throbber
Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 1 of 40
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 20 Civ. 3677 (LGS) (KHP)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`NOOM, INC., ARTEM PETAKOV, and
`JOHN DOES 1 TO 5,
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
`
`Steven L. Wittels
`J. Burkett McInturff
`Jessica L. Hunter
`18 HALF MILE ROAD
`ARMONK, NEW YORK 10504
`Telephone: (914) 319-9945
`Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
`slw@wittelslaw.com
`jbm@wittelslaw.com
`jlh@wittelslaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 2 of 40
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 7
`
`
`I. NOOM’S REQUEST TO STRIKE THE TAC UNDER RULE 12(F) IS FACTUALLY,
`LEGALLY, AND PROCEDURALLY GROUNDLESS ................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. THE TAC HAS THE REQUISITE LEVEL OF PARTICULARITY ................................ 9
`
`
`A. Each of the Eight Plaintiffs’ Allegations Easily Satisfy Rule 9(b) ............................... 9
`
`1. Plaintiffs Describe a Multi-Component Web Designed to Trick Consumers ............. 9
`
`2. Each of the Named Plaintiffs Adequately Details How They Were Deceived by
`Noom ......................................................................................................................... 10
`
`3. Defendants Try to Sidestep the Full Scope of the Fraud Alleged ............................. 11
`
`B. The GBL Claims are Adequately Pled........................................................................ 16
`
`C. Defendant Petakov Can be Held Responsible for His Illegal Conduct ...................... 16
`
`III. PLAINTIFFS MAY BRING CLAIMS FOR CONSUMERS IN OTHER STATES ....... 17
`
`IV. DEFENDANTS’ ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS FAIL ................................................. 19
`
`A. Plaintiffs Have Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief .................................................... 19
`
`B. The California Plaintiffs’ Statutory Claims Should be Sustained .............................. 20
`
`1. The California Plaintiffs Can Bring Claims for Equitable Relief ............................. 20
`
`2. Plaintiffs Can Enforce the ARL through the FAL, UCL, and CLRA ....................... 23
`
`3. Noom Is a Weight-Loss Service That Falls Within the CLRA’s Purview ................ 24
`
`4. The TAC States a Claim Under California’s Weight Loss Contracts Law ............... 25
`
`5. Plaintiffs’ Have Stated a Claim Under the Bot Disclosure Law ............................... 26
`
`C. Plaintiffs’ Common Law Claims Should Proceed ...................................................... 26
`
`1. Plaintiffs Alternative Unjust Enrichment Claims are Viable at This Stage .............. 26
`
`2. Plaintiffs State a Claim, in the Alternative, for Money Had and Received .............. 27
`
`3. Plaintiffs’ Conversion Claims are Adequately Pled .................................................. 28
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 3 of 40
`
`
`
`D. Rule 23 Preempts State Class Action Bans and Notice Requirements and Thus
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Not Barred. ............................................................................. 29
`
`
`CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ................................................... 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 4 of 40
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`A.I.A. Holdings, S.A. v. Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
`1998 WL 159059 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 1998)............................................................................. 12
`Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ahmed Halima,
`2009 WL 750199 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2009) ............................................................................ 9
`Baur v. Veneman,
`352 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 2003).................................................................................................... 19
`Berni v. Barilla S.p.A.,
`964 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2020).................................................................................................... 20
`Blair v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l,
`2009 WL 8580038 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 30, 2009) ....................................................................... 27
`Bonasera v. New River Elec. Corp.,
`2021 WL 490257 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 10, 2021).......................................................................... 30
`Campbell v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co.,
`130 F. Supp. 3d 236 (D.D.C. 2015) .................................................................................. 16, 27
`City of New York v. Smart Apartments LLC,
`959 N.Y.S.2d 890 (Sup. Ct. 2013) .......................................................................................... 17
`Cresci v. Mohawk Valley Cmty. Coll.,
`693 F. App’x 21 (2d Cir. 2017) .............................................................................................. 31
`Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation,
`889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................. 20
`Delgado v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC,
`2017 WL 5201079 (E.D.N.Y Nov. 9, 2017) ........................................................................... 29
`DiCarlo v. MoneyLion, Inc.,
`988 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................ 23
`Disher v. Citigroup Glob. Markets, Inc.,
`486 F. Supp. 2d 790 (S.D. Ill. 2007) ....................................................................................... 22
`Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc.,
`333 F. Supp. 3d 208 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) .................................................................................... 19
`Dunn v. Albany Med. Coll.,
`2010 WL 2326127 (N.D.N.Y. June 7, 2010) ............................................................................ 8
`Elkind v. Revlon Consumer Products Corporation,
`2015 WL 2344134 (E.D.N.Y. May 14, 2015) ........................................................................ 20
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 5 of 40
`Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. SPI Spirits Ltd.,
`726 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2013)...................................................................................................... 29
