`
`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,
`
`