throbber
Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 59 Filed 05/16/22 Page 1 of 30
`
`The Honorable Richard A. Jones
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`AMAZON.COM, INC.’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`July 22, 2022
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, CHRISTIAN
`SABOL, SAMANTHIA RUSSELL, ARTHUR
`SCHAREIN, LIONEL KEROS, NATHAN
`CHANEY, CHRIS GULLEY, SHERYL
`TAYLOR-HOLLY, ANTHONY COURTNEY,
`DAVE WESTROPE, STACY DUTILL,
`SARAH ARRINGTON, MARY ELLIOT,
`HEATHER GEESEY, STEVE MORTILLARO,
`CHAUNDA LEWIS, ADRIAN HENNEN,
`GLENDA R. HILL, GAIL MURPHY,
`PHYLLIS HUSTER, and GERRY
`KOCHENDORFER, on behalf of themselves
`and all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`Defendant.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 59 Filed 05/16/22 Page 2 of 30
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
`BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`The Court’s Ruling on Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
`Complaint .............................................................................................................. 4
`The Second Amended Complaint’s Theories of Liability .................................... 4
`B.
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 6
`I.
`Plaintiffs Have Not Cured the First Amended Complaint’s Standing Defects. ................ 6
`A.
`Plaintiffs Fail to Satisfy the Requirements for Co-Conspirator Standing............. 6
`B.
`Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Assert Claims Based on Purchases from Non-
`Conspiring Sellers under an Umbrella Theory. .................................................. 12
`Plaintiffs Lack Article III Standing to Assert Claims Based on Purchases
`from Third-Party Sellers from Whom Plaintiffs Did Not Purchase. .................. 15
`Plaintiffs’ Attempt to Revive Their Sherman Act, Section 1 Per Se Claims Fails. ........ 17
`Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act, Section 2 Claims Fail to Allege Anticompetitive Conduct
`Because the Fair Pricing Policy’s Plain Language Contradicts Plaintiffs’
`Allegations. ..................................................................................................................... 19
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege that Each Third-Party Seller Has Market Power and Each
`of the Alleged Vertical Conspiracies Resulted in Anticompetitive Effects. ................... 21
`Plaintiffs’ Cartwright Act Claim Fails for the Same Reasons Their Claims Under
`the Sherman Act Fail. ..................................................................................................... 23
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 24
`
`C.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO DISMISS (2:20-CV-00424-RAJ) - i
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 59 Filed 05/16/22 Page 3 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`2238 Victory Corp. v. Fjallraven USA Retail, LLC,
`2021 WL 76334 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2021) ................................................................................18
`
`In re Abbott Labs. Norvir Anti-Trust Litig.,
`2007 WL 1689899 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2007) .........................................................................15
`
`In re Am. Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litig.,
`19 F.4th 127 (2d Cir. 2021) ...............................................................................................13, 14
`
`Antoine L. Garabet, M.D., Inc. v. Autonomous Techs. Corp.,
`116 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (C.D. Cal. 2000) .............................................................................14, 15
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................20
`
`Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters,
`459 U.S. 519 (1983) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`In re ATM Antitrust Fee Litig.,
`686 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................6, 10, 11, 12
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................20
`
`Broad. Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc.,
`441 U.S. 1 (1979) .....................................................................................................................18
`
`In re Cipro Cases I & II,
`61 Cal. 4th 116 (2015) .............................................................................................................23
`
`Cont’l T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.,
`433 U.S. 36 (1977) ...................................................................................................................18
`
`In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig.,
`691 F.2d 1335 (9th Cir. 1982) .......................................................................................9, 10, 14
`
`Costco Wholesale Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
`2014 WL 4723880 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 23, 2014) ....................................................................14
`
`Dickson v. Microsoft Corp.,
`309 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................21, 22
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO DISMISS (2:20-CV-00424-RAJ) - ii
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 59 Filed 05/16/22 Page 4 of 30
`
`In re Ditropan XL Antitrust Litig.,
`2007 WL 2978329 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2007)............................................................................9
`
`Edifecs Inc v. TIBCO Software, Inc.,
`756 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (W.D. Wash. 2010) ...............................................................................19
`
`Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`2021 WL 4128925 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2021) ........................................................................23
`
`In re EpiPen Direct Purchaser Litig.,
`2022 WL 1017770 (D. Minn. Apr. 5, 2022) ......................................................................21, 22
`
`FTC v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`62 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 1999) .............................................................................................15
`
`Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.,
`955 F. Supp. 242 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ..........................................................................................14
`
`Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp.,
`392 U.S. 481 (1968) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Harkins Amusement Enters., Inc. v. Gen. Cinema Corp.,
`850 F.2d 477 (9th Cir.1988) ......................................................................................................8
`
`Ill. Brick Co. v. Illinois,
`431 U.S. 720 (1977) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Ixchel Pharma., LLC v. Biogen,
`9 Cal.5th 1130 (2020) ..............................................................................................................23
`
`Jain Irrigation, Inc. v. Netafim Irrigation, Inc.,
`386 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (E.D. Cal. 2019)....................................................................................23
`
`Jones v. Micron Tech. Inc.,
`400 F. Supp. 3d 897 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ...............................................................................14, 16
`
`Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens,
`546 F.3d 580 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................20
`
`Leeder v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors,
`2022 WL 1307100 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 2022) .............................................................................11
`
`Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.,
`551 U.S. 877 (2007) .................................................................................................................18
`
`Lenhoff Enters., Inc. v. United Talent Agency,
`2015 WL 7008185 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2015) ......................................................................7, 8
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO DISMISS (2:20-CV-00424-RAJ) - iii
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 59 Filed 05/16/22 Page 5 of 30
`
`Marion Diagnostics Ctr., LLC v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,
`29 F.4th 337 (7th Cir. 2022) ..............................................................................................16, 17
`
`In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig.,
`127 F. Supp. 2d 728 (D. Md. 2001), aff’d, 309 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2002) .................................9
`
`Mid-West Paper Prods. Co. v. Cont’l Grp., Inc.,
`596 F.2d 573 (3d Cir. 1979).....................................................................................................14
`
`Monoper v. Boeing Co.,
`104 F. Supp. 3d 1170 (W.D. Wash. 2015) ...............................................................................19
`
`In re Nat’l Football League’s Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig.,
`933 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................6
`
`NCAA v. Alston,
`141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021) .............................................................................................................18
`
`Nelsen v. King Cty.,
`895 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................15
`
`NorthBay Healthcare Grp., Inc. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,
`2017 WL 5059299 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2017) ...........................................................................8
`
`Oliver v. Am. Express Co.,
`2020 WL 2079510 (E.D.N.Y. 2020)........................................................................................14
`
`In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litig.,
`2011 WL 1629663 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011) .........................................................................14
`
`Paladin Assocs. v. Mont. Power Co.,
`328 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2003) ...............................................................................................7, 8
`
`Rebel Oil, Inc. v. Atl. Richfield Co.,
`51 F.3d 1421 (9th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Sonterra Capital Master Fund Ltd. v. Barclays,
`366 F. Supp.3d 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).......................................................................................12
`
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins,
`578 U.S. 330 (2016) .............................................................................................................7, 15
`
`Staley v. Gilead Scis. Inc.,
`2022 WL 1158006 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2022) ...........................................................................7
`
`Stanislaus Food Prods. Co. v. USS-Posco Indus.,
`2010 WL 3521979 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ..........................................................................................9
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO DISMISS (2:20-CV-00424-RAJ) - iv
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 59 Filed 05/16/22 Page 6 of 30
`
`Terminalift, LLC v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 29,
`2013 WL 215479 (S.D. Cal. May 17, 2013) ..............................................................................8
`
`In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig.,
`2001 WL 855463 (D.D.C. July 2, 2001)..................................................................................14
`
`Statutes
`
`Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 ................................................................................................... passim
`
`Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 ................................................................................................... passim
`
`Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16700–16770 ........................................................5, 23
`
`D.C. Code § 28-4102 .....................................................................................................................20
`
`Idaho Code § 48-603(19) ...............................................................................................................20
`
`Iowa Admin. Code r. 61-31.1(714) ................................................................................................20
`
`La. Stat. Ann. § 29.732 ..................................................................................................................20
`
`Mo. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 60-8.030(1)(B)–(C).............................................................................20
`
`N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-38(a) .............................................................................................................20
`
`Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.46(b)(27)................................................................................20
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO DISMISS (2:20-CV-00424-RAJ) - v
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 59 Filed 05/16/22 Page 7 of 30
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) continues to challenge policies that
`promote low competitive prices for consumers shopping in Amazon’s store. The antitrust laws
`encourage such policies, rather than condemn them. Mindful of the Court’s prior ruling on its
`motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Amazon does not seek to reargue points
`the Court decided. Instead, Amazon moves to dismiss the SAC because Plaintiffs lack standing to
`assert their antitrust claims for reasons the Court did not previously reach, and because the plain
`language of Amazon’s Marketplace Fair Pricing Policy, which the Court did not previously
`consider, contradicts the core allegations that form the basis for Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court
`should dismiss the SAC for the following reasons:
`First, Plaintiffs lack standing. In prior briefing, Plaintiffs treated co-conspirator and
`umbrella standing theories as if they were interchangeable and did not clearly distinguish between
`those Plaintiffs who purchased from third-party sellers who sell in Amazon’s store—the sellers
`Plaintiffs label as “co-conspirators”1—and those who purchased from other online retailers.
`Dkt. 19 at 5–7. The SAC makes clear that many of the purchases on which Plaintiffs’ claims
`depend were from retail stores such as Walmart, Target, Costco, REI, and CVS that sell online,
`but do not sell in Amazon’s store. Because these sellers are not even alleged to be antitrust “co-
`conspirators,” antitrust standing to assert claims based on purchases from these sellers cannot be
`based on a co-conspirator theory and must be analyzed separately. But whether Plaintiffs’ claims
`are based on purchases from alleged conspiring or non-conspiring sellers, Plaintiffs lack antitrust
`standing.
`For claims based on purchases from alleged co-conspirator sellers, Plaintiffs have failed to
`satisfy the requirements for antitrust standing based on a co-conspirator theory because, among
`other things, they have not joined the alleged “co-conspirator” sellers as defendants, as Ninth
`
`1 To be clear, no evidence supports Plaintiffs’ allegation that the almost two million sellers in Amazon’s
`store, selling hundreds of millions of different products ranging from lotions to staplers to spark plugs, are
`Amazon’s “co-conspirators.” But even accepting that allegation as true for purposes of this motion,
`Plaintiffs still do not have antitrust standing.
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO DISMISS (2:20-CV-00424-RAJ) - 1
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 59 Filed 05/16/22 Page 8 of 30
`
`Circuit law requires. In addition, the claims in the SAC based on purchases from alleged co-
`conspirator sellers rest on a pass-on theory of liability, alleging that the fees and commissions that
`Amazon charges third-party sellers for offering products in Amazon’s store are “baked into the
`prices” that third-party sellers charge when selling outside Amazon’s store as a result of the former
`parity provision and the Fair Pricing Policy. SAC ¶ 125. Ninth Circuit law does not permit co-
`conspirator standing based on a pass-on theory of liability because of the unacceptable risk of
`duplicative recovery that would arise if the alleged co-conspirators later brought claims of their
`own and succeeded in proving they were not co-conspirators.
`Plaintiffs’ claims based on purchases from sellers not alleged to be co-conspirators—online
`sellers like Walmart, Target, Costco, REI, and CVS, and the countless other sellers that sell
`products online—violate the bright-line rule that only direct purchasers of an alleged antitrust
`violator have antitrust standing. To get around this rule, Plaintiffs have argued that they have
`antitrust standing based on an umbrella theory—that is, the policies that govern sales in Amazon’s
`store supposedly created a price umbrella that caused consumers to pay higher prices outside
`Amazon’s store, even on purchases from sellers not alleged to be co-conspirators. Dkt. 19 at 6.
`In addition to alleging injury unprecedented in scope across the entire internet and affecting nearly
`every product sold there, this theory is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent because there
`is no direct causal connection between the policies that govern sales in Amazon’s store and the
`independent pricing decisions of Walmart, Target, Costco, REI, and CVS, and the countless other
`online sellers that do not sell in Amazon’s store. Moreover, Plaintiffs lack both Article III and
`antitrust standing to sue based on purchases of products from sellers other than the sellers from
`which Plaintiffs purchased.
`Second, Plaintiffs’ new allegations in the SAC regarding the Fair Pricing Policy are
`implausible because they contradict the plain language of that policy and what it requires. Even
`on a motion to dismiss, the Court should not accept as true allegations that contradict the policy’s
`plain language. The language of Amazon’s Fair Pricing Policy itself belies the SAC’s allegations
`that the policy prohibits lower prices outside Amazon’s store. Amazon’s Fair Pricing Policy
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO DISMISS (2:20-CV-00424-RAJ) - 2
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 59 Filed 05/16/22 Page 9 of 30
`
`prohibits “Setting a price on a product or service that is significantly higher than recent prices
`offered on or off Amazon.” By its terms, the policy permits sellers in Amazon’s store to offer
`lower prices outside Amazon’s store; what it prohibits is price gouging in Amazon’s store by
`sellers offering products at “significantly higher” prices than recent prices on and off Amazon.
`And nothing in the policy requires third-party sellers to add Amazon fees to the cost of their
`products when they sell outside Amazon’s store; if sellers can charge lower prices to consumers,
`then the policy does not prevent them from doing so. There is nothing illegal about a policy that
`prohibits price gouging (as many state laws do), and Plaintiffs’ conclusory assertions to the
`contrary are not enough to survive dismissal.
`Third, the Court should dismiss the SAC because it fails to allege market power or
`anticompetitive effects. Because Plaintiffs’ claims are based on allegations of almost two million
`separate vertical conspiracies relating to the pricing of hundreds of millions of different products
`(again, the SAC’s reach is unprecedented in scope), Plaintiffs must allege facts suggesting that
`each alleged conspiratorial agreement between Amazon and a third-party seller is likely to result
`in an anticompetitive effect. To do so requires alleging that each third-party seller has market
`power to bring about such effect—otherwise, the effects that Plaintiffs purport to condemn could
`not be the result of any “conspiracy.” Plaintiffs fail to allege that any of the third-party sellers
`have market power or that any of the agreements they challenge—let alone all of them—had an
`anticompetitive effect.
`Finally, Plaintiffs’ re-pleaded claims alleging a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
`Act and the California Cartwright Act continue to fail for the reasons this Court has held. The
`policies that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims relate to a vertical relationship, not a horizontal
`one. Plaintiffs lack any authority to say that policies such as those at issue in this case would fall
`into one of the narrow categories subject to per se prohibition. Any antitrust claims directed at
`such policies, whether under federal or state law, must be analyzed under the rule of reason.
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO DISMISS (2:20-CV-00424-RAJ) - 3
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 59 Filed 05/16/22 Page 10 of 30
`
`A.
`
`BACKGROUND
`The Court’s Ruling on Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
`Complaint
`The Court granted in part and denied in part Amazon’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First
`Amended Complaint. The Court held:
` Plaintiffs have antitrust standing to pursue claims “as direct purchasers of alleged
`antitrust co-conspirators,” Dkt. 48 at 8;
` Plaintiffs failed to state a per se Sherman Act, Section 1 claim because the former
`parity provision and the Fair Pricing Policy govern vertical—not horizontal—
`relationships and, to the extent there are vertical and horizontal aspects to the
`relationship between Amazon and third-party sellers in Amazon’s store, those
`hybrid relationships are subject to the rule of reason, id. at 11–13; and
` Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act, Section 2 monopolization and attempted monopolization
`claims were viable because the Fair Pricing Policy allegedly “requires sellers to add
`Amazon’s fees to the cost of their products when they sell them on all external
`platforms,” id. at 20.
`The Court also dismissed all state-law claims for failure to allege sufficient facts to establish the
`elements of each claim. Id. at 24 & n.3. The Court allowed Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended
`Complaint to address the pleading deficiencies the Court identified. Id. at 25–26.
`Because the Court’s decision on antitrust standing addressed only a subset of Plaintiffs’
`claims, Amazon filed a motion for clarification or reconsideration. Dkt. 51. Amazon’s motion
`was pending when Plaintiffs filed the SAC.
`
`The Second Amended Complaint’s Theories of Liability
`B.
`The SAC centers on two Amazon policies. The first is a provision that Amazon removed
`from its Business Services Agreement in March 2019 prohibiting sellers from discriminating
`against Amazon customers by setting higher prices or worse terms in Amazon’s store than sellers
`set for customers in other stores. Rummage Decl., Ex. A. The second is Amazon’s Fair Pricing
`Policy prohibiting sellers from price gouging customers in Amazon’s store. The policy provides
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO DISMISS (2:20-CV-00424-RAJ) - 4
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 59 Filed 05/16/22 Page 11 of 30
`
`that, if Amazon sees pricing practices that “harm customer trust,” including a third-party seller
`offering a product at a price “significantly higher than recent prices offered on or off Amazon,”
`Amazon “can remove the Buy Box, remove the offer, suspend the ship option, or, in serious or
`repeated cases, suspending or terminating selling privileges.” Id., Ex. B. The policy references
`recent market prices generally—not the specific prices charged by the third-party sellers in other
`stores.2
`
`The SAC contains amended allegations describing the named Plaintiffs, consumers who
`shop for retail products—ranging from staplers to tomato seeds to robot vacuums—from different
`retailers. SAC ¶¶ 66–86. Although Plaintiffs all shop in Amazon’s store, they base their claims
`entirely on purchases from other online retailers, many of whom are not alleged to be Amazon
`third-party sellers and therefore not alleged co-conspirators. Id. ¶ 54. For example, Plaintiff Sheryl
`Taylor-Holly bases her claims on her purchase of a stapler from Walmart, id. ¶ 73; Plaintiff
`Anthony Courtney bases his claims on a backpack he purchased from Fingerhut, id. ¶ 74; and
`Plaintiff Dave Westrope bases his claims on spark plugs he bought from a seller on eBay, id. ¶ 75.
`Walmart, Fingerhut, and eBay are not alleged to be third-party sellers in Amazon’s store; Plaintiffs
`expressly allege that their claims are “not limited to the third-party sellers’ sales.” Id. ¶ 59.
`Plaintiffs have also tried to re-plead a per se antitrust violation under the Sherman Act, id.
`¶¶ 224–235, and a claim under California’s Cartwright Act, id. ¶¶ 276–284. And they have added
`a new claim for conspiracy to monopolize. Id. ¶¶ 265–275.
`
`2 When the SAC describes the Fair Pricing Policy, it includes cites to an article describing the policy from
`a website called Feedvisor, https://feedvisor.com/university/amazon-pricing-policy. Dkt. 15 ¶ 4 n.13; id.
`¶ 7 nn.21–22. Despite the title, those cites are not to the actual Fair Pricing Policy. Rather than rely on
`characterization, Amazon has submitted the actual policy with its motion, as explained below.
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO DISMISS (2:20-CV-00424-RAJ) - 5
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 59 Filed 05/16/22 Page 12 of 30
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`Plaintiffs Have Not Cured the First Amended Complaint’s Standing Defects.
`A.
`Plaintiffs Fail to Satisfy the Requirements for Co-Conspirator Standing.
`As a general rule, only consumers who purchase products directly from a defendant have
`standing to sue under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Ill. Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720,
`732–35 (1977) (§ 1); Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 392 U.S. 481, 491–93
`(1968) (§ 2).3 The Court articulated a narrow exception to this rule in its motion to dismiss
`decision: “when co-conspirators have jointly committed the antitrust violation, a plaintiff who is
`the immediate purchaser from any of the conspirators is directly injured by the violation.” Dkt. 48
`at 8 (quoting In re Nat’l Football League’s Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig., 933 F.3d 1136, 1157
`(9th Cir. 2019)). This Court held that because “Plaintiffs allege they are direct purchasers of
`antitrust conspirators,” they “have established standing as direct purchasers of alleged antitrust co-
`conspirators.” Id. As explained below, the allegations in the SAC do not establish antitrust
`standing under the co-conspirator exception, for reasons the Court has not addressed.
`
`(i)
`
`The Transactions at Issue in the SAC Include Purchases from
`“Non-Conspiring” Sellers.
`In the Ninth Circuit, antitrust standing based on the co-conspirator exception does not apply
`to consumers who made purchases from non-conspiring sellers because “the price paid by a
`plaintiff must be set by the conspiracy and not merely affected by the setting of another price.” In
`re ATM Antitrust Fee Litig., 686 F.3d 741, 754 (9th Cir. 2012). The SAC does not confine itself
`to alleged conspiring sellers, instead alleging that the “impact of Amazon’s restraint on its third-
`party sellers and ultimately consumers is not limited to the third-party sellers’ sales.” SAC ¶ 59.
`Not all Plaintiffs allege that they have made purchases from a third-party seller, and Plaintiffs
`define “Class Products” to include purchases from non-conspirator sellers. Id. ¶ 54 (“to qualify as
`a Class Product, it is not necessary that the product sold through a competing retail e-commerce
`
`3 With respect to quoted material, unless otherwise indicated, all brackets, ellipses, footnote call numbers,
`internal quotations, and citations have been omitted for readability. All emphasis is added unless otherwise
`indicated.
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO DISMISS (2:20-CV-00424-RAJ) - 6
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 59 Filed 05/16/22 Page 13 of 30
`
`channel be sold by an Amazon third-party seller”).
`With no factual basis for standing, a number of Plaintiffs have resorted to speculation.
`Plaintiffs have added allegations to the SAC speculating that they are all potential future direct
`purchasers of alleged co-conspirator sellers—suggesting they may have antitrust standing in the
`future. SAC ¶¶ 66–86. Speculative future purchases do not satisfy Article III standing, much less
`antitrust standing. Article III standing requires injury that is “actual or imminent, not conjectural
`or hypothetical.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, 578 U.S. 330, 337–40 (2016); see also Staley v. Gilead
`Scis. Inc., 2022 WL 1158006, at *8–9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2022) (plaintiffs did not have Article III
`standing because, despite assertion that “there is a significant probability that they will take one or
`more of Defendants’ drugs in the future,” plaintiffs had not in the past and there was no indication
`they were likely to in the future, making possibility “too remote and not sufficiently concrete”).
`
`(ii)
`
`Plaintiffs’ New Conspiracy to Monopolize Claim Does Not Create
`Co-Conspirator Standing for the Sherman Act, Section 2 Claims.
`The co-conspirator theory of standing does not apply to claims of monopolization and
`attempted monopolization, which are claims directed at single-firm conduct. Rebel Oil, Inc. v. Atl.
`Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1443 (9th Cir. 1995) (“To pose a threat of monopolization, one firm
`alone must have the power to control market output and exclude competition.”). To attempt to
`cure that legal defect, Plaintiffs added to the SAC a claim for “conspiracy to monopolize.” SAC
`¶¶ 265–275. “To state a claim for conspiracy to monopolize in violation of § 2, Plaintiff must
`sufficiently plead the following: ‘(1) the existence of a combination or conspiracy to monopolize;
`(2) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (3) the specific intent to monopolize; and
`(4) causal antitrust injury.’” Lenhoff Enters., Inc. v. United Talent Agency, 2015 WL 7008185, at
`*3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2015) (quoting Paladin Assocs. v. Mont. Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145, 1158
`(9th Cir. 2003)). Plaintiffs fail to allege facts sufficient to satisfy these elements.
`“Ninth Circuit case law holds that to sufficiently state a claim under § 2 for conspiracy to

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket