page ID #1374
`
`his or her individual account, may create a Facebook “Page” for a business or entity, which page
`
`is connected to a real person’s account (or the accounts of multiple real people). Id.; Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.
`
`2.
`
`If a business attempts to create a Facebook account, Meta deems it a “false” account
`
`that should be removed. FAC ¶¶ 41-42. According to Meta’s SEC filings, “false” accounts include
`
`“user-misclassified accounts, where users have created personal profiles for a business,
`
`organization, or non-human entity . . . .” Id. ¶ 41 (quoting Meta 2021 10-K at 5).1
`
`3. Meta refers to a “user” as the individual with the Facebook account, as distinct from
`
`that user’s business: “users can create ‘Pages’ to promote their businesses . . . .” Decl. ¶ 4. While
`
`Meta offers services that can be used to promote businesses (id.), those services are provided to
`
`“users.” It is therefore “users who administer Pages.” Id. And “[u]sers who administer Pages can
`
`also purchase advertisements to promote their [the user’s] Pages.” Id.; see also id. ¶ 9 (same).
`
`II.
`
`Only “Users” (i.e. Humans with Facebook Accounts) Agree to Meta’s Contract Terms
`
`4.
`
`Per Meta’s Declaration: “Users agree to Meta’s Terms of Service and Commercial
`
`Terms.” Decl. at 1. Meta’s Declaration also details how a human user creates a Facebook account,
`
`describes what the user agrees to in order to create and use a Facebook account, equates the term
`
`“user” to the term “you” used in Meta’s contracts, and identifies numerous instances in which
`
`Meta’s contracts distinguish between the terms “you” and “your business,” but only bind “you”:
`
`¶5: “A Facebook account is necessary to create a Page or purchase advertisements. In
`order to register to use Facebook and create an account, a user must agree to
`Meta’s Terms of Service.”
`
`¶8: “The second paragraph of the Terms of Service advises users” about Meta’s
`Commercial Terms. “The relevant portion of the current Terms of Service [states:]
`‘If you use any of those Products, supplemental terms will be made available and
`will become part of our agreement with you. For instance, if you access or use our
`Products for commercial or business purposes, such as buying ads, selling
`products, developing apps, managing a group or Page for your business, or using
`our measurement services, you must agree to our Commercial Terms.’”
`
`
`1 All italics throughout this brief constitute added emphasis.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 10 of 27 Page ID #1375
`
`¶14: “[A]ny user who submits an order for self-serve advertising through Ads Manager
`encounters a [] screen that requires the user to click a button labeled ‘Publish’
`before proceeding. Directly adjacent to this button is a statement that: ‘By clicking
`the ‘Publish’ button, you agree to Facebook’s Terms and Advertising Guidelines.’”
`
`¶15: “[W]hen a user clicked the phrase ‘Terms and Advertising Guidelines,’ they [the
`user] saw a drop-down notification stating: ‘By clicking ‘Publish,’ you agree to
`the Facebook Terms of Service, including your obligation to comply with the Self-
`Serve Ad Terms, the Commercial Terms, and the Facebook Advertising Policies.’”
`The screenshot also states: “Failure to comply with the [terms] (which, if you
`reside in the US or your business is located in the US, requires the resolution of
`most disputes by binding arbitration on an individual basis), may result in a variety
`of consequences, including the cancellation of ads you have placed and the
`termination of your account. . . . [Y]ou are contracting solely with Facebook, Inc.”
`
`III. Meta’s Arbitration Clause is for Disputes that Arise Out of or Relate to the User’s
`Access to or Use of the Meta Products for Business or Commercial Purposes
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The arbitration provisions at issue are found in Meta’s Commercial Terms.2
`
`Like Meta’s other documents, the Commercial Terms distinguish between a
`
`Facebook user (“you”) and a user’s business (“your business”). See, e.g., Doc. 33-12 at 1 (“If you
`
`reside in the United States or your business is located in the United States . . . .”).
`
`7.
`
`Paragraph 5 of the Commercial Terms describes the scope of the arbitration
`
`provision. Doc. 33-12 at 2. Paragraph 5.b requires arbitration when a claim involves certain access
`
`to or use of Meta Products “between you and Meta”:
`
`Sections 5.c and 5.d below apply to any claim, cause of action, or dispute that
`arises out of or relates to any access or use of the Meta Products for business
`or commercial purposes (“Commercial Claim”) between you and Meta.
`
`8.
