Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 41
`
`MOJO NICHOLS, SUSAN BREWSTER,
`DUANE DEA, MARYANNE DERACLEO,
`KAREN KELLY, REBECCA RICHARDS,
`JENNIFER SELLERS, and STACY
`SPENCER,
`
`Individually and on Behalf of All Others
`Similarly Situated,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`Defendants.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`NOOM, INC., ARTEM PETAKOV, and
`JOHN DOES 1 TO 5,
`
`
`
`1:20-CV-03677 (LGS) (KHP)
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
`MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULES 12(f), 12(b)(1) AND 12(b)(6)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 41
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................ 1 
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... 2 
`I.
`NOOM. ................................................................................................................................ 2 
`A.
`Noom’s Program. ................................................................................................... 2 
`B.
`Signing up for Noom. ............................................................................................ 3 
`C.
`The Named Plaintiffs’ Noom Experiences. ........................................................... 5 
`D.
`Procedural History. ................................................................................................ 7 
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................................................ 7 
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 8 
`I.
`THE TAC SHOULD BE STRICKEN UNDER RULE 12(F) BECAUSE IT IS NOT A “SHORT
`AND PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM” AS REQUIRED BY RULE 8. .................................... 8 
`ALL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FAIL FOR LACK OF PARTICULARITY. ..................................... 9 
`A.
`Virtually All of the Claims Sound in Fraud and Are Subject to Rule 9(b). ........... 9 
`B.
`No Plaintiff Satisfies the Applicable Pleading Requirements. ............................ 10 
`C.
`The GBL Claims (Count 1) Are Also Deficiently Pled. ...................................... 15 
`D.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Artem Petakov Are Also Deficiently Pled. ............... 16 
`PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER THE 47 JURISDICTIONS
`WITH NO REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF. ............................................................................ 17 
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FAIL FOR ADDITIONAL REASONS. ................................................... 18 
`A.
`No Plaintiff Has Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief. .......................................... 18 
`B.
`The California Plaintiffs’ Statutory Claims Fail for Additional Reasons. ........... 20 
`1.
`The California Plaintiffs fail to state claims for equitable relief
`(Counts 2-6). ............................................................................................ 20 
`The California Plaintiffs fail to state claims under the FAL (Count
`2). ............................................................................................................. 23 
`The California Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the CLRA
`(Counts 5-6). ............................................................................................ 23 
`The California Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the California
`Weight Loss Contracts Law (Count 7). ................................................... 24 
`California Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Bot Disclosure
`Law (Count 4). ......................................................................................... 25 
`The Named Plaintiffs’ Common Law Claims Fail for Additional Reasons. ....... 26 
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 41
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for unjust enrichment. ............................... 26 
`1.
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for money had and received. ..................... 27 
`2.
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for conversion. .......................................... 28 
`3.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Under At Least Eight States Are Barred by Class Action
`Waivers or Notice Requirements (Counts 10, 11, 15, 20, 28, 36, 48, 50). .......... 29 
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 30 
`
`D.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 4 of 41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`A.IA. Holdings, S.A. v. Lehman Bros., Inc.,
`No. 97-4978, 1998 WL 159059 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 1998) .......................................................11
`
`Abraham v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc.,
`947 F. Supp. 2d 222 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) .....................................................................................15
`
`Adams v. Cole Haan, LLC,
`No. Sacv 20-913 JVS, 2020 WL 5648605 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2020) ................................21, 22
`
`In re Arris Cable Modem Consumer Litigation,
`No. 17-cv-1834, 2018 WL 288085 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2018) .......................................11, 12, 14
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Berni v. Barilla S.p.A.,
`964 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2020).....................................................................................................19
`
`BPP Ill., LLC v. Royal Bank of Scot. Grp., PLC,
`No. 13-0638, 2013 WL 6003701 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2013), vacated in part
`on other grounds, 603 F. App’x 57 (2d Cir. 2015) ..................................................................12
`Brown v. Sandimo Materials,
`250 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................26
`
`Brumfield v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
`No. 17-3239, 2018 WL 4168956 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2018) ...................................................27
`
`Camp v. Ala. Telco Credit Union,
`No. 2:12-cv-2237, 2013 WL 2106727 (N.D. Ala. May 13, 2013) ..........................................29
`
`Chambers v. NASA Fed. Credit Union,
`222 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016) .............................................................................................28
`
`Daly v. Castro Llanes,
