`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 1 of 76
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
`
`No. 21-7078
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`
`STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Defendant-Appellee.
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
`No. 1:20-cv-03589-JEB (Hon. James E. Boasberg)
`
`BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`
`MARK C. HANSEN
`AARON M. PANNER
`JULIUS P. TARANTO
`ALEX A. PARKINSON
`KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD,
` FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
`1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 326-7900
`mhansen@kellogghansen.com
`apanner@kellogghansen.com
`jtaranto@kellogghansen.com
`aparkinson@kellogghansen.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant-Appellee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`March 14, 2022
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 2 of 76
`
`
`CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES
`
`Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), Defendant-Appellee certifies as
`
`follows:
`
`A.
`
`Parties and Amici
`
`Appellants in this Court and Plaintiffs in the district court are State of New
`
`York, District of Columbia, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Florida,
`
`State of Iowa, State of Nebraska, State of North Carolina, State of Ohio, State of
`
`Tennessee, State of Alaska, State of Arizona, State of Arkansas, State of
`
`Connecticut, State of Delaware, Territory of Guam, State of Hawaii, State of
`
`Idaho, State of Illinois, State of Indiana, State of Kansas, Commonwealth of
`
`Kentucky, State of Louisiana, State of Maine, State of Maryland, Commonwealth
`
`of Massachusetts, State of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Mississippi,
`
`State of Missouri, State of Montana, State of Nevada, Commonwealth of
`
`Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Virginia, State of New Hampshire, State of New
`
`Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of North Dakota, State of Oklahoma, State of
`
`Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Texas, State of Utah, State of Vermont,
`
`State of Washington, State of West Virginia, State of Wisconsin, and State of
`
`Wyoming.
`
`Appellee in this Court and Defendant in the district court is Facebook, Inc.
`
`(now Meta Platforms, Inc.).
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 3 of 76
`
`
`
`After Appellants filed their opening brief on January 14, 2022 (Doc.
`
`1930765), the following entities and individuals appeared in this Court as amici
`
`curiae for Appellants:
`
` United States of America;
`
` American Antitrust Institute;
`
` Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws;
`
` Daron Acemoglu, Cristina Caffarra, Gregory S. Crawford, Tomaso Duso,
`
`Florian Ederer, Massimo Motta, Martin Peitz, Thomas Philippon, Nancy L.
`
`Rose, Robert Seamans, Hal J. Singer, Marshall Steinbaum, Joseph Stiglitz,
`
`Ted Tatos, Tommaso Valletti, and Luigi Zingales; and
`
` Lloyd Constantine, Harry First, Aaron Edlin, Andrew Chin, Andrew I.
`
`Gavil, Andrew Rossner, Anne Schneider, Barak Richman, Barak Y. Orbach,
`
`Charles G. Brown, Christopher L. Sagers, Dan Drachler, Darren Bush,
`
`Don Allen Resnikoff, Edward Cavanagh, Fox Eleanor, Ellen Cooper,
`
`George Sampson, James Tierney, Jeffrey L. Harrison, John B. Kirkwood,
`
`Joshua P. Davis, Kevin J. O’Connor, Marina L. Lao, Maurice Eitel Stucke,
`
`Norman W. Hawker, Pamela Jones Harbour, Paul F. Novak, Peter C.
`
`Carstensen, Rebecca Haw Allensworth, Robert Abrams, Robert H. Lande,
`
`Samuel N. Weinstein, Steven M. Rutstein, Susan Beth Farmer, Tam B.
`
`Ormiston, Thomas Greaney, Thomas J. Horton, and Warren S. Grimes.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 4 of 76
`
`
`B. Rulings Under Review
`
`The States appeal the Memorandum Opinion of the Honorable James E.
`
`Boasberg (Dkt. 137) (JA217-83) and accompanying Order (Dkt. 136) (JA216),
`
`both dated June 28, 2021, granting Defendant-Appellee Facebook, Inc.’s motion to
`
`dismiss and dismissing the case without leave to amend. The Memorandum
`
`Opinion (“Op.”) is reported at 549 F. Supp. 3d 6.