`
`Paragraph 5.c again distinguishes between “you” and “your business” and excludes
`
`“your business” when describing the arbitration agreement and waiver of rights. It also purports to
`
`exempt Meta from arbitrating most claims it may have against users:
`
`
`2 Exhibit 10 (Doc. 33-12), which Meta submits as a “true and correct copy of the current version of the
`Commercial Terms” (Decl. ¶ 18.a) is, on its face, not a true and correct copy. The exhibit omits portions
`from the bottom and top of nearly every page.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 11 of 27 Page ID #1376
`
`U.S. Commercial Claims: If you reside in the United States or your business
`is located in the United States:
`
`i. You agree to arbitrate Commercial Claims . . . . This provision does not
`cover . . . efforts to interfere with our Products or engage with our Products
`in unauthorized ways (for example, automated ways). . . .
`
`ii. We and you agree that, by entering into this arbitration provision, all parties
`are waiving their respective rights to a trial by jury or to participate in a
`class or representative action. . . . You may bring a Commercial Claim only
`on your own behalf and cannot seek relief that would affect other parties.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Paragraph 7 explains that the Commercial Terms apply to the user’s (“your”) access
`
`and use of the Meta Products, that the user cannot transfer any rights or obligations to anyone else,
`
`and that the Commercial Terms confer no third party beneficiary rights:
`
`Conflicts and Supplemental Terms: If there is a conflict between these
`Commercial Terms and the Terms, these Commercial Terms will govern with
`respect to your access and use of the Meta Products for business or
`commercial purposes to the extent of the conflict. Supplemental terms and
`policies may also apply to your use of certain Meta Products. To the extent
`those supplemental terms conflict with the Commercial Terms, the
`supplemental terms will govern with respect to your use of those Meta
`Products to the extent of the conflict.
`
`* * * *
`
`d. You will not transfer any of your rights or obligations under these
`Commercial Terms to anyone else without our consent.
`
`e. These Commercial Terms do not confer any third party beneficiary rights.
`
`IV. Metroplex Neither Has a Facebook Account Nor Entered Into a Contract with Meta
`
`10. There is no evidence in the record that Metroplex created a Facebook account. Meta
`
`states that a Facebook Page for AdVantage and a Facebook Page for 107.1 FM have been created.
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 23, 26. But a Facebook page is only created by a human with a Facebook account. See Id.
`
`¶ 5 (“A Facebook account is necessary to create a Page . . . .”). Meta also states “ads have been
`
`purchased for the AdVantage Facebook Page and the 107.1 FM Facebook Page . . . .” Id. ¶ 29 n.5.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 12 of 27 Page ID #1377
`
`But ads are only purchased by a human through a Facebook account. See Id. ¶ 5 (“A Facebook
`
`account is necessary to . . . purchase advertisements.”).
`
`11. Meta states that Metroplex is “responsible” for the AdVantage Facebook Page and
`
`the 107.1 FM Facebook Page. Id. ¶¶ 25, 28. Meta does not state that being “responsible” for a
`
`Facebook Page means that a business shown on a Facebook Page has created a Facebook account
`
`used to purchase advertisements. Meta also states that the AdVantage and 107.1 FM Facebook
`
`Pages have “been verified through Meta’s Page Transparency process.” Id. But unlike the first half
`
`of the Declaration, Meta does not show screenshots detailing the Page Transparency process, or
`
`state that the Page Transparency process includes any provisions or process by which a Facebook
`
`user or an entity agrees to any contractual terms with Meta.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`“Arbitration is strictly a matter of consent.” Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,
`
`561 U.S. 287, 299 (2010). Thus, the FAA “does not confer a right to compel arbitration of any
`
`dispute at any time.” Vold Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S.
`
`468, 474-75 (1989) (internal quotations omitted). Instead, “it confers only the right to obtain an
`
`order directing that arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in [the parties’] agreement.” Id.
`
`To compel arbitration here, Meta must show there is an agreement to arbitrate and that the
`
`parties’ dispute falls within the scope of that agreement. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Watts Indus., Inc.,
`
`466 F.3d 577, 580 (7th Cir. 2006). In making that determination, federal courts “apply ordinary
`
`state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts.” First Options of Chic., v. Kaplan, 514
`
`U.S. 938, 944 (1995). A motion to compel arbitration necessarily fails where there is “a triable
`
`issue of fact concerning the existence of the agreement.” Tinder v. Pinkerton Sec., 305 F.3d 728,
`
`735 (7th Cir. 2002). Courts have analogized the applicable legal standard to the summary judgment
`
`standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e). Id. Just as at summary judgment, all
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 13 of 27 Page ID #1378
`
`reasonable inferences regarding the evidence must be drawn in Metroplex’s favor. Id. (citing
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). Finally, earlier this year, the Supreme
`
`Court unanimously explained that “a court may not devise novel rules to favor arbitration over
`
`litigation.” Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 142 S. Ct. 1708, 1713 (2022).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`Metroplex Never Entered Into an Arbitration Agreement with Meta
`
`Meta’s motion sidesteps the threshold issue: whether Metroplex, an entity, entered into the
`
`Agreement Meta seeks to enforce. To obscure the issue, Meta points to two Facebook pages for
`
`two businesses owned by Metroplex and conclusively claims the existence of those pages caused
`
`Metroplex to enter the Agreement. But neither these pages nor any other evidence produced by
`
`Meta establishes that Metroplex is bound by the Agreement—because Metroplex is not.
