DURIE TANGRI LLP SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086) smehta@durietangri.com LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 271713) O\ lmiller@durietangri.com CATHERINE Y. KIM (SBN 308442) ckim@durietangri.com 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-362-6666 Facsimile: 415-236-6300 FEEEE—Ib SAN'MATFG «71m 'NTY 'NOV 2 ‘1 2017 EE) \l Ei‘iil 1 I" “.l‘ C} A." Attorneys forDefendant Facebook,Inc. 00 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA \0 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ’ SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delawarelimited liability Case No. CIV 533328 company, Plaintiff, v. NNb—‘D—iD—‘D—‘i—lr—lh—lb—lD—lh—l FACEBOOK, INC.,a Delawarecorporation and DOES 1-50,inclusive, NHOOOONONUIAUJNb-‘O Defendant. Assignedforall purposestoHon. MarieS. Weiner,Dept.2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTIOF POINTS AND SLAPP);MEMORANDUM W AUTHORITIES IN SUPPOR Date: Time: Dept: Judge: M January9,2018 9:00am. 2 (ComplexCivil Litigation) HonorableMarieS. Weiner FILINGDATE: TRIAL DATE: "- ' 41“,.r Nam L“, L») "x GIV533328 MOTc Motion 839928 lllllllllllllllllllllllll .11“” 3;"! April 10,2015 April 25,2019 UI-P \‘u \m" mv-m-w-m+ A, a. ' O\ I}. ,4 LI F- l \I [\J00 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 .12; r9 i. f r' I \< / \,J L \. \,.// TO PLAINTIFFSAND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: as YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT on January9,2018 at9:00am, oras soon thereafter located at Litigation Departmentoftheabove-titled thematter court, may be heard,intheComplex Civil 4; will 400 CountyCenter, Redwood City, CA 94063,DefendantF acebook,Inc.(“Facebook”) and hereby Code does move theCourt, pursuant California to Proceduresection ofCivil to Strike-(Anti425.16, LLC’s(“Six4Three”) Plaintiff FourthAmended Complaint. SLAPP Motion) Six4Three, \DOOQONUI theFourthAmended Complaint ThisSpecial ismade on thegroundthat MotiontoStrike arises right offreespeechinconnection withan issueofpublic fromtheexercise oftheconstitutional interest, and Six4Three cannotshow a probability ofsuccesson itsclaimsagainst Facebook. 10 Thismotionisbased on this NoticeofMotionand Motion, theaccompanyingMemorandum of 11 theDeclaration Pointsand Authorities inSupportthereof, ofLauraE. Miller, in and thefilesand records 12 thisaction, allmattersofwhichjudicial notice and any further evidenceorargumentthat can be taken, 13 theCourtmay properly receive atorbeforethehearing. 14 Dated:November 21,2017 DURIE TANGRI LLP 15 By: 16 LAURA E. MILLER 17 forDefendant Attorneys Facebook,Inc. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 ‘ /P. f”\ I N. \I /, TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4:. I. 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 .......................................................... 3 III. ARGUMENT ..................................................................... \OOO\]O‘\UI A. 3 ......................................................... ThisMotionIsTimely. B. 4 LegalStandardforSpecial MotiontoStrike. ....................................... C. Six4Three’s to a Special MotiontoStrike ............................. 5 ClaimsAre Subject 1. Six4Three’s Speech andConduct in ClaimsAriseFrom Facebook’s Amendment Rights .......................... 6 Furtherance oftheExerciseofItsFirst 2. Facebook’s ............. ContentIsan IssueofPublic 6 Decision toDe-Publish Interest 10 11 D. ofSuccess on ItsClaims. ....................... 7 Six4Three CannotEstablish a Likelihood 12 1. The Communications Claims.................... 7 DecencyActBarsAllofSix4