USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 1 of 211
`
`
`
`
`NO. 23-13156
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
` ________________________________________________________________________________
`ATHOS OVERSEAS LIMITED CORP.,
`Plaintiff/Appellant,
`v.
`YOUTUBE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, and
`GOOGLE, LLC,
`Defendants/Appellees.
`________________________________________________________________________________
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of Florida
`Case No. 1:21-cv-21698-DPG
`________________________________________________________________________________
`APPELLEES’ SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
`________________________________________________________________________________
`
`Jenea M. Reed, Esq.
`Jay B. Shapiro, Esq.
`STEARNS WEAVER MILLER
`WEISSLER ALHADEFF &
`SITTERSON, P.A.
`150 West Flagler Street,
`Suite 2200
`Miami, Florida 33130
`Telephone: (305) 789-3229
`Facsimile: (305) 789-3395
`
`
`
`Brian M. Willen, Esq.
`WILSON SONSINI
`GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`1301 Avenue of the Americas,
`40th Floor
`New York, New York 10019
`Telephone: (212) 999-5800
`Facsimile: (212) 999-5801
`
`Thomas R. Wakefield, Esq.
`Dylan J. Byrd, Esq.
`WILSON SONSINI
`GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`One Market Plaza, 33rd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Telephone: (415) 947-2000
`Facsimile: (415) 947-2099
`___________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 2 of 211
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 30-1(b), Defendant-Appellees Google LLC
`
`and YouTube, LLC respectfully submit this Supplemental Appendix, which
`
`is indexed with reference to the docket numbers corresponding to the
`
`district court docket sheet included in the Appendix of Appellant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tab
`14
`
`Document
`Defendants YouTube, Inc., YouTube, LLC, and Google
`LLC’s Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Memorandum of
`Law
`Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss
`Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Counts VII and
`XI From the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive
`Relief and Damages, Without Prejudice
`140-1 Declaration of Brian M. Willen in Support of Defendants’
`Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary
`Judgment
`Plaintiff’s Objections to Report and Recommendation on the
`Parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment
`184 Defendants YouTube, LLC and Google LLC’s Opposition to
`Plaintiff’s Objections to Report and Recommendation on the
`Parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment
`
`44
`
`80
`
`177
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 3 of 211
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
`ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
`150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
`Miami, Florida 33130
`Telephone: (305) 789-3229
`Facsimile: (305) 789-2664
`
`By: /s/ Jay B. Shapiro
`Jay B. Shapiro, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 776361
`jshapiro@stearnsweaver.com
`Jenea M. Reed, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 84599
`jreed@stearnsweaver.com
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI,
`P.C.
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 999-5800
`Facsimile: (212) 999-5801
`
`Brian M. Willen, Esq.
`bwillen@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Appellees
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 4 of 211
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 7th day of February 2024, I
`
`electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court
`
`using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served
`
`this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List via
`
`transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or by
`
`email.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jenea M. Reed
`JENEA M. REED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 5 of 211
`
`
`
`
`SERVICE LIST
`
`
`Rey Dorta, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 0084920
`Omar Ortega, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 0095117
`Rosdaisy Rodriguez, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 0112710
`DORTA & ORTEGA, P.A
`3860 SW 8th Street, PH
`Coral Gables, Florida 33134
`Telephone: (305) 461-5454
`Facsimile: (305) 461-5226
`oortega@dortaandortega.com
`rdorta@dortaandortega.com
`rrodriguez@dortaandortega.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 6 of 211
`
`
`TAB 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2021 Page 1 of 26
`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 7 of 211
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`MIAMI DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 1:21-cv-21698-DPG
`
`ATHOS OVERSEAS, LTD.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`YOUTUBE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, and
`GOOGLE, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`/
`
`DEFENDANTS YOUTUBE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, AND GOOGLE LLC’s
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
`ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
`150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
`Miami, Florida 33130
`Telephone: (305) 789-3229
`Facsimile: (305) 789-2664
`Jay B. Shapiro, Esq.
`David T. Coulter, Esq.
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI, P.C.
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, New York 10019
`Telephone: (212) 999-5800
`Facsimile: (212) 999-5801
`Brian M. Willen, Esq.
`(Pro Hac Vice forthcoming)
`Lucy Yen, Esq.
`(Pro Hac Vice forthcoming)
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`CASE NO. 1:21-CV-21698-DPG
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2021 Page 2 of 26
`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 8 of 211
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`YouTube and Its Content ID Tool .......................................................................... 3
`
`Plaintiff Athos Overseas and Its Claims Against YouTube .................................... 4
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 5
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED................................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Sherman Act and FDUTPA Claims Are Time-Barred (Counts XII &
`XIII) ........................................................................................................................ 5
`
`The Copyright Infringement and DMCA Claims Occurring Before May 3,
`2018 Are Time-Barred (Counts I through XI) ........................................................ 7
`
`III.
`
`PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE COGNIZABLE CLAIMS .............................................. 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Sherman Act Section 1 Claim (Count XIII) ..................... 9
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a FDUTPA Claim (Count XII) ......................................... 13
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Section 1202 Claim (Counts VII & XI) ......................... 15
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 18
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`-i-
`
`CASE NO. 1:21-CV-21698-DPG
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2021 Page 3 of 26
`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 9 of 211
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`49er Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.,
`803 F.2d 1463 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................10
`
`A&E Adventures LLC v. Intercard, Inc.,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57483 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2021) ........................................................14
`
`Am. Ass’n for Advancement of Sci. v. Periodicals Publicacoes Tecnicas,
`2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108104 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2008) .........................................................5
`
`Amey, Inc. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc.,
`758 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir. 1985) ...............................................................................................12
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...........................................................................................................15, 16
`
`Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.,
`495 U.S. 328 (1990) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Bray v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
`784 F. App’x 738 (11th Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................6, 7
`
`Brexendorf v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`319 F. Supp. 3d 1257 (M.D. Fla. 2018) .................................................................................6, 7
`
`Capital Temporaries, Inc. v. Olsten Corp.,
`506 F.2d 658 (2d Cir. 1974).....................................................................................................11
`
`Casa Dimitri Corp. v. Invicta Watch Co. of Am.,
`270 F. Supp. 3d 1340 (S.D. Fla. 2017) ....................................................................................15
`
`Chelko v. Does JF Rests., LLC,
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121590 (W.D.N.C. July 22, 2019) .....................................................16
`
`Design Pics v. PBH Network,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201169 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2020) ......................................................16
`
`Dolphin LLC v. WCI Cmtys., Inc.,
`715 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................................14
`
`Fin. Sec. Assurance, Inc. v. Stephens, Inc.,
`500 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................3
`
`Free Speech Sys., LLC v. Menzel,
`390 F. Supp. 3d 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................................16
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`-ii-
`CASE NO. 1:21-CV-21698-DPG
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2021 Page 4 of 26
`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 10 of 211
`
`Gen. Cigar Holdings, Inc. v. Altadis, S.A.,
`205 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (S.D. Fla. 2002) ....................................................................................11
`
`Gonsalvez v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.,
`750 F. 3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................6
`
`Greene v. Ala. Dep’t of Revenue,
`746 F. App’x 929 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2018) ...............................................................................5
`
`Hoeltzell v. Caldera Graphics,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175016 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2011) ........................................................8
`
`Hunter v. Bev Smith Ford, LLC,
`2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34982 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2008) ........................................................13
`
`Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.,
`547 U.S. 28 (2006) .....................................................................................................................9
`
`Integon Life Ins. Corp. v. Browning,
`989 F.2d 1143 (11th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................9
`
`Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int’l., Inc.,
`626 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................................11
`
`Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde,
`466 U.S. 2 (1984) .....................................................................................................................11
`
`JES Props., Inc. v. USA Equestrian, Inc.,
`2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43122 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2005) .........................................................13
`
`Jovine v. Abbott Labs., Inc.,
`795 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ....................................................................................14
`
`Keogh v. Big Lots Corp.,
`2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29496 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 27, 2006) ....................................................17
`
`L.H. Equity Invs. LLC v. Wade,
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150922 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2010) ......................................................11
`
`Licul v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am.,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171627 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2013) ......................................................6, 7
`
`Macias v. HBC of Fla., Inc.,
`694 So. 2d 88 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997) .................................................................................14
`
`Marlborough Holdings Grp., Ltd. v. Azimut-Benetti,
`505 Fed. App’x. 899 (11th Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................7
`
`Matthews v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90802 (S.D. Fla. June 6, 2012) ............................................................7
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`-iii-
`CASE NO. 1:21-CV-21698-DPG
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2021 Page 5 of 26
`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 11 of 211
`
`Merideth v. Chi. Tribune Co.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2346 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2014) ..............................................................17
`
`Metzler v. Bear Auto. Serv. Equip. Co., SPX,
`19 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 1998) ......................................................................................11
`
`On Top Records Corp. v. Sunflower Entm’t Co.,
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190970 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2015) ................................................................8
`
`Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 663 (2014) ...............................................................................................................1, 8
`
`Point Blank Sols., Inc. v. Toyobo Am., Inc.,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51457 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 2011) ........................................................14
`
`Q Club Resort & Residences Condo. Ass’n v. Q Club Hotel, LLC,
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147051 ...............................................................................................11
`
`QSGI, Inc. v. IBM Glob. Fin.,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49601 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 13, 2012) ........................................................13
`
`Raimbeault v. Accurate Mach. & Tool, LLC,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140313 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2014) .....................................................14
`
`Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.,
`836 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................5
`
`Satellite Fin. Planning Corp. v. First Nat. Bank of Wilmington,
`633 F. Supp. 386 (D. Del. 1986) ..............................................................................................10
`
`Shop & Save Food Markets, Inc. v. Pneumo Corp.,
`683 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1982).......................................................................................................11
`
`Siva v. Am. Bd. of Radiology,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3806 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2021) ..............................................................10
`
`Stevens v. CoreLogic, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................17
`
`Stripteaser, Inc. v. Strike Point Tacke, LLC,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28091 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2014) ..........................................................15
`
`Tomelleri v. Natale,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125264 (S.D. Fla. July 14, 2020) .........................................................8
`
`Viacom Int’l. Inc. v YouTube, Inc.,
`940 F. Supp. 2d 110 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)........................................................................................3
`
`Victor Elias Photography, LLC v. Ice Portal, Inc.,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86216 (S.D. Fla. May 3, 2021) ..........................................................17
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`-iv-
`CASE NO. 1:21-CV-21698-DPG
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2021 Page 6 of 26
`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 12 of 211
`
`Walker v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.,
`181 F. Supp. 3d 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)......................................................................................12
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq................................................................................................................ passim
`
`15 U.S.C. § 15(b) .............................................................................................................................6
`
`17 U.S.C. § 507(b) ...........................................................................................................................7
`
`17 U.S.C. § 1202(b) ............................................................................................................... passim
`
`17 U.S.C. § 1202(c) .......................................................................................................................15
`
`Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(f)......................................................................................................................6
`
`Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)..........................................................................................................1, 5, 12
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`-v-
`
`CASE NO. 1:21-CV-21698-DPG
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2021 Page 7 of 26
`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 13 of 211
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants YouTube, Inc.,
`YouTube, LLC, and Google LLC (“YouTube”) respectfully request that the Court dismiss
`Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`YouTube has developed—at great expense—various tools to help copyright holders find
`and, if they wish, remove content that third parties post to YouTube. Among those is Content ID,
`YouTube’s advanced video-fingerprinting system. Based on its dissatisfaction with conditions
`that YouTube allegedly attached to the use of Content ID in 2015, Plaintiff Athos Overseas, Ltd.
`(“Plaintiff”) asserts claims against YouTube for copyright infringement and violations of the
`Sherman Act, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), and Section
`1202(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter
`of law, and the Complaint should be dismissed for multiple reasons.
`First, Plaintiff’s Sherman Act and FDUTPA claims—both of which are governed by
`four-year statutes of limitations—are time-barred. Those claims are premised on discussions
`between YouTube and Plaintiff’s principal, Carlos Vasallo, during which YouTube allegedly
`conditioned Plaintiff’s access to Content ID on terms that Plaintiff found unreasonable. Those
`discussions are all alleged to have occurred, in their entirety, in 2015, and whatever claims
`Plaintiff might have based on YouTube’s offer fully accrued at that time. Yet Plaintiff
`indefensibly waited nearly six (6) years after its claims accrued to bring this lawsuit and assert its
`Sherman Act and FDUTPA claims. Plaintiff’s copyright claims are also untimely. The Copyright
`Act also has a strict limitations period—pursuant to which “an infringement is actionable within
`three years, and only three years, of its occurrence.” Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572
`U.S. 663, 671 (2014). Here, Plaintiff points to numerous alleged infringements and violations
`that occurred before that window, and the Complaint makes no effort to take account of the
`limitations period. It is not Defendants’ or the Court’s job to sort out what claims Plaintiff can
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`-1-
`
`CASE NO. 1:21-CV-21698-DPG
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2021 Page 8 of 26
`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 14 of 211
`
`actually assert within the Copyright Act’s lookback period. Instead, the Court should dismiss the
`copyright causes of action with instructions that Plaintiff may assert only such claims that
`accrued after May 3, 2018.
`Second, Plaintiff’s Sherman Act claim fails as a matter of law. The Complaint tries to
`concoct a “tying” claim based on conditions (a revenue sharing agreement and a release) that
`YouTube supposedly attached to Content ID. Even taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, they do
`not remotely amount to a viable Section 1 tying claim. A Section 1 tying claim requires
`allegations that, in order to buy one desirable product for which the defendant possessed market
`power (the “tying product”), the plaintiff was forced to purchase another undesirable one (the
`“tied product”), resulting in anti-competitive harm in the tied product market. But here the only
`product that YouTube supposedly offered is Content ID, which Plaintiff alleges is the “tied
`product.” Plaintiff fails to allege any separate “tying product”—instead, its sole allegation is that
`YouTube supposedly tied the use of Content ID to a revenue sharing agreement and a release.
`But those simply are not “products” sold by YouTube, much less products that are: (1) alleged to
`be desirable to Plaintiff; (2) capable of market definition or analysis; or (3) products for which
`YouTube possesses dominant market power. Instead, the release and revenue sharing agreement
`are simply unwanted contract terms, for which there is no conceivable cause of action for tying.
`Third, Plaintiff’s FDUTPA claim is based solely on the same deficient antitrust theory
`and must similarly be dismissed. Beyond that, Plaintiff lacks standing to sue under FDUTPA: the
`Complaint makes no allegation that YouTube’s allegedly unfair offer regarding Content ID
`inflicted any cognizable harm on Plaintiff that can be redressed under FDUTPA—nor could it—
`given that it paid nothing to YouTube.
`Fourth, Plaintiff’s claim under Section 1202(b) of the DMCA is deficient on its face. The
`Complaint does not identify any copyright management information (“CMI”) that YouTube
`supposedly removed from any video containing Plaintiff’s copyrighted works, let alone allege
`any facts to support a plausible inference that YouTube did so intentionally and with knowledge
`that doing so would facilitate copyright infringement.
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`-2-
`
`CASE NO. 1:21-CV-21698-DPG
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2021 Page 9 of 26
`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 15 of 211
`
`For all these reasons, YouTube respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s
`Complaint in its entirety.
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`YouTube and Its Content ID Tool
`
`YouTube is a popular online video hosting platform where content creators may upload
`videos free of charge, enabling its billions of users to view, share, and comment on them. See ¶¶
`6, 49, 56-59.1 YouTube is committed to helping copyright owners protect against the
`unauthorized use of their works on the service, and it has implemented numerous industry-
`leading initiatives toward this end. See ¶ 46. YouTube complies in all respects with the safe
`harbor provisions of the DMCA. See ¶ 25 (explaining YouTube’s process for removing
`infringing content: “[o]nce a pirated movie was found, Mr. Vasallo and Plaintiff would send
`YouTube a takedown notice. YouTube would then remove the pirated video movie in its
`entirety”); see also Viacom Int’l. Inc. v YouTube, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 110 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
`YouTube’s commitment also goes far beyond what the law requires. YouTube has
`invested substantial time and resources to develop Content ID, an advanced content
`identification system that uses digital fingerprinting technology to help identify copyrighted
`materials. See ¶¶ 17, 46; Ex. 1.2 Content ID enables the automatic blocking of videos matching
`the user’s copyrighted works and allows copyright holders to claim matching videos, collect
`associated advertisement revenue, and track the appearance of matching videos without revenue
`sharing. Ex. 1. YouTube also makes available additional free tools—including its robust
`takedown request system—allowing all users, including Plaintiff, to flag allegedly infringing
`content. Ex. 2 (“By default, the copyright takedown webform is available for everyone on
`YouTube to use.”); see ¶ 25.
`
`1 Citations to “¶ _” are to the Complaint.
`2 Citations to “Ex. _” are exhibits attached to the Declaration of Lucy Yen. The Complaint cites
`“YouTube’s own Help page” regarding Content ID to describe its claims against YouTube. ¶ 51.
`The Complaint thus incorporates the contents of the YouTube Help page as related to Content
`ID, which the Court may consider in ruling on this motion. Fin. Sec. Assurance, Inc. v. Stephens,
`Inc., 500 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007).
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`CASE NO. 1:21-CV-21698-DPG
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2021 Page 10 of 26
`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 16 of 211
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff Athos Overseas and Its Claims Against YouTube
`
`Plaintiff is a wholly owned company of Carlos Vasallo, a producer of Mexican and Latin
`American films. ¶ 1. Plaintiff claims to own the copyrights of a collection of such films. ¶¶ 1-4.
`Plaintiff asserts that for over six years now, unidentified third parties have uploaded clips or
`versions of some of those movies to YouTube. See ¶ 27.
`The Complaint alleges that Mr. Vasallo contacted YouTube in 2015 to discuss concerns
`about his “movie collection” appearing on YouTube. ¶ 9. More specifically, Plaintiff notes that
`he met with YouTube’s head of Hispanic content, Mr. Juanjo Duran. ¶¶ 12-14. During the
`meeting, Plaintiff claims that YouTube offered Mr. Vasallo the ability to use Content ID to
`streamline Plaintiff’s copyright-monitoring efforts. ¶¶ 16-17, 20. But Plaintiff declined
`YouTube’s offer (¶¶ 19, 21), according to the Complaint, because Mr. Vasallo believed that he
`was being offered “unreasonable” terms (¶ 22). More specifically, he alleges that YouTube
`conditioned Content ID on a requirement of the parties entering into a “revenue-sharing”
`arrangement and on a waiver of prior infringement claims. ¶¶ 18, 19. Plaintiff does not allege
`any discussions or communications with YouTube after 2015 regarding Content ID or any
`supposed offers regarding its availability.
`In the interim, Plaintiff has continued to take advantage of YouTube’s other (free)
`copyright management tools, including its notice-and-takedown system. Ex. 2; see ¶ 25; Compl.
`Ex. B. Plaintiff claims it regularly monitored YouTube for instances of allegedly unauthorized
`uploads of his works, and has used YouTube’s tools to successfully remove allegedly infringing
`videos from YouTube. Id.; see ¶¶ 46, 51; Compl. Ex. B. Plaintiff does not claim that YouTube
`failed to remove any of the videos that Plaintiff and its agents have identified as infringing.
`Instead, Plaintiff offers its belief that YouTube should be solely responsible for proactively
`flagging and removing content that might violate Plaintiff’s copyrights. See ¶ 53 (“[C]ompanies,
`such as Defendants, should be required to take reasonable steps to anticipate and filter potential
`copyright infringements.”).
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`-4-
`
`CASE NO. 1:21-CV-21698-DPG
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2021 Page 11 of 26
`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 17 of 211
`
`Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on May 3, 2021—nearly six years after the allegedly
`precipitating meeting. Plaintiff asserts a purported “tying” claim under Section 1 of the Sherman
`Act and a claim for unfair trade practices under FDUTPA based on YouTube’s alleged
`conditioning of Content ID on allegedly unacceptable terms. ¶¶ 183-207 (Counts XII & XIII).3
`Plaintiff also asserts various claims under the Copyright Act based on the alleged posting of
`certain copies of its works on YouTube. See, e.g., ¶¶ 137-147 (Count VII). And, based on cryptic
`allegations that YouTube removes unspecified “copyright management information,” Plaintiff
`asserts a claim under Section 1202(b) of the DMCA. ¶¶ 172-182 (Count XI).
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
` To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a
`complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ray v.
`Spirit Airlines, Inc., 836 F.3d 1340, 1347–48 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “To state a plausible claim for relief, a plaintiff must go beyond
`pleading merely the ‘sheer possibility’ of unlawful activity by a defendant and must offer
`‘factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
`for the misconduct alleged.’” Greene v. Ala. Dep’t of Revenue, 746 F. App’x 929, 930-31 (11th
`Cir. Sept. 5, 2018) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “When the allegations
`contained in a complaint are wholly conclusory and fail to set forth facts which, if proved, would
`warrant the relief sought, it is proper to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Am. Ass’n for
`Advancement of Sci. v. Periodicals Publicacoes Tecnicas, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108104, at *7
`(S.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2008) (citation omitted).
`II.
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED
`
`A.
`
`The Sherman Act and FDUTPA Claims Are Time-Barred (Counts XII &
`XIII)
`
`3 In an apparent scrivener’s error, Plaintiff has designated both its FDUTPA count (¶¶ 183-192)
`and its Sherman Act Section 1 count (¶¶ 193-207) as “Count XII.” We therefore refer to the
`Sherman Act count herein as Count XIII.
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`CASE NO. 1:21-CV-21698-DPG
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2021 Page 12 of 26
`USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 38 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 18 of 211
`
`Both the Sherman Act and FDUTPA are governed by four-year statutes of limitations. 15
`U.S.C. § 15(b) (Sherman Act); Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(f) (2018) (FDUTPA). Where a complaint
`reveals on its face it is untimely under the statute of limitations, its claims are subject to
`dismissal. See, e.g., Gonsalvez v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 750 F. 3d 1195, 1196-97 (11th Cir.
`2013); Bray v. Bank of Am. Corp., 784 F. App’x 738, 741-42 (11th Cir. 2019); Brexendorf v.
`Bank of Am., N.A., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1264 (M.D. Fla. 2018); Licul v. Volkswagen Grp. of
`Am., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171627, at *15 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2013). Plaintiff’s own allegations
`establish on their face that Plaintiff’s claims under these statutes accrued in 2015—nearly six full
`years before this lawsuit was filed on May 3, 2021—and thus are time-barred.
`Plaintiff’s Sherman Act and FDUTPA claims are based on the same theory: Plaintiff
`alleges that YouTube unlawfully conditioned access to its Content ID tool on the demand that
`Plaintiff share revenue associated with the presence of its works on YouTube, grant YouTube a
`license to those works, and release YouTube from any claims based on prior unauthorized
`postings. ¶¶ 188-91 (FDUTPA), 195-98 (Sherman Act); accord ¶¶ 17-21. That offer—which
`Plaintiff claims constituted “tying” under the Sherman Act and an unfair trade practice under
`FDUTPA—was allegedly communicated during a 2015 meeting between Mr. Vasallo (Plaintiff’s
`principal) and Mr. Duran (a YouTube representative). ¶¶ 11-19. The Complaint makes clear that,
`at the time of that 2015 meeting, Mr. Vasallo believed YouTube’s alleged proposals to be
`objectionable and unacceptable. ¶ 19. Indeed, given his unwillingness to use YouTube’s Content
`ID tool and his concerns about the terms proposed by YouTube, Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Vasallo
`promptly retained a law firm to address his concerns. ¶ 25.
`On its face, Plaintiff’s Complaint makes clear that the entirety of the discussions which