`
`Meta is clear in arguing that users with Facebook accounts are bound by the Agreement.
`
`But the evidence does not establish Metroplex is a user with a Facebook account that entered into
`
`any contracts with Meta; rather, the evidence reflects the opposite by describing how only human
`
`users—not entities—can create Facebook accounts, purchase ads, and agree to Meta’s Commercial
`
`Terms. See supra, Statement of Facts (“SOF”) ¶¶ 1-9. For example, Facebook requires new users
`
`to provide their gender and birthday, which is clearly meant to limit Facebook users to actual,
`
`human persons, and only such human users can purchase ads, create and manage Facebook pages,
`
`or agree to the Commercial Terms. See, e.g., Decl. ¶¶ 4-6, 8-10.
`
`Meta’s failure to identify a Metroplex Facebook account is no oversight. Any Facebook
`
`account created by an entity is considered by Meta as a “false” account to be removed. SOF ¶ 2.
`
`To be clear, this is not to say there is no place for businesses on Facebook. Meta allows businesses
`
`to have a presence through the creation of a Page—not a separate account. But a Page is something
`
`created by and connected to a human user’s account. Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. And only a human user with an
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 14 of 27 Page ID #1379
`
`account can “purchase advertisements to promote their Pages.” Id. ¶ 4; id. ¶ 5 (“A Facebook
`
`account is necessary to create a Page or purchase advertisements.”). Despite its voluminous
`
`submissions, Meta nowhere asserts that the creation of a Page for an entity like Metroplex requires
`
`the entity shown in the Page to agree to the Commercial Terms, or any other terms.
`
`And this too is no oversight. In fact, the plain language in Meta’s contracts confirms that
`
`the users bound by the Agreement are human users and not businesses, even businesses for which
`
`human users create Pages. For example, when purchasing ads to promote their Pages, users click
`
`a “Publish” button before proceeding. Decl. ¶ 14. Next to the button is a link to “Terms and
`
`Advertising Guidelines.” Id. Clicking on the link leads to a screen that states in part:
`
`By clicking ‘Publish’, you agree to the Facebook Terms of Service including . . . the
`Commercial Terms . . . . Failure to comply with . . . the Commercial Terms (which,
`if you reside in the US or your business is located in the US, requires the resolution
`of most disputes by binding arbitration on an individual basis), may result in a
`variety of consequences . . . . You are contracting solely with Facebook, Inc.
`
`Id. ¶ 16. “You” in this paragraph refers to the user purchasing the ads, which can only be a human
`
`with a Facebook account. SOF ¶¶ 1-4; Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. Meta confirms this by repeatedly
`
`distinguishing between “you” and “your business” throughout its contracts. See SOF ¶¶ 3-9.
`
`Indeed, the Commercial Terms with the arbitration provisions again distinguish between
`
`“you” and “your business,” but only state that “You agree to arbitrate Commercial Claims . . . .”
`
`SOF ¶¶ 5-8. Furthermore, the Agreement is clear that “you,” the human with the Facebook account,
`
`cannot transfer any rights or obligations to anyone else (SOF ¶ 9), which would include any
`
`obligation that the user (“you”) arbitrate claims. And it is equally clear that the “Commercial Terms
`
`do not confer any third party beneficiary rights.” SOF ¶ 9. If Meta wanted a user’s business to
`
`agree to arbitration, Meta could easily have stated, “You and your business agree to arbitrate
`
`Commercial Claims.” Similarly, there is nothing stopping Meta from permitting businesses like
`
`Metroplex to create user accounts—but Meta’s self-characterization as a “real identity platform”
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01455-DWD Document 39 Filed 11/16/22 Page 15 of 27 Page ID #1380
`
`linked to actual people is at the heart of its profit-maximizing business model. Thus, while Meta’s
`
`motion repeatedly refers to “commercial users,” that term is absent from Meta’s actual
`
`Commercial Terms, arbitration clause, and Terms of Service.3 Meta’s attempts to use this Court to
`
`retrospectively amend the plain language of the contracts it drafted should be rejected.
`
`Moreover, Meta’s assertion that Metroplex has purchased Facebook ads is inconsistent
`
`with the evidence before this Court, including Meta’s Declaration stating that a Facebook account
`
`is required to purchase ads. Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 9, 10. Meta’s own explanation of how Facebook operates
`
`makes clear that onl