Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 1 of 35
`
`THE HONORABLE TANA LIN
`
`
`
`IN RE: AMAZON SERVICE FEE
`LITIGATION
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`Case No.: 2:22-cv-00743-TL
`
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS AMENDED CONSOLIDATED
`COMPLAINT AND STRIKE CERTAIN
`ALLEGATIONS
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`FEBRUARY 3, 2023
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`28
`
`MTN TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00743-TL
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 2 of 35
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`THE AMAZON PRIME MEMBERSHIP ...............................................................2
`
`GROCERY DELIVERY FROM WHOLE FOODS MARKET ..............................3
`
`III.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS .............................................................................5
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................6
`
`I.
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6) .................................................6
`
`A. Washington Law Governs And All California Claims Must Be
`Dismissed. ....................................................................................................6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Is Bound By Amazon’s COUs. ..........................................7
`
`The COUs Require Application Of Washington Law. ....................8
`
`The COUs’ Choice-Of-Law Clause Encompasses This
`Dispute. ............................................................................................9
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff States No Claim For Misrepresentation Or Unfair
`Conduct. .......................................................................................................9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Fails To Plead The Fraud-Based Claims With
`Specificity As Required By Rule 9(b). ..........................................10
`
`Plaintiff Pleads No Misrepresentation, Omission, Or
`Unfairness. .....................................................................................12
`
`Plaintiff Fails To Adequately Allege Reliance, Causation,
`And Injury. .....................................................................................17
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff’s Contract And Quasi-Contract Claims Fail. ...............................18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Cannot State A Breach Of Contract Claim. .....................18
`
`Plaintiff’s Good Faith And Fair Dealing Claim Fails. ...................20
`
`Plaintiff’s Contract With Amazon Precludes The Quasi-
`Contractual Remedy Of “Unjust Enrichment.” .............................21
`
`D.
`
`The Declaratory Relief “Claim” Is Not An Independent Claim. ...............21
`
`E.
`Amendment Would Be Futile. ...................................................................21
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`MTN TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`- i -
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00743-TL
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`
`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
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 3 of 35
`
`II.
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE UNDER RULE 12(F) ......................................................22
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Court Should Strike Certain Class Allegations From The
`CAC. ..........................................................................................................22
`
`Allegations Regarding Package Delivery Delays And The Optional
`Tip Should Be Stricken. .............................................................................24
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................24
`
`
`MTN TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00743-TL
`
`
`- ii -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 4 of 35
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`Alexander v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`No. C15-459 (RAJ), 2015 WL 5123922 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 1, 2015) ....................................21
`
`Alpert v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC,
`No. C15-1164 RAJ, 2019 WL 1200541 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 14, 2019) ...................................16
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Atherton Condo. Apartment-Owners Ass’n Bd. of Dirs. v. Blume Dev. Co.,
`115 Wn. 2d 506, 799 P.2d 250 (1990) .....................................................................................16
`
`Austin v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. C09-1679JLR, 2010 WL 1875811 (W.D. Wash. May 10, 2010) .....................................24
`
`Badgett v. Sec. State Bank,
`116 Wn.2d 563, 807 P.2d 356 (1991) ................................................................................20, 21
`
`Bardy v. Cardiac Sci. Corp.,
`No. C13-0778JLR, 2014 WL 294526 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 27, 2014) ........................................20
`
`Baxter v. Intelius, Inc.,
`No. SACV 09-1031 AG (MLGx), 2010 WL 3791487 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16,
`2010) ........................................................................................................................................15
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Bisson v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`919 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (W.D. Wash. 2013) ...............................................................................21
`
`Brazil v. Dell Inc.,
`585 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ...................................................................................22
`
`Brown v. Starbucks Corp.,
`No. 18cv2286 JM (WVG), 2019 WL 996399 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2019) ...........................14, 15
`
`Call v. Olsen,
`No. 13-5241 RJB, 2013 WL 3805651 (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2013) .......................................22
`
`Capitol Pros, Inc. v. Vadata, Inc.,
`No. C17-1410-JCC, 2018 WL 883870 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2018) ......................................19
`
`Carideo v. Dell, Inc.,
`520 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2007) .................................................................................8
`
`
`MTN TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00743-TL
`
`
`- iii -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 5 of 35
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`Carideo v. Dell, Inc.,
`706 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (W.D. Wash. 2010) .................................................................................9
`
`Cascade Auto Glass, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`135 Wn. App. 760, 145 P.3d 1253 (2006) ...............................................................................19
`
`Cashatt v. Ford Motor Co.,
`No. 3:19-cv-05886-RBL, 2020 WL 1987077 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2020) .....................22, 23
`
`Charbonnet v. Omni Hotels & Resorts,
`No. 20-cv-01777-CAB-DEB, 2020 WL 7385828 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2020) .............14, 15, 17
`
`Cole v. Keystone RV Co.,
`No. C18-5182 TSZ, 2021 WL 3111452 (W.D. Wash. July 22, 2021) ....................................12
`
`Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.,
`691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................16
`
`Dunson v. Cordis Corp.,
`No. 16-cv-03076-SI, 2016 WL 3913666 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2016) .......................................10
`
`Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................12
`
`Ekin v. Amazon Servs., LLC,
`84 F. Supp. 3d1172 (W.D. Wash. 2014) ................................................................................7, 8
`
`Elliott Bay Seafoods v. Port of Seattle,
`124 Wn. App. 5, 98 P.3d 491 (2004) .................................................................................18, 19
`
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................22
`
`Erwin v. Cotter Health Ctrs.,
`161 Wn.2d 676, 167 P.3d 1112 (2007) ......................................................................................8
`
`Fabozzi v. StubHub, Inc.,
`No. C-11-4385 EMC, 2012 WL 506330 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2012) .......................................15
`
`Ferrie v. Woodford Rsch., LLC,
`No. 3:19-cv-05798-RBL, 2020 WL 3971343 (W.D. Wash. July 14, 2020) ............................10
`
`Fid. Mortg. Corp. v. Seattle Times Co.,
`213 F.R.D. 573 (W.D. Wash. 2003) ........................................................................................10
`
`
`MTN TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00743-TL
`
`
`- iv -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 6 of 35
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`Ford v. Hotwire, Inc.,
`No. 07-CV-1312 H (NLS), 2007 WL 6235779 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2007) .............................13
`
`Freeman v. Time, Inc.,
`68 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1995) ...............................................................................................13, 15
`
`Garner v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. C21-0750RSL, 2022 WL 1443680 (W.D. Wash. May 6, 2022) ........................................7
`
`Gierke v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
`No. C19-0071JLR, 2019 WL 4849494 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 1, 2019) ..........................................9
`
`Glacier Nw., Inc. v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174,
`198 Wn. 2d 768, 500 P.3d 119 (2021) .....................................................................................12
`
`Hangman Ridge Training Stables v. Safeco Title Ins. Co.,
`105 Wn. 2d 778, 719 P.2d 531 (1986) .....................................................................................17
`
`Harbers v. Eddie Bauer, LLC,
`No. C19-1012JLR, 2019 WL 6130822 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 19, 2019) ......................................8
`
`Hard 2 Find Accessories, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`58 F. Supp. 3d 1166 (W.D. Wash. 2014), aff’d sub nom. Hard2Find
`Accessories, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 691 F. App’x 406 (9th Cir. 2017) ............18, 19, 20, 22
`
`Harju v. Johnson & Johnson,
`No. 3:20-cv-06258-BHS-JRC, 2021 WL 5182057 (W.D. Wash. July 12,
`2021) ........................................................................................................................................16
`
`Hernandez v. Johnson & Johnson,
`No. 4:20-cv-05136-SMJ, 2021 WL 320612 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 8, 2021) ............................10, 11
`
`Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc.,
`162 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ...................................................................................16
`
`Hoefs v. Sig Sauer Inc.,
`No. 3:20-cv-05173-RBL, 2020 WL 3488155 (W.D. Wash. June 26, 2020) ...........................12
`
`Hummel v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc.,
`180 F. Supp. 3d 798 (W.D. Wash. 2016) .................................................................................21
`
`In re Firearm Cases,
`126 Cal. App. 4th 959 (2005) ....................................................................................................9
`
`
`
`MTN TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00743-TL
`
`
`- v -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 7 of 35
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`Ins. Auto Auctions, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.,
`No. C09-1522RAJ, 2010 WL 11688494 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 16, 2010) ....................................8
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................10, 11, 12
`
`Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l,
`854 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`350 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................20
`
`Meidan Koti, LLC v. Stenersen,
`No. 55815-7-II, 2022 WL 1763699 (Wash. Ct. App. June 1, 2022) .................................16, 17
`
`Minnick v. Clearwire US, LLC,
`683 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (W.D. Wash. 2010) ...............................................................................21
`
`Nw. Indep. Forest Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus.,
`78 Wn. App. 707, 899 P.2d 6 (1995) .......................................................................................18
`
`Orshan v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:14-cv-05659-EJD, 2018 WL 1510202 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2018) ................................12
`
`Porras v. StubHub, Inc.,
`No. C 12-1225 MMC, 2012 WL 3835073 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2012) .................................13, 16
`
`Punian v. Gillette Co.,
`No. 14-CV-05028-LHK, 2016 WL 1029607 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) ................................16
`
`Rasmussen v. Apple Inc.,
`27 F. Supp. 3d 1027 (2014) .....................................................................................................23
`
`Rex - Real Estate Exch., Inc. v. Zillow Inc.,
`No. C21-312 TSZ, 2021 WL 3930694 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 2, 2021) .......................................11
`
`Rodriguez v. Loudeye Corp.,
`144 Wn. App. 709, 189 P.3d 168 (2008) .................................................................................22
`
`Rollolazo v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
`No. CV 16-00966 BRO, 2017 WL 6888501 (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2017) ...................................21
`
`Ross v. Kirner,
`162 Wn. 2d 493, 172 P.3d 701 (2007) .....................................................................................13
`
`
`MTN TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00743-TL
`
`
`- vi -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 8 of 35
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`Sanders v. Apple Inc.,
`672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (2009) ...............................................................................................22, 24
`
`Schaub v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA,
`No. 78439-1-I, 2019 WL 2751168 (July 1, 2019) ...................................................................18
`
`Schnall v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc.,
`171 Wn.2d 260, 259 P.3d 129 (2011) ........................................................................................8
`
`Seattlehaunts, LLC v. Thomas Fam. Farm, LLC,
`No. C19-1937 JLR, 2020 WL 5500373 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 11, 2020) ...................................10
`
`Seegert v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.,
`No. 17cv1243-JAH (JLB), 2017 WL 5973414 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2017) ................................23
`
`Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co.,
`697 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1983) ...................................................................................................22
`
`Smale v. Cellco Partnership,
`547 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (W.D. Wash. 2008) ...............................................................................13
`
`Stampfes v. Action Appraisers,
`88 Wn. App. 1063 (1997) ........................................................................................................17
`
`Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp.,
`763 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ...................................................................................22
`
`Swartz v. KPMG LLP,
`476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................13
`
`Talyancich v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. C12-1128-JCC, 2012 WL 12941690 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 2, 2012) ...................................19
`
`TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
`141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) .............................................................................................................22
`
`U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Tait,
`No. C16-767-JCC, 2016 WL 5141990 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 21, 2016) .....................................20
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) .................................................................................................................24
`
`Water & Sanitation Health, Inc. v. Rainforest All., Inc.,
`No. C15-75RAJ, 2015 WL 12657110 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2015) ......................................10
`
`
`MTN TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00743-TL
`
`
`- vii -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 9 of 35
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`Weimin Chen v. Sierra Trading Post, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-cv-1581-RAJ, 2019 WL 3564659 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2019) .................................7
`
`Williams v. Facebook, Inc.,
`384 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .....................................................................................9
`
`Wiseley v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`709 F. App’x 862 (9th Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................................7, 9
`
`Workhouse Media, Inc. v. Ventresca,
`No. 75373-8-I, 2017 WL 959534 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2017) ..........................................8
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ................................................................................................9, 12
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 ................................................................................................9, 12
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1770 ......................................................................................................................9
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 17700 ..................................................................................................................12
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ...............................................................................................................................6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 .............................................................................................................2, 10, 11, 12
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ...........................................................................................................2, 22, 23, 24
`
`RCW § 19.86.020 ......................................................................................................................9, 12
`
`RCW § 19.86.920 ............................................................................................................................9
`
`
`
`MTN TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00743-TL
`
`
`- viii -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Dena Griffith is a member of Amazon’s popular Prime subscription service, which
`provides members a host of valuable benefits, including fast shipping, discounts on products, and
`free digital content like music and movies. When Plaintiff signed up for Prime, one of the benefits
`was free grocery deliveries from Whole Foods Market (“WFM”) (an Amazon subsidiary). In
`September 2021, Amazon notified all Prime members that, starting in October 2021, Whole Foods
`deliveries would include a delivery service fee. Despite having a month to cancel her membership
`prior to this fee becoming effective, Plaintiff remained (and ostensibly still remains) a Prime
`member. Now she sues Amazon “for misleading consumers concerning the amounts they must
`pay for grocery deliveries from Whole Foods Market and for breaching its contracts with its
`Amazon Prime members.” See Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”) at 1.
`The central and fatal flaw across Plaintiff’s claims is that Amazon never promised Prime
`members free WFM deliveries. The Amazon Prime Terms—i.e., the operative contract Plaintiff is
`suing to enforce—say nothing at all about free WFM delivery. What the Prime Terms do say is
`that “from time to time, Amazon may choose in its sole discretion to add or remove Prime
`membership benefits.” Amazon exercised that discretion to remove the free WFM delivery
`benefit, but only after it notified Prime members the change was coming. And since the change,
`Amazon has made clear on its website that WFM deliveries are subject to a fee; in fact, the call-
`to-action button that a customer must click in order to schedule a WFM delivery looks like this:
`
`In short, it is simply not true that Amazon hides or obfuscates the fact that WFM grocery deliveries
`are now subject to a fee for Prime members. As set forth below, Amazon makes clear, in multiple
`ways and in multiple places, that a service fee applies.
`Plaintiff asserts eleven claims against Amazon and all fail as a matter of law. First,
`Plaintiff’s California-law claims (Counts Two, Three, and Four) stall at the threshold because
`Amazon’s terms mandate that Washington law governs. Second, Plaintiff’s fraud-based claims
`
`MTN TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00743-TL
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`(Counts One through Four, Six, Seven, and Eight) fail because they are not pled with specificity,
`as Rule 9(b) requires. Further, even if Plaintiff had satisfied Rule 9(b), these claims fail in any
`event because she fails to identify any actionable misrepresentation by Amazon, let alone one on
`which she relied in a way that caused her harm. In the CAC, Plaintiff also omits key steps in the
`WFM checkout process (including the call-to-action button above) that place any reasonable
`consumer on notice that a $9.95 fee applies. Third, Plaintiff’s contract-based claims (Counts Nine
`and Ten) fail because the Prime Terms expressly authorize Amazon to change Prime benefits, and
`any reasonable Prime member knows that benefits might change. Fourth, Plaintiff’s unjust
`enrichment claim (Count Five) is legally precluded by the existence of a valid contract, and her
`declaratory relief claim (Count Eleven) is a remedy, not a cause of action.
`As demonstrated further below, the CAC should be dismissed in its entirety because none
`of Plaintiff’s claims are legally viable. But if the Court does not dismiss the lawsuit, at a minimum,
`pursuant to Rule 12(f), the Court should strike Plaintiff’s second proposed class because it includes
`members who suffered no injury and is redundant of Plaintiff’s first proposed class. The Court
`also should strike allegations related to package delivery delays and a purported $5 tip added
`“by default” to WFM deliveries. Plaintiff does not allege that she experienced any delivery delays
`or that she was ever charged for a tip; she cannot advance claims for harms she never suffered.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`THE AMAZON PRIME MEMBERSHIP
`Amazon offers a paid membership subscription service called Amazon Prime; customers
`can subscribe on a monthly or annual basis. CAC ¶¶ 7, 8. Prime members enjoy a wide range of
`benefits, which vary over time and depend on availability, but can include (among other things)
`music and video streaming and free two-day, one-day, or same-day shipping for package
`deliveries. Id. ¶ 7; see id., Ex. 1 at 2.
`To purchase a Prime subscription, a customer must agree to the Amazon Prime Terms &
`Conditions (“Prime Terms”). CAC ¶ 8; id., Ex. 1 at 1 (the Prime Terms “govern [the parties’]
`respective rights and obligations”). Additionally, a Prime member’s “use of the Amazon.com
`website and Prime membership are also governed by the agreements listed and linked to” in the
`
`I.
`
`MTN TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00743-TL
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`Prime Terms, such as Amazon’s Conditions of Use (“COUs”), “all of which (as changed over
`time) are incorporated into these Terms.” Id., Ex. 1 at 1 (linking to the COUs). By “sign[ing] up
`for a Prime membership,” the customer “accepts these terms, conditions, limitations and
`requirements.” Id. A Prime member also agrees to the COUs by, among other things, “visit[ing]
`or shop[ing] at Amazon.com” and “us[ing] Amazon products or services.” See Declaration of
`Brian Buckley (“Buckley Decl.”) in support of Amazon’s Request for Judicial Notice (filed
`concurrently with this Motion), Ex. A (COUs) at 1.1
`Nowhere do the Prime Terms guarantee any specific Prime benefit. To the contrary, the
`Prime Terms expressly and unambiguously provide Amazon the right to add or remove Prime
`benefits at any time in its sole discretion. Under the bolded heading “Other Limitations” in the
`Prime Terms, Amazon explains that “[f]rom time to time, Amazon may choose in its sole
`discretion to add or remove Prime membership benefits.” Id. at 2. Amazon reiterates in the bolded
`“Fees and Renewal” section that “[f]rom time to time, [Amazon] may offer different membership
`terms, and the fees for such membership may vary.” Id. And under the bolded heading
`“Agreement Changes,” Amazon again states that it “may in our discretion change these Terms,
`Amazon.com’s Conditions of Use and Privacy Notice, or any aspect of Prime membership, without
`notice to you. … YOUR CONTINUED MEMBERSHIP AFTER WE CHANGE THESE TERMS
`CONSTITUTES YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHANGES. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO
`ANY CHANGES, YOU MUST CANCEL YOUR MEMBERSHIP.” Id. (capitalization in
`original). A Prime member may terminate her membership at any time. CAC, Ex. 1 at 1.
`II.
`GROCERY DELIVERY FROM WHOLE FOODS MARKET
`WFM is a supermarket chain. CAC ¶ 10. Amazon acquired WFM in 2017. Id. For some
`time before October 2021, one Prime benefit was free grocery delivery from WFM (subject to a
`minimum order amount) for customers in certain regions. Id. ¶¶ 9, 13. On September 24, 2021,
`Amazon announced “Changes to [] Prime Grocery Benefits for Whole Foods Market Grocery
`Delivery.” Buckley Decl., Ex. B. In that email announcement to Prime members, Amazon
`explained that, “[s]tarting October 25, 2021, delivery orders from [WFM] in your area will include
`
`1 As addressed in Amazon’s Request for Judicial notice, the Court can and should consider these documents on a
`motion to dismiss without converting this motion to one for summary judgment.
`MTN TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`- 3 -
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00743-TL
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`a $9.95 service fee” to help “cover operating costs so we can continue to offer the same competitive
`everyday prices in-store and online at [WFM].” Id.; see also CAC ¶ 14. As announced, since
`October 25, 2021, Amazon has charged a service fee for WFM deliveries. CAC ¶ 13.
`A Prime member can place a WFM order by going to the WFM section of amazon.com.
`CAC ¶ 16. The first page of the WFM section (the “Landing Page”) shows different grocery items,
`along with the advertised prices. Id. Clicking on an item takes a customer to the item-specific
`page. Id. ¶ 17. To add a grocery item to the cart, the customer must click the yellow “Add to Cart”
`button on the upper right-hand side of the webpage. Id. As Plaintiff acknowledges, Amazon
`discloses “$9.95 for 2-hour delivery” above the “Add to Cart” button. Id. In other words, Amazon
`draws the customer’s attention to the fee each and every time she adds an item to her cart.
`To check out, the customer must then navigate to her shopping cart. Buckley Decl., Ex. E.
`On the left, the shopping cart webpage shows the grocery items in the customer’s cart; on the right,
`above the yellow “Check out Whole Foods Cart” button, Amazon again discloses that the customer
`can “Get 2-hour delivery for $9.95.” Id. After the customer clicks “Check out Whole Foods Cart,”
`a series of webpages ask the customer for their preferences (e.g., item substitution) and other
`information. See CAC ¶ 18. To continue checking out, a customer must choose between
`“Delivery” or “Pickup” on the “Schedule your order” webpage:
`
`Excerpt of Buckley Decl., Ex. F. As shown in the screenshot above, if a customer chooses
`“Delivery,” she must select her preferred delivery window. Id. Next to each available delivery
`window is a button with a grey outline box showing the service fee (i.e., “$9.95”). Id. The
`
`MTN TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00743-TL
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00743-TL Document 51 Filed 12/16/22 Page 14 of 35
`
`
`
`customer must click on one of the “$9.95” buttons to proceed. Id. The customer can review the
`WFM order on the final page before she places the order. As the CAC acknowledges, Amazon
`yet again discloses the fee on this page. CAC ¶ 18. On the right, the webpage shows a yellow
`“Place your order” button; immediately below that button, Amazon states: “By placing your order,
`you agree to Amazon’s privacy notice and conditions of use.” Id. (hyperlinking to COUs); see
`also Buckley Decl., Ex. A (COU) (unless otherwise noted, all colors are in the original text). Just
`below that, the “Order Summary” section shows the cost, fees, taxes, and order total, including a
`specific line item for the “Service Fee” hyperlinked to a pop-up explanation of the fee. CAC ¶ 18.
`III.
`PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
`Plaintiff Dena Griffith filed the CAC on October 25, 2022. Plaintiff seeks to represent two
`nationwide classes, and a California subclass, of Amazon Prime members. CAC ¶¶ 33-34. The
`CAC alleges that Amazon’s statements in online advertisements that Prime members will receive
`“FREE Delivery” and “FREE 2-Hour Grocery Delivery” are “false” and “misleading” because
`Amazon charges a “hidden” $9.95 service fee. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. The CAC also accuses Amazon of
`falsely promising “FREE 2-hour grocery delivery” because “many Amazon Prime Members report
`not receiving their deliveries during the promised delivery period.” Id. ¶ 13. To support this
`allegation, the CAC relies on an article titled, “Amazon Prime Customers experiencing delays in
`free 2-day shipping in U.S.” Id. ¶ 13, n.4. The CAC also alleges that Amazon engages in “bait-
`and-switch advertising” and “drip pricing” because it does not disclose on the Landing Page “the
`$9.95 service fee along with the advertised price.” Id. ¶¶ 15-19. The CAC alleges further that
`Amazon includes an optional $5 tip that is “added by default” “above the total price of the delivery
`that is unlikely to be noticed by a reasonable consumer.” Id. ¶ 18.
`Plaintiff claims to be a Prime member who “read and relied on Amazon’s online
`advertisements that Prime members will receive ‘FREE Delivery’ and ‘FREE 2-Hour Grocery
`Delivery.’” CAC ¶ 24. The CAC says no more about these “online advertisements,” such as when
`(or if) Plaintiff saw them or where. Tellingly, she does not allege that the advertisements appeared
`after Amazon’s September 2021 announcement that WFM deliveries would include a delivery
`service fee. Plaintif