`30 F. Supp. 2d 407 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ........................................................................................26
`
`Delgado v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
`No. 13-4427, 2017 WL 5201079 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2017) ....................................................30
`
`Dominguez v. Banana Republic, LLC,
`No. 1:19-cv-10171, 2020 WL 1950496 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2020) .........................................19
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 5 of 41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Elkind v. Revlon Consumer Prods. Corp.,
`No. 14-2484, 2015 WL 2344134 (E.D.N.Y. May 14, 2015) ...................................................19
`
`Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Int'l N.V.,
`400 F. App’x 611 (2d Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................20, 26
`
`In re Ford Fusion & C-Max Fuel Econ. Litig.,
`No. 13-2450, 2015 WL 7018369 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2015) .....................................................9
`
`In re Frito-Lay N.A., Inc. All Nat. Litig.,
`No. 12-2413, 2013 WL 4647512 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2013) ..................................................12
`
`In re Fyre Festival Litig.,
`399 F. Supp. 3d 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ......................................................................................12
`
`Gale v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`781 N.Y.S.2d 45 (App. Div. 2004) ..........................................................................................15
`
`Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC,
`863 F. Supp. 2d 677 (S.D. Ohio 2012) ....................................................................................29
`
`In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig.,
`257 F. Supp. 3d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ......................................................................................27
`
`Gibson v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
`No. CV 20-769, 2020 WL 5492990 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2020) ................................................21
`
`Gomez v. Jelly Belly Candy Co.,
`No. EDCV17-00575, 2017 WL 8941167 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017) .....................................21
`
`In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`988 F. Supp. 2d 434 (D. Del. 2013), vacated in part on other grounds, 806
`F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 2015)............................................................................................................24
`
`Greene v. Gerber Prods. Co.,
`262 F. Supp. 3d 38 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) .......................................................................................30
`
`Hanna v. Walmart Inc.,
`No. 5:20-cv-01075, 2020 WL 7345680 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2020) ..........................................21
`
`Haywood v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC,
`887 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................15
`
`Headfirst Baseball LLC v. Elwood,
`168 F. Supp. 3d 236 (D.D.C. 2016) .........................................................................................29
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 6 of 41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Healy v. Beer Inst.,
`491 U.S. 324 (1989) .................................................................................................................17
`
`Hernandez v. BMNY Contracting Corp.,
`No. 17-9375, 2019 WL 418498 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2019) ......................................................13
`
`Holve v. McCormick & Co.,
`334 F. Supp. 3d 535 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) ....................................................................................20
`
`In re HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litig.,
`1 F. Supp. 3d 34 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) .............................................................................................9
`
`Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc.,
`471 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ......................................................................................16
`
`Huu Nguyen v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.,
`No. 16-05591, 2017 WL 1330602 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017) .................................................27
`
`I.B. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`905 F. Supp. 2d 989 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .....................................................................................24
`
`Izquierdo v. Mondelez Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 16-04697, 2016 WL 6459832 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2016) ..................................................20
`
`Johnson v. Pluralsight, LLC,
`728 F. App’x 674 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................23
`
`Kandel v. Brother Int’l Corp.,
`No. 08-1040, 2009 WL 9100406 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2009) ...................................................28
`
`U.S. ex rel. Kester v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.,
`No. 11-8196, 2014 WL 4401275 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2014) ....................................................28
`
`Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
`29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003) ...........................................................................................................20
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct.,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) .............................................................................................................25
`
`Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.,
`897 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2018).................................................................................................17, 18
`
`Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2015) ...............................................................................................30
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 7 of 41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Lokai Holdings LLC v. Twin Tiger USA LLC,
`306 F. Supp. 3d 629 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ........................................................................................9
`
`Lopez v. Stages of Beauty, LLC,
`307 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (S.D. Cal. 2018) ....................................................................................23
`
`LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Props.,
`No. 2016-G-0076, 2020 WL 7863159 (Oh. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2020) .....................................28
`
`In re MacBook Keyboard Litig.,
`No. 5:18-cv-2813, 2020 WL 6047253 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) ...........................................21
`
`Magi XXI, Inc. v. Stato Della Cita Del Vaticano,
`22 F. Supp. 3d 195 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) .......................................................................................28
`
`Matsumura v. Benihana Nat’l Corp.,
`542 F. Supp. 2d 245 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ..................................................................................9, 10
`
`Mayron v. Google LLC,
`54 Cal. App. 5th 566 (2020) ....................................................................................................23
`
`In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Sec. Litig.,
`218 F.R.D. 76 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) .................................................................................................9
`
`Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Young,
`No. 91 Civ. 2923, 1994 WL 88129 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 1994) ...............................................16
`Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd.,
`547 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2008).......................................................................................................8
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. Abrams,
`720 F. Supp. 284 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)...........................................................................................17
`
`Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc. v. Superior Ct. of Alameda Cnty.,
`9 Cal. 5th 279 (2020) ...............................................................................................................20
`
`Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016).....................................................................................................18
`
`O’Shea v. Littleton,
`414 U.S. 488 (1974) .................................................................................................................20
`
`Oden v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`330 F. Supp. 3d 877 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) ...............................................................................11, 12
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 8 of 41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Pernice v. Bovim,
`No. 15-541, 2015 WL 5063378 (D.D.C. Aug. 26, 2015) ........................................................27
`
`PetEdge, Inc. v. Garg,
`234 F. Supp. 3d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ......................................................................................17
`
`Pungitore v. Barbera¸
`506 F. App’x 40 (2d Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................................18
`
`Richards v. Direct Energy Services, LLC,
`915 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2019).......................................................................................................18
`
`Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Priority Healthcare Corp.,
`407 F. Supp. 3d 1216 (N.D. Ala. 2019) ...................................................................................28
`
`Sanders v. Grenadier Realty, Inc.,
`367 F. App’x 173 (2d Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................13
`
`Santos v. Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Comp.,
`801 N.E.2d 441 (Ohio 2004) ...................................................................................................27
`
`Sergeants Benevolent Ass'n Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis, plc,
`No. 15 Civ. 6549, 2018 WL 7197233 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2018) ............................................17
`
`Skouras Theatres Corp v. Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corp.,
`19 F.R.D. 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1953) .................................................................................................8
`
`Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.,
`720 N.E.2d 892 (N.Y. 1999) ....................................................................................................16
`
`Song Fi, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 14-5080, 2016 WL 1298999 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2016) .....................................................24
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) .......................................................................................20, 21, 22
`
`Speedfit LLC v. Chapco Inc.,
`No. 15-1323, 2016 WL 5793738 (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2016) ...................................................13
`
`Tomasino v. Estee Lauder Cos.,
`44 F. Supp. 3d 251 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) .......................................................................................10
`
`Turnier v. Bed Bath & Beyond,
`No. 3:20-cv-00288-L-MSB, 2021 WL 409720 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2021) ..........................22, 23
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 9 of 41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`United States v. Spectrum Painting Corp.,
`No. 19-2096, 2020 WL 5026815 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2020) ...................................................26
`
`UPS Store, Inc. v. Hagan,
`99 F. Supp. 3d 426, 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)..................................................................................8
`
`Vaccariello v. XM Satellite Radio, Inc.,
`295 F.R.D. 62 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ...............................................................................................19
`
`Weaver v. Chrysler Corp.,
`172 F.R.D. 96 (S.D.N.Y.1997) ................................................................................................13
`
`Woods v. Maytag Co.,
`No. 10-0559, 2010 WL 4314313 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2010) ........................................12, 13, 15
`
`Worldwide Travel, Inc. v. Travelmate US, Inc.,
`No. 14-00155, 2015 WL 1013704 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015) ...................................................29
`
`Wornow v. Register.Com, Inc.,
`778 N.Y.S.2d 25 (App. Div. 2004) ..........................................................................................29
`
`Wright v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc.,
`372 F. Supp. 3d 61 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) .......................................................................................15
`
`Wu v. iTalk Global Comm’ns, Inc.,
`Case No. 20-cv-07150-PSG (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2021) .............................................................22
`
`Young v. Young,
`191 P.3d 1258 (Wash. 2008)....................................................................................................27
`
`Yunker v. Pandora Media, Inc.,
`No. 11-03113, 2013 WL 1282980 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) ................................................24
`
`Zorilla v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 4:16-CV-615, 2018 WL 8732106 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2018) ..........................................29
`
`Statutes
`
`Ala. Code Ann. § 8-19-10(f) ..........................................................................................................29
`
`Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(f)(1)(B) .............................................................................................30
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 10 of 41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
`§ 17200.....................................................................................................................................25
`§ 17600 et seq. .........................................................................................................................23
`§ 17941.....................................................................................................................................25
`
`Cal. Civ. Code
`§ 1694.5(a) ...............................................................................................................................24
`§ 1694.8(b) ...............................................................................................................................24
`§ 1694.9....................................................................................................................................24
`§ 1770(a) ..................................................................................................................................23
`
`Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-399(a) ........................................................................................................30
`
`La. Rev. Stat. § 1409(A) ................................................................................................................30
`
`Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-133 .......................................................................................................30
`
`SC Code 39-5-140..........................................................................................................................30
`
`Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109 .......................................................................................................30
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 11 of 41
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Noom, Inc. (“Noom”) is one of the most popular health apps in the world. Plaintiffs attempt
`
`to malign Noom through false and misleading allegations in their Third Amended Complaint
`
`(“TAC”), but the truth is that users, not to mention health experts, love Noom. In fact, as
`
`longwinded as the nearly two hundred-page TAC is, it nowhere disputes that Noom has helped
`
`millions of people successfully lose weight.
`
`Even taking Plaintiffs’ baseless allegations as true—though, of course, Noom vehemently
`
`disputes their truth—the TAC remains fatally flawed. Plaintiffs appear to realize the same: Each
`
`time Noom has brought a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs have avoided adjudication of the
`
`insufficiency of their pleading through amendment or repeated requests to delay resolution of most
`
`of their claims indefinitely, in favor of a “bellwether” process. Plaintiffs now resort to a
`
`blunderbuss approach by alleging no fewer than 279 separate counts across 915 paragraphs. This
`
`is not a serious statement of viable claims, but a strategy designed to overwhelm the pleading
`
`process with so many counts and allegations that the Court will be more inclined to allow a future
`
`bellwether motion or defer ruling on the viability of the claims. This approach should not be
`
`rewarded. The TAC and each cause of action pled within it fails to state a claim and should be
`
`dismissed.
`
`As an initial matter, this sprawling pleading violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8,
`
`which requires “a short and plain statement” of the claims. It should be dismissed on that basis
`
`alone, as neither Noom nor the Court should be required to wade through hundreds of meandering
`
`allegations to make sense of the claims alleged.
`
`Should the Court choose to consider Plaintiffs’ claims, each of them should nevertheless
`
`be dismissed because Plaintiffs do not allege their own experiences with the required particularity.
`
`Almost none of the TAC’s numerous allegations of Noom’s alleged “deception” are tethered to
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 12 of 41
`
`
`
`any Plaintiff’s actual experience using Noom. The TAC does not allege that Noom deceived any
`
`of the eight named Plaintiffs regarding its automatic renewal policy, its marketing and advertising
`
`practices, or its product features. As just one example, no Plaintiff identifies a single advertisement
`
`or disclosure that purportedly misled her—in fact, three Plaintiffs even concede they understood
`
`Noom’s automatic renewal policies and attempted to cancel during the trial period. Plaintiffs’
`
`allegations are nonsensical and fall short of applicable pleading requirements, and their claims fail.
`
`Plaintiffs also attempt to bring hundreds of claims under the laws of states and territories
`
`where they are not residents. But these jurisdictions have no nexus with Plaintiffs’ purchases of
`
`Noom and Plaintiffs cannot state claims under their laws.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims fail for myriad other reasons. No Plaintiff has standing to pursue
`
`injunctive relief. Plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief under the California Unfair Competition
`
`Law (“UCL”) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) should be dismissed because the
`
`TAC also seeks damages for their alleged injuries from Noom’s autorenewal practices, and
`
`Plaintiffs thus cannot plead they lack an adequate remedy at law; the CLRA also does not apply to
`
`software programs such as Noom; Plaintiffs cannot plead a claim under the California Autorenewal
`
`Law (“ARL”) because there is no private right of action; and finally, Plaintiffs seek to advance
`
`class claims under at least seven statutes that preclude such claims, and plead myriad common law
`
`claims that do not comport with the facts of this case.
`
`For these and other reasons, Plaintiffs’ TAC should be dismissed in its entirety.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`I.
`
`NOOM.
`
`A.
`
`Noom’s Program.
`
`Noom, which has been downloaded by millions of users globally, is overwhelmingly
`
`popular and is one of the few science-driven weight loss programs that has been proven to actually
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 13 of 41
`
`
`
`work. (TAC ¶ 1.) While Plaintiffs try to depict Noom as a “scam,”1 Noom has a 4.7 star rating on
`
`the Apple app store based on hundreds of thousands of reviews, and has been endorsed by dozens
`
`of third parties.2 Medical experts who have studied Noom agree that the program helps users lose
`
`weight and stay healthy—in fact, Noom was the first virtual program to be approved by the Center
`
`for Disease Control as a treatment for diabetes.3
`
`Noom’s innovative mobile app offers many features that allow users to, among other
`
`things, log their meals, track their weight, read psychology-based articles, and track their fitness
`
`goals. (TAC ¶ 84.) The app also includes an instant messaging feature through which users can ask
`
`questions. (Id.) For certain common inquiries, including cancellation of a Noom subscription,
`
`Noom automatically directs the user to the appropriate instructions or links. (Id. ¶ 88.)
`
`B.
`
`Signing up for Noom.
`
`As is common with weight loss programs, to get started, users complete an intake
`
`evaluation on Noom’s website or mobile application. (TAC ¶¶ 62, 64.) Users can then sign up
`
`for a low-cost trial period by entering their payment information in the check-out flow of the
`
`mobile app or website. (Id. ¶ 66.) Noom informs users before the transaction is completed, and
`
`reiterates in bolded font in a confirmatory email sent immediately after sign up, that a user’s trial
`
`
`1 While Plaintiffs repeatedly cite approximately 2,300 complaints with the Better Business Bureau as their
`primary proof of Noom’s supposed deception (e.g., TAC ¶ 94), their own allegations demonstrate that these
`complaints comprise less than 0.005% of all users who have downloaded the program.
`2 E.g., Anna Hecht, Meet Noom: The revolutionary health and wellness program you have to try, (last
`updated Apr. 5, 2019), https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/02/cnn-underscored/noom-weight-loss-app-
`shop/index.html; Barbara Brody, How to Find the Weight-Loss Plan That Will Work for You, (last updated
`Apr. 11, 2019), https://www.rd.com/list/weight-loss-plan/.
`3 Sang Ouk Chin, et al., Successful weight reduction and maintenance by using a smartphone application
`in
`those with
`overweight
`and
`obesity,
`6 SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
`34563
`(2016),
`https://www.nature.com/articles/srep34563; Press Release, Noom, Noom’s Diabetes Prevention Program
`is the First Fully Mobile Program to Receive Official Recognition by the CDC (Apr. 11, 2017),
`https://web.noom.com/press-releases/2017/04/noomsdiabetes-prevention-program-first-fully-mobile-
`program-receive-official-recognition-cdc/.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 14 of 41
`
`
`
`will convert into an ongoing subscription if she does not cancel before the trial ends. (Id. ¶ 74.)
`
`As shown in the very screenshot Plaintiffs include in the TAC, Noom states, prior to
`
`sign-up, the exact date that the trial will end and convert to a full subscription plan. (Id. ¶ 68.)
`
`In that text, shown below, Noom discloses above the purchase button: “Your 14-day trial will
`
`last until December 20th, 2019. You can cancel anytime before then and will not be charged
`
`the full program amount.” (Id. (emphasis in original).) The same disclosure goes on to state: “If
`
`you decide Noom is right for you, on December 20th, 2019, you will be charged one payment
`
`of $99 for your 2 month course ($49.50/month).” (Id. (emphasis in original).)
`
`
`
`Users who sign up for a Noom trial also receive a confirmation email that includes the
`
`same cancellation and renewal terms set forth above. (Id. ¶ 74.) The TAC includes a screenshot
`
`of several Plaintiffs’ confirmatory emails, each of which shows that Noom discloses the date the
`
`trial will end, and that Noom automatically charges renewing payments after the trial period. (Id.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 15 of 41
`
`
`
`¶¶ 74, 123, 145, 155, 166, 177, 188.) The email goes on to repeat the full disclosure provided at
`
`the time of purchase in unequivocal bolded font and further states that users can cancel within
`
`the 14-day trial period without being charged the full plan amount. (Id.)
`
`Noom also makes it easy for users to cancel—before their trial converts to an ongoing
`
`subscription and afterwards. Noom makes clear at the time of purchase, in the confirmation email,
`
`and on its website that users can cancel anytime, thereby preventing future renewals. (See, e.g.,
`
`id. ¶ 68 (showing purchase screen with quote “cancel anytime”).) If a user decides to cancel, all
`
`she needs to do is say so through Noom’s messaging interface (i.e. “let [their] coach know”). (Id.)
`
`Noom also provides a link that walks a user through each cancellation step. (Id. ¶ 89.)
`
`C.
`
`The Named Plaintiffs’ Noom Experiences.
`
`The TAC pleads claims on behalf of eight Plaintiffs from six states and the District of
`
`Columbia. The first 47 pages of the TAC asserts various false and misleading allegations against
`
`Noom4—i.e., that Noom’s advertising and autorenewal disclosures were deceptive; that Noom
`
`did not inform users that they must cancel within the trial period to avoid being charged a
`
`subscription fee; that Noom’s cancellation process was confusing; and that Noom deceived users
`
`by employing “bot” coaches. (TAC ¶¶ 1-120.) However, none of the eight Plaintiff’s
`
`descriptions of their actual experiences using Noom supports these claims.
`
`Advertising and Marketing. First, not a single Plaintiff alleges a specific advertisement
`
`they saw or heard that prompted them to sign up for Noom. Instead, they all offer the same copy-
`
`and-paste allegation that they “heard” or “saw” unspecified ads at some unspecified time and
`
`
`4 While not at issue at this juncture, the Court should be aware that the TAC repeatedly misstates internal
`data produced by Noom. For example, the TAC states that
`
` and
`
`
`that
`
`(TAC ¶¶ 47, 49, 51.) These assertions are patently false, as Plaintiffs have since accepted.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 205 Filed 02/12/21 Page 16 of 41
`
`
`
`place. (TAC ¶¶ 121, 132, 143, 153, 164, 175, 186, 197.) Similarly, each Plaintiff also claims she
`
`was “misled by the representations and omissions outlined above”—but there do not appear to
`
`be any such “representations” pled in the hundreds of paragraphs “above,” as the TAC does not
`
`identify a single advertiseme