`
`C. Related Cases
`
`FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03590, pending before the United
`
`States District Court for the District of Columbia.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 5 of 76
`
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and D.C. Circuit
`
`Rule 26.1, Defendant-Appellee Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly known as
`
`Facebook, Inc.) submits the following corporate disclosure statement: Meta
`
`Platforms, Inc. has no parent corporation, and there is no publicly held corporation
`
`that owns 10% or more of its stock. Meta Platforms, Inc.’s general nature and
`
`purpose is to build useful and engaging products that enable people to connect and
`
`share through mobile devices, personal computers, virtual reality headsets, and
`
`in-home devices. Meta Platforms, Inc. generates substantially all its revenues from
`
`selling advertising placements.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 6 of 76
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED
`CASES ........................................................................................................................ i
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........................................................ iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. vii
`
`GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................. xv
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 3
`
`STATUTES ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Facebook’s Business ........................................................................................ 3
`
`Facebook’s Acquisitions .................................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`Instagram ............................................................................................... 4
`
`B. WhatsApp .............................................................................................. 5
`
`III. Facebook’s Platform Policies .......................................................................... 6
`
`IV. Procedural History ........................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The States and the FTC File Suit .......................................................... 9
`
`The District Court Grants Facebook’s Motion To Dismiss .................. 9
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 11
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 7 of 76
`
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 13
`
`I.
`
`The District Court Properly Held That Laches Bars The States’
`Claims ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Laches Applies to the States Suing Under § 16 .................................. 13
`
`The District Court Properly Applied Laches ...................................... 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The district court correctly found that the States
`unreasonably delayed bringing their claims ............................. 21
`
`The district court correctly found that the States’
`unreasonable delay would prejudice Facebook ........................ 24
`
`II.
`
`The District Court Properly Rejected The States’ Platform
`Claims ............................................................................................................ 30
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Facebook’s Alleged Platform Conduct Was Lawful .......................... 31
`
`Facebook’s Alleged Policies Were Not Unlawful
`“Conditional Dealing” ......................................................................... 41
`
`The States’ “Course of Conduct” and “Intent” Arguments
`Cannot Undermine the Lawfulness of Facebook’s
`Platform Policies ................................................................................. 46
`
`The District Court Correctly Found That No Remedy Is
`Available for Facebook’s Past Policy Enforcement ........................... 51
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 55
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`ADDENDUM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 8 of 76
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES*
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Aerotec Int’l, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 836 F.3d 1171
`(9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................... 50
`Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez,
`458 U.S. 592 (1982)................................................................................. 16, 17
`
`Antoine L. Garabet, M.D., Inc. v. Autonomous Techs. Corp.,
`116 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (C.D. Cal. 2000) ......................................................... 26
`
`* Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585
`(1985) .......................................................................................... 12, 31, 34, 35,
`36, 37, 38, 40, 46, 49
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................. 48, 49
`
`Bridgestone/Firestone Rsch., Inc. v. Automobile Club de L’Ouest de
`la France, 245 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................... 25
`Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
`509 U.S. 209 (1993)....................................................................................... 51
`* California v. American Stores Co., 495 U.S. 271 (1990) ................11, 13, 15, 18, 20
`Capruso v. Village of Kings Point, 16 N.E.3d 527 (N.Y. 2014) ............................. 18
`CarrAmerica Realty Corp. v. Kaidanow, 321 F.3d 165 (D.C. Cir.),
`opinion supplemented, 331 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ................................. 27
`City of Anaheim v. Southern California Edison Co., 955 F.2d 1373
`(9th Cir. 1992) ......................................................................................... 47, 48
`City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) ............................................. 52, 53
`Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943) .................................... 16
`Cohen v. Capital One Funding, LLC, 489 F. Supp. 3d 33
`(E.D.N.Y. 2020) ............................................................................................. 52
`
`
`* Authorities principally relied upon are designated by an asterisk (*).
`
`vii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 9 of 76
`
`
`Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690
`(1962) ............................................................................................................. 47
`Covad Commc’ns Co. v. Bell Atl. Corp., 407 F.3d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ............. 53
`Daingerfield Island Protective Soc’y v. Lujan, 920 F.2d 32
`(D.C. Cir. 1990) ....................................................................................... 12, 25
`
`Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc. v. Research In Motion Corp., 826 F. Supp.
`2d 705 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff’d, 486 F. App’x 186 (2d Cir. 2012) ................ 47
`Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Network Inc., 697 F.3d 1221
`(9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................... 22
`Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 2010 WL 3291750
`(N.D. Cal. July 20, 2010) ............................................................................... 38
`FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) ....................... 18
`Federal Home Loan Bank Bd. v. Elliott, 386 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1967) .............. 26, 27
`FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013) ............................................................... 44
`FTC v. Facebook, Inc.:
`
`--- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2021 WL 2643627 (D.D.C. June 28, 2021) ................ 9-10
`
`--- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2022 WL 103308 (D.D.C. Jan. 11, 2022) ....................... 10
`* FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................ 37, 40, 52
`G-Fees Antitrust Litig., In re, 584 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2008) ........................... 51
`Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159 (1942) ................................................................... 17
`Georgia v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 324 U.S. 439 (1945) ............................ 14, 15, 17
`* Ginsburg v. InBev NV/SA, 623 F.3d 1229 (8th Cir. 2010) .................... 22, 26, 29, 54
`Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) ............................................................... 20
`Guaranty Tr. Co. of New York v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938) ...... 16, 19, 20
`Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 405 U.S. 251 (1972) ............................. 16
`
`viii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 10 of 76
`
`
`Hot Wax, Inc. v. Turtle Wax, Inc., 191 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 1999) ............................ 25
`Illinois v. Kentucky, 500 U.S. 380 (1991) ................................................................ 19
`Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) ................................................... 17
`* IT&T Corp. v. General Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 518 F.2d 913
`(9th Cir. 1975) ................................................................................... 20, 24, 55
`
`Kaempe v. Myers, 367 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ................................................... 52
`Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.,
`677 F.2d 1045 (5th Cir. 1982) ....................................................................... 24
`Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best Lighting Prods., Inc.,
`
`796 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 24
`LePage’s Inc. v. 3M, 324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003) ............................................ 47, 48
`LiveUniverse, Inc. v. MySpace, Inc., 2007 WL 6865852 (C.D. Cal.
`June 4, 2007), aff’d, 304 F. App’x 554 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................ 38
`Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143 (1951) ..................................... 43
`Love v. Stevens, 207 F.2d 32 (D.C. Cir. 1953) ........................................................ 27
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) .............................................. 54
`Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) ........................................................... 28
`Massachusetts ex rel. Bellotti v. Russell Stover Candies, Inc.,
`
`541 F. Supp. 143 (D. Mass. 1982) ................................................................. 18
`McKinney v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 925 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1991) .............................. 28
`Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, 614 F.3d 519
`(D.C. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................... 13, 28
`Midwestern Mach. Co. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 392 F.3d 265
`(8th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................... 13, 23, 26
`
`Nebraska ex rel. Nelson v. Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive
`Waste Comm’n, 834 F. Supp. 1205 (D. Neb. 1993), aff’d,
`26 F.3d 77 (8th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................. 19
`
`ix
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 11 of 76
`
`
`New York v. Deutsche Telekom AG, 439 F. Supp. 3d 179
`(S.D.N.Y. 2020) ............................................................................................. 18
`New York v. Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 1030 (S.D.N.Y.),
`aff’d, 14 F.3d 590 (2d Cir. 1993) .................................................................. 13
`New York v. Microsoft Corp., 209 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D.D.C. 2002) ........................ 17
`* Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 731 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2013) ............... 32, 33, 35,
`36, 38, 43, 45
`Olympia Equip. Leasing Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 797 F.2d 370
`(7th Cir. 1986) ................................................................................... 34, 35, 40
`Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366 (1973) .................................. 44
`* Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. linkLine Commc’ns, Inc.,
`555 U.S. 438 (2009)................................................................................ 42, 43,
`
`47, 48, 50, 51
`Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., In re, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1079
`(S.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................................................................. 17
`Paine Lumber Co. v. Neal, 244 U.S. 459 (1917) ..................................................... 14
`Pennsylvania v. Kleppe, 533 F.2d 668 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ......................................... 15
`Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo:
`
`567 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2008), aff’d, 565 F.3d 880
`(D.C. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................. 27
`565 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ........................................................... 12, 13, 25
`
`Puerto Rico v. Carpenter Co., 442 F. Supp. 3d 464 (D.P.R. 2020) .................. 17, 19
`Reveal Chat Holdco, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 471 F. Supp. 3d 981
`(N.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................................................ 23
`Reveal Chat Holdco LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 2021 WL 1615349
`(N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2021), aff’d in part, dismissed in part
`sub nom. Reveal Chat HoldCo LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`2022 WL 595696 (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2022) .................................................... 23
`
`x
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 12 of 76
`
`
`Reveal Chat HoldCo LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2022 WL 595696
`(9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2022) ........................................................................... 23, 54
`Sambreel Holdings LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 906 F. Supp. 2d 1070
`(S.D. Cal. 2012) ............................................................................................. 37
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Panasonic Corp., 747 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2014) ................. 22
`Skinner v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 584 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ............ 54
`St. Luke’s Hosp. v. ProMedica Health Sys., Inc., 8 F.4th 479
`(6th Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................... 36
`State ex. rel. Miller v. Vertrue, Inc., 834 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 2013) .......................... 18
`Steves & Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc., 988 F.3d 690 (4th Cir. 2021) .................. 26
`Taleff v. Southwest Airlines Co., 828 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (N.D. Cal.
`2011), aff’d, 554 F. App’x 598 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................ 22, 25-26
`Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007) ......................... 46
`United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316 (1961) .................. 29
`United States v. Hunt, 843 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ............................................. 8
`United States v. Letter from Alexander Hamilton, 15 F.4th 515
`(1st Cir. 2021), cert. denied, No. 21-990 (U.S. Mar. 7, 2022) ...................... 19
`United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ........... 29, 43, 44, 50
`United States v. Mottolo, 605 F. Supp. 898 (D.N.H. 1985) ..................................... 19
`United States v. Stover, 329 F.3d 859 (D.C. Cir. 2003) .................................... 21, 30
`United States Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass’n,
`140 S. Ct. 1837 (2020) ................................................................................... 20
`
`* Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP,
`540 U.S. 398 (2004)............................................. 2, 12, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,
`37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 48, 49, 50
`Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., 951 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2020),
`cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2877 (2021) ............................................ 33, 35, 37, 40
`
`xi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 13 of 76
`
`
`Washington v. LG Elecs., Inc., 375 P.3d 636 (Wash. 2016) .................................... 18
`Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wrights Mill Holdings, LLC,
`127 F. Supp. 3d 156 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ............................................................. 8
`
`Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ........................... 51, 53
`Zuckerman v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 928 F.3d 186
`(2d Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................. 27
`
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12 et seq. .................................................... 1, 9, 11, 13, 24
`
`§ 4B, 15 U.S.C. § 15b .................................................................................... 17
`
`§ 4C(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 15c(a)(1) .................................................................. 17
`
`§ 7, 15 U.S.C. § 18 ................................................................................. 1, 9, 24
`
`§ 16, 15 U.S.C. § 26 ............................................................1, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14,
`15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23
`Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
`Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. ........................................... 19
`42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A) ............................................................................. 19
`
`Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq. ........................................... 9
`
`§ 13(b), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) ............................................................................... 9
`Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, Pub. L. No.
`94-435, 90 Stat. 1383 ....................................................................................... 5
`Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. .................................................................... 24
`National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. ................. 25
`Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. ................................................................ 1, 9, 14
`
`§ 2, 15 U.S.C. § 2 .............................................. 1, 9, 12, 13, 30, 31, 34, 47, 50
`D.D.C. LcvR 40.5(c)(2) ............................................................................................. 9
`
`xii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 14 of 76
`
`
`LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`51 Cong. Rec. (Sept. 1, 1914):
`
`p. 14,514 ........................................................................................................ 14
`
`pp. 14,514-27 ................................................................................................. 14
`
`OTHER MATERIALS
`29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 95 .................................................................................... 8
`Br. for United States and FTC as Amici Curiae, Verizon Commc’ns
`Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398
`(2004), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/
`2002/01/01/2002-0682.mer.ami.pdf .............................................................. 40
`Br. for United States as Amicus Curiae, Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/
`files/osg/briefs/2006/01/01/2005-1126.mer.ami.pdf ..................................... 48
`Br. of United States as Amicus Curiae, FTC v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020), https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-
`document/file/1199191/download ........................................................... 40-41
`Br. for United States as Amicus Curiae, Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v.
`linkLine Commc’ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009), https://www.
`justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/2008/01/01/2007-
`0512.mer.ami.pdf ........................................................................................... 40
`Br. for United States as Amicus Curiae, Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast
`Corp., 951 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2020), https://www.justice.gov/
`atr/case-document/file/1110056/download ................................................... 41
`Daniel A. Crane, Does Monopoly Broth Make Bad Soup?,
`76 Antitrust L.J. 663 (2010) .......................................................................... 47
`eBay Developers Program, eBay Developers Program Terms of Use
`and API License Agreement, https://developer.ebay.com/
`products/license ........................................................................................... 7-8
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 15 of 76
`
`
`Etsy, API Terms of Use, https://www.etsy.com/developers/terms-of-use ................. 8
`Flickr, Flickr APIs Terms of Use, https://www.flickr.com/help/terms/api ............... 8
`Douglas H. Ginsburg & Koren Wong-Ervin, Challenging
`Consummated Mergers Under Section 2, Geo. Mason Univ. L.
`& Econ. Paper No. 20-14 (May 2020), https://bit.ly/3wPRpnx .................... 47
`Mem. Amicus Curiae of United States, New York v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 98-1233 (D.D.C. Apr. 15, 2002), https://bit.ly/3fJDlVw ................. 14, 15
`Slack, Slack API Terms of Service, https://slack.com/terms-of-
`service/api ........................................................................................................ 8
`5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
`Procedure (3d ed. 2004) ................................................................................ 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 16 of 76
`
`
`
`GLOSSARY
`
`
`
`API
`
`CERCLA
`
`
`
`DOJ
`
`FTC
`
`FTC Dkt.
`
`
`NEPA
`
`
`Op.
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Programming Interface
`
`Comprehensive Environmental Response,
`Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980,
`42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.
`
`U.S. Department of Justice
`
`Federal Trade Commission
`
`District Court Docket in FTC v. Meta
`Platforms, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03590 (D.D.C.)
`
`National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
`42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
`
`Memorandum Opinion, State of New York, et
`al. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03589-JEB
`(D.D.C. June 28, 2021) (Dkt. 137) (JA217-83)
`
`xv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 17 of 76
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`State Attorneys General brought a three-count antitrust complaint against
`
`Facebook (now Meta Platforms, Inc.),1 based on conduct that ceased years ago.
`
`Two of the counts (under § 7 of the Clayton Act) depend entirely – and one count
`
`(under § 2 of the Sherman Act) depends in part – on the claim that the acquisitions
`
`of Instagram (in 2012) and WhatsApp (in 2014) violated the antitrust laws at the
`
`time they were completed. The remaining allegations supporting the § 2 claim
`
`relate to Facebook’s management of its “Platform,” a changing set of application
`
`programming interfaces used by developers seeking to take advantage of access to
`
`Facebook’s network of users. The conduct supporting that aspect of the States’
`
`complaint took place no later than 2016 (most earlier), and the States
`
`acknowledged that “Facebook announced the retraction” of the challenged
`
`Platform policy in 2018. Dkt. 122, at 13.
`
`The district court correctly dismissed these stale claims. First, the States’
`
`acquisition challenges are untimely. The States seek injunctive relief as “person[s]”
`
`under § 16 of the Clayton Act; because Congress did not designate the states as
`
`sovereign enforcers of federal antitrust law, they, like all non-federal parties, may
`
`
`1 Because the events at issue took place long before the name change, we
`refer to the company as “Facebook.”
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 18 of 76
`
`
`not unreasonably delay bringing claims. Where, as here, they do so to the
`
`defendant’s evident prejudice, their claims are barred by laches.
`
`Second, the district court also correctly determined that the written Platform
`
`policies (no longer in effect) were lawful under Supreme Court precedent.
`
`Facebook had the right to refuse to help firms that sought to use Facebook’s data in
`
`ways that threatened to reduce users’ engagement with Facebook. The resulting
`
`“condition” on access to Platform involved no illegitimate interference with
`
`developers’ independent efforts to compete with Facebook or to deal with
`
`Facebook’s competitors. The complaint’s allegations regarding seven challenged
`
`applications of the policy (five in 2013, two in 2015-2016) likewise do not squeeze
`
`into any narrow exception that remains to the general no-duty-to-deal rule affirmed
`
`in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S.
`
`398 (2004). And, in any event, the district court correctly held that claims
`
`regarding long-ago applications of the former policy stated no cognizable claim
`
`because the States did not allege that injunctive relief could plausibly remedy
`
`discrete incidents that occurred and ended years ago.
`
`The States’ arguments on appeal cast no doubt on the district court’s
`
`decision to dismiss these claims. This Court should affirm.
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 19 of 76
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1. Whether laches bars the States’ antitrust claims seeking equitable
`
`relief based on acquisitions that occurred more than four years prior to filing.
`
`2. Whether the district court correctly dismissed as legally deficient the
`
`States’ antitrust claim relating to Facebook’s Platform policies and enforcement.
`
`STATUTES
`
`
`
`Except for the statutory provisions set forth in the addendum to this brief, all
`
`pertinent statutes have been reproduced in the addendum to Appellants’ opening
`
`brief.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`I.
`
`Facebook’s Business
`
`Facebook offers millions of U.S. consumers access to free, innovative
`
`products that provide “an important forum” for communicating, including by
`
`sharing and consuming content such as messages, “photos and videos.” JA45
`
`(¶¶ 1-2). Rather than charge for these services, Facebook sells advertising. JA56
`
`(¶ 48). Facebook’s success therefore depends on offering a compelling experience
`
`that “convinces users to spend [time] engaging on Facebook services.” JA45 (¶ 3).
`
`Facebook operates in constant “fear that the company has fallen behind in
`
`important new segments and that emerging firms” are “competitive with Facebook
`
`and could be very disruptive” to its business. JA46 (¶ 5) (quotation omitted).
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1939018 Filed: 03/14/2022 Page 20 of 76
`
`
`
`Facebook succeeds when consumers are “enamored with the platform.”
`
`JA59 (¶ 63). That requires Facebook to invest continuously in developing
`
`“innovative features” that “make Facebook a more desirable place for users to
`
`connect and share.” JA61 (¶¶ 73-74) (quotation omitted). Any app “could deploy
`
`an attractive new feature” and thereby “grow quickly” and “displace Facebook.”
`
`JA68 (¶ 101). In the years since Facebook started in a dorm room, scores of
`
`services competing for user time and attention have emerged and grown, including
`
`iMessage, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube – to name just a few. JA52-
`
`53, 64 (¶¶ 35, 37, 85).
`
`II.
`
`Facebook’s Acquisitions
`A.
`
`Instagram
`
`In April 2012, Facebook announced an agreement to acquire Insta