`Franze v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distrib., LLC,
`2019 WL 1244293 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2019) ........................................................................ 21
`Genesco Entm’t v. Koch,
`593 F. Supp. 743 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ........................................................................................... 6
`Green v. Covidien LP,
`2019 WL 4142480 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2019) ........................................................................ 31
`Green v. Gerber Products Co.,
`262 F. Supp. 3d 38 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) ...................................................................................... 31
`Gross v. Vilore Foods Co., Inc.,
`2020 WL 6319131 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2020) ......................................................................... 22
`Haskins v. Symantec Corp.,
`2013 WL 6234610 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013) .......................................................................... 25
`Haywood v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC,
`887 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................. 15
`Holve v. McCormick & Co., Inc.,
`334 F. Supp. 3d 535 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) ................................................................................... 20
`In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation,
`2016 WL 4204478 (D. Conn. Aug. 9, 2016) .......................................................................... 30
`In re Arris Cable Modem Consumer Litigation,
`2018 WL 288085 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2018) ............................................................................. 12
`In re Cardiac Devices Qui Tam Litig.,
`221 F.R.D. 318 (D. Conn. 2004)............................................................................................. 11
`In re JUUL Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`2020 WL 6271173 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2020)......................................................................... 22
`In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Rsch. Rep. Sec. Litig.,
`218 F.R.D. 76 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ................................................................................................ 8
`In re Yahoo Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`313 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (2018) .................................................................................................. 24
`Izquierdo v. Mondelez International, Inc.,
`2016 WL 6459832 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2016). ........................................................................ 20
`Jericho Baptist Church Ministries, Inc. (D.C.) v. Jericho Baptist Church Ministries, Inc. (Md.),
`2020 WL 1703937 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2020) .............................................................................. 29
`Johnson v. Pluralsight, LLC,
`728 F. App’x 674 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................... 24
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 6 of 40
`Joya v. Verizon New York, Inc.,
`2008 WL 4667987 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2008) ........................................................................... 9
`King v. Bumble Trading, Inc.,
`393 F. Supp. 3d at 870 ............................................................................................................ 28
`Kohler v. Errico,
`2011 WL 1077722 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2011) ......................................................................... 28
`Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc.,
`897 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2018).......................................................................................... 15, 18, 19
`Leslie v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co.,
`598 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (W.D. Wash. 2009) .............................................................................. 27
`Loreley Financing (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC,
`797 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015).................................................................................................... 31
`LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Props.,
`2020-Ohio-6999 (Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2020) ............................................................................. 27
`Mancuso v. RFA Brands, LLC,
`454 F. Supp. 3d 197 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) ................................................................................... 19
`Marolda v. Symantec Corp.,
`672 F. Supp. 2d 992 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .................................................................................... 28
`Mayron v. Google LLC,
` 54 Cal. App. 5th 566 (2020) .................................................................................................. 23
`McGill v. Citibank, N.A.,
`2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) .............................................................................................................. 23
`Montero v. City of Yonkers, New York,
`890 F.3d 386 (2d Cir. 2018).................................................................................................... 13
`Morales v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`2020 WL 2766050 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2020) ........................................................................ 20
`Moreira v. Sherwood Landscaping Inc.,
`2015 WL 1527731 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015) ........................................................................ 29
`NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co.,
`693 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2012).................................................................................................... 15
`Oden v. Boston Scientific Corp.,
`330 F. Supp. 3d 877 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) .................................................................................... 12
`Oliver v. Am. Express Co.,
`2020 WL 2079510 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020) ........................................................................ 19
`Ossman v. Diana Corp.,
`825 F. Supp. 870 (D. Minn. 1993) .......................................................................................... 15
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 7 of 40
`Pappas v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
`915 F.3d 889 (2d Cir. 2019).................................................................................................... 31
`People by Abrams v. Apple Health & Sports Clubs, Ltd., Inc.,
`80 N.Y.2d 803 (1992) ............................................................................................................. 17
`People v. Debt Resolve, Inc.,
`387 F. Supp. 3d 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)..................................................................................... 17
`PetEdge, Inc. v. Garg,
`234 F. Supp. 3d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)..................................................................................... 17
`Pisarri v. Town Sports Int’l, LLC,
`2019 WL 1245485 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2019) .......................................................................... 18
`Price v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.,
`2017 WL 4480887 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2017) ........................................................................... 13
`Richards v. Direct Energy Services, LLC,
`915 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2019)...................................................................................................... 18
`Ryan, LLC v. Inspired Dev., LLC,
`2013 WL 12137012 (N.D. Tex. July 18, 2013) ...................................................................... 27
`Sanders v. Grenadier Realty, Inc.,
`367 Fed. App’x 173 (2d Cir. 2010)......................................................................................... 13
`Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
`559 U.S. 393 (2010) ................................................................................................................ 29
`Shak v. Krum,
`2018 WL 5831319 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2018) ............................................................................ 8
`Simmons v. Abruzzo,
`49 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1995).......................................................................................................... 8
`Solano v. Kroger Co.,
`2020 WL 7028473 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2020) ............................................................................. 16
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corporation,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................. 21
`Sports Traveler, Inc. v. Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.,
`1997 WL 137443 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 1997) ............................................................................ 6
`Stanley v. Direct Energy Servs., LLC,
`466 F. Supp. 3d 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)..................................................................................... 15
`Suarez v. Cal. Nat. Living, Inc.,
`2019 WL 1046662 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2019) .......................................................................... 19
`UPS Store, Inc. v. Hagan,
`99 F. Supp. 3d 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)......................................................................................... 7
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 8 of 40
`US v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`2013 WL 5312564 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2013) .......................................................................... 9
`Vaccariello v. XM Satellite Radio, Inc.,
`295 F.R.D. 62 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .............................................................................................. 20
`Weaver v. Chrysler Corp.,
`172 F.R.D. 96 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) .............................................................................................. 13
`Welco Elecs., Inc. v. Mora,
`166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 877 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2014) .................................................................... 28
`Weyant v. Phia Grp. LLP,
`2018 WL 4387557 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2018) ........................................................................ 16
`Woods v. Maytag Co.,
`2010 WL 4314313 (E.D.NY. Nov. 2, 2010) ........................................................................... 13
`Zeiger v. WellPet LLC,
`2021 WL 756109 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2021) .......................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 9 of 40
`
`The eight Named Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) submit this memorandum of law in opposition to
`
`Defendants Noom, Inc. and Artem Petakov’s (“Noom” or “Defendants,” unless noted) motion to
`
`dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Class Action Complaint (“TAC”), ECF Nos. 167, 174.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Noom is one of the nation’s fastest growing diet programs and has perpetrated one of the
`
`country’s largest automatic renewal scams. TAC ¶ 1. The scheme works as follows: Noom lures
`
`consumers to sign up to “try” its supposedly revolutionary diet app “built on psychology and
`
`science,” telling consumers that if Noom is not the right fit they can move on, no strings attached.
`
`Id. ¶ 2. Noom is so confident that it supposedly takes a financial loss by offering this “risk free”
`
`trial. Id. Yet not only does it turn out that Noom’s “risk free” trial must be cancelled lest it
`
`automatically renew, but also that the trial is extremely difficult to cancel resulting in consumers
`
`being charged for the full, multi-month diet program once the trial ends. Id. That droves of
`
`consumers are unwittingly charged for a full diet plan is not happenstance, as Noom uses cognitive
`
`psychology to create an effective (and lucrative) trap for dieters. Id. ¶¶ 1, 5. As the Federal Trade
`
`Commission (“FTC”) notes, people trying to lose weight are one of the most vulnerable consumer
`
`groups. Id. ¶ 59. To prey on these consumers as Noom does is unconscionable.
`
`Noom is a “behavior change company” that aims to disrupt the diet industry by taking a
`
`“cognitive-behavioral approach” to dieters’ choices. Id. ¶¶ 2, 4. Yet when it comes to Noom’s
`
`“risk free” trial, Noom employs this same scientific knowledge to exploit well-known
`
`vulnerabilities in human decision-making. Id. ¶ 5. The psychology of decision-making and
`
`behavioral economics fields pioneered by Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman, whom Noom’s co-
`
`founder Defendant Artem Petakov much admires,1 have proven that system design is a powerful
`
`
`1 Petakov advertises his studies under Kanheman, thus “making me forever fall in love with psychology of decision-
`making,” and how his “biggest passion is influencing people’s everyday decisions on a large scale.” Id. ¶ 7
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 10 of 40
`
`driver of behavior. Id. ¶ 6. For example, requiring a person to take action to “opt in” (as opposed
`
`to out) greatly lowers the likelihood that the action is taken, as illustrated by organ donor
`
`registration statistics. Id. While less than 5% of people in Denmark register as donors compared
`
`to 99.91% in France, the difference is not due to varying levels of altruism but rather because the
`
`system design drives the outcomes: donation in Denmark is “opt in” and “opt out” in France. Id.
`
`Instead of using these principles to help consumers, Noom makes the trial process counter-
`
`intuitive and difficult to cancel. Id. ¶¶ 8–10. To boot, once Noom imposes the non-refundable
`
`lump sum fee, it hides the charges by failing to send a receipt for this, and for later, renewal fees.
`
`Id. ¶ 81. In response to Noom’s misleading and fraudulent conduct, Plaintiffs filed this consumer
`
`class action alleging violations of state consumer protection statutes and the common law.
`
`The operative complaint alleges that Noom’s trial period and autorenewal practices
`
`constitute a uniform and deceptive web designed to trap consumers into paying Noom’s multi-
`
`month subscription fee. TAC ¶ 13. While the web’s architecture has different sticking points that
`
`can ensnare consumers, taken together the components lead to a common and predictable outcome:
`
`unintended full payment for Noom’s diet service. Id. ¶ 14. The complaint breaks down Noom’s
`
`autorenewal web into seven separate elements: (1) a ubiquitous advertising campaign encouraging
`
`consumers to “try” the diet, id. ¶¶ 54–59; (2) deception in Noom’s trial sign-up process about what
`
`it means to “try” Noom including deception regarding autorenewal, how to cancel, and post-trial
`
`charges, id. ¶¶ 44–46, 60–70, 73; (3) critical and ongoing omissions about how to access Noom’s
`
`services, and thereby cancel, id. ¶¶ 45, 71–72, 78, 82, 90–92; (4) an opaque cancellation process
`
`requiring customers to figure out how to notify someone called their “coach” (in actuality a
`
`computer “bot”) but failing to provide a way to contact Noom by standard means, i.e. no phone
`
`number, no website chat, no prominent email address, id. ¶¶ 10, 16–17, 19, 52, 68–69, 74, 77; (5)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 11 of 40
`
`deceptive “coach” assignment and other practices that further frustrate cancellation, id. ¶¶ 82–92;
`
`(6) sneakily assessing the full program charge once the trial ends, id. ¶¶ 2, 15, 19–20, 52, and (7)
`
`radio silence about impending or recent charges, including no receipt following the charge, id. ¶¶
`
`19, 45, 81. Finally, the TAC describes which sticking point ensnared each Plaintiff, id. ¶¶ 121–
`
`207, and the many red flags showing that Noom’s design is not a coincidence. Id. ¶¶ 93–120.
`
`Since commencement, Plaintiffs’ case has only gotten stronger. For example, shortly after
`
`filing, Good Morning America’s “Cover Story” was a “new warning about the massively popular
`
`diet app Noom from the Better Business Bureau,” announcing that “customers have submitted well
`
`over a thousand complaints alleging that the company offers misleading free trials, and that
`
`subscriptions are difficult to cancel.” TAC ¶ 3. The BBB’s nationwide alert sums up this lawsuit,
`
`detailing that “consumers reportedly try to cancel the trial offer before it ends but still end up being
`
`billed for the subscription,” yet Noom refuses “to address the underlying cause” of customers’
`
`complaints. Id. For context, the BBB’s warning about Noom’s practices is found amongst its
`
`alerts on pyramid schemes, COVID-19 scams, fake charities, and identity theft.
`
`Then, a former Noom engineer provided Plaintiffs a whistleblower statement that offers an
`
`insider’s perspective, stating that “Noom made the cancellation process difficult by design so that
`
`many customers would be charged a nonrefundable autorenewal fee by failing to cancel in time or
`
`by failing to cancel at all because they didn’t realize the trial would automatically convert to a paid
`
`subscription at the end of the trial period.” TAC ¶ 43. The whistleblower describes more
`
`misconduct, including (i) how, when a payment processor put Noom on “final notice and
`
`probation” due to Noom’s high charge back rate, Defendant Petakov “devised a work-around: he
`
`announced that Noom would begin charging a small fee (e.g., $1) for the ‘free’ trial and then later
`
`charge customers for the autorenewal, which would double the number of total transactions, and
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 12 of 40
`
`in turn reduce the charge back rate by half;” (ii) how Noom shaved 24 hours off the trial period
`
`“so even customers who knew to track the deadline were getting converted and charged for
`
`subscription[;]” and (iii) how “Noom’s sign up flow was designed to mislead.” Id.
`
`Next, a leading expert in consumer psychology as applied to internet user experience,
`
`cognitive scientist Harry Brignull, PhD, conducted a preliminary analysis of Noom’s practices and
`
`concluded that Noom employs various deceptive designs in its sign-up and cancellation processes.
`
`Id. ¶ 44. Dr. Brignull’s analysis details the numerous instances of Noom’s use of “Dark
`
`Patterns”—i.e., deceptive system designs on websites and apps that prey on human cognitive
`
`processing frailties. Id. After engaging in extensive analysis, Dr. Brignull found that, at its core,
`
`Noom’s business model is based on the “Hidden Subscription Dark Pattern” by silently charging
`
`users a recurring fee under the pretense of a one-time trial. Id. ¶ 45. Noom augments this
`
`overarching scheme with numerous other Dark Pattern techniques, which manipulate consumers
`
`into being more likely to sign up for the service and less likely to understand the need to cancel,
`
`or to be able complete cancellation. Id. The TAC contains a detailed list of additional Dark
`
`Patterns used by Noom as well as Dr. Brignull’s preliminary conclusion that these Dark Patterns
`
`work together to exploit mental biases and create an environment in which a reasonable user (1)
`
`can become automatically enrolled in a recurring, non-refundable premium subscription as a result
`
`of signing up for the trial without any idea that they have done so; and/or (2) is unable (or unaware
`
`of the need) to cancel the trial, thereby contributing to Noom’s revenue stream. Id. ¶¶ 45–46.
`
`In response, Noom claims that “users, not to mention health experts, love Noom.” Defs.’
`
`Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (“Defs. Br.”) at 1, ECF No. 206. While discovery is
`
`still in its infancy, Noom’s internal documents tell a very different story. For example,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 13 of 40
`
`that “medical expelts“ agree Noom’s diet works.3 that Plaintiffs have misrepresented Noom‘s
`
`m
`
`'J"
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 14 of 40
`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 14 of 40
`
`internal data,4 that there are “serious questions as to what role Plaintiffs’ cormsel played” in one
`
`Plaintifl'joining this lawsuit.5 or Noom’s unsubstantiated claim of “dozens” of endorsements.
`
`Om‘ case is part of a decades-long effort by consumers and regulators to rid the marketplace
`
`of similar autorenewal scams.6 Recently, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra relied on Dr.
`
`Brignull’s work to send a message that it is illegal to “scam[] millions of dollars from families
`
`through dark patterns” by “making it extremely difficult to cancel recurring subscription fees.”7
`
`The Commissioner added that the autorenewal scams are simply “the online successor to decades
`
`of dirty dealing in direct mail marketing,” but “pose an even bigger menace than their paper
`
`precursors” because they are “not limited by physical constraints and costs.” and stressed that such
`
`conduct is “not only 1methical, but also illegal.” Supra n. 7 at 1.8
`
`The TAC alleges clear violations of consumer protection statues and state common law.
`
`Further, Your Honor emphasized at the pre-motion hearing that the Comt’s “reaction to the motion
`
`to dismiss” is that “there are claims that would survive” and that “from a practical point of View”
`
`
`
`We are quite disturbed that defense counsel continues to level this baseless claim. Defs.’ Br. 6. On October 16.
`2020. the parties addressed Judge Parker on this exact issue. and she concluded that “there’s no. no basis that I’ve
`heard of for that accusation at this point“ and that Plaintiffs had “offered to provide“ Ms. Deracleo‘s initial outreach
`email. which Judge Parker ordered that we “go ahead and provide[.]“ Hr’g Tr. 63: 1 1-19. Four days later. Plaintiffs
`produced this email and unsurprisingly have heard nothing from counsel about this issue in the last four months.
`6 See The FTC‘s recent crackdown on an identical autorenewal/hard to cancel scam: Press Release. Federal Trade
`
`Commission. Children’s Online Learning Program ABCmouse to Pay $10 Million to Settle FTC Charges of Illegal
`Marketing and Billing Practices (Sept. 2. 2020) httpszf/waw ftc. gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/09/c11ildrens-
`online-learning-pr0gram-abcmouse-pay- l 0-1nillion-settle.
`7 Statement of Rohit Chopra Regarding Dark Patterns in the Matter of Age of Learning. Inc.. at 1. September 2.
`2020.11ttpsz/fuwvw ftc. gov/system/tiles/documents/public_statements/1 5 7992 7/‘1 72_3086.pdf
`3 FTC guidance is applicable here because New York courts look to the FTC in assessing whether conduct is
`deceptive. See Genesco Entnl't 1‘. Koch. 593 F. Supp. 743. 752 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (“[I]n interpreting the phrase
`‘deceptive practices.’ the New York courts have in large measure relied on the [FTCA’s] definition of such
`practices"): Sports Traveler, Inc. 1‘. Advance Magajne Publishers, Inc. No. 96 Civ. 5150. 1997 WL 137443. at *2
`(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24. 1997) (“Because [GBL §] 349 is modeled after the [FTCA]. federal courts have interpreted the
`statute‘s scope [to include] the types of offenses to the public interest that would trigger [FTC] intervention .
`.
`. .”).
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 15 of 40
`
`there is little to be gained “[i]f we proceed with a motion to dismiss and whittle away at this or that
`
`in the complaint. . . .” Dec. 17, 2020, Hr’g Tr. 12:14-25, ECF No. 134. Faced with this reality,
`
`Noom chooses to cast aspersions and muddy the waters. But as set forth below, Noom has not
`
`provided adequate grounds to dismiss any claims in this case.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. NOOM’S REQUEST TO STRIKE THE TAC UNDER RULE 12(F) IS
`FACTUALLY, LEGALLY, AND PROCEDURALLY GROUNDLESS
`
`The TAC details how Noom’s trial period practices form a deceptive web that tricks
`
`
`
`consumers into paying for Noom’s full diet plan, and how each of the web’s many components
`
`foster unintended purchases. The TAC’s first 12 pages outline the web’s architecture followed by
`
`10 pages on Noom’s “dark patterns” and the discovery to date. Id. ¶¶ 1–24, 40–53. Next, the TAC
`
`groups the web’s components in three main subject areas: Noom’s marketing, id. ¶¶ 54–59,
`
`enrollment process, id. ¶¶ 60–81, and “coaching” program and cancellation process, id. ¶¶ 82–92,
`
`detailing each material misrepresentation and omission contained therein. Finally, the TAC
`
`describes in less than 15 pages (including six pages of publicly available complaints) the red flags
`
`showing Noom’s callous disregard of consumers. Id. ¶¶ 93–120. This easily hurdles Rule 8.
`
`
`
`Even though Noom’s own cited cases reaffirm that “[t]he Second Circuit . . . has
`
`emphasized that Rule 12(f) ‘is designed for excision of material from a pleading, not for dismissal
`
`of claims in their entirety,’” UPS Store, Inc. v. Hagan, 99 F. Supp. 3d 426, 442 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)
`
`(quoting Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807, 811 (2d Cir. 1992)), Noom seeks complete dismissal under
`
`Rule 12(f) because the Complaint is “so lengthy” Noom’s seven lawyers cannot “decipher the
`
`claims at issue.” Defs.’ Br. 9. This is silly. The TAC’s length stems from Noom’s December
`
`2020 feigned ignorance that Plaintiffs had only brought seven claims that did not cover Noom’s
`
`conduct in all US jurisdictions. See ECF No. 117 at 3. Judge Parker granted Plaintiffs’ amendment
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03677-LGS-KHP Document 244 Filed 03/20/21 Page 16 of 40
`
`request to remedy Noom’s supposed confusion, ECF No. 145, and we spelled out each count
`
`arising from Noom’s nationwide scheme. This is why of the TAC’s 187 pages, 116 are counts.
`
`Additionally, 24 pages are individual Plaintiff and class allegations, leaving only 47 pages
`
`outlining Noom’s wrongful conduct. That Noom’s nationwide scheme prompts a complex case is
`
`not grounds for dismissal. Indeed, even when courts dismiss under Rule 8, “they generally give
`
`the . . . leave to amend.” Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86–87 (2d Cir. 1995). Especially where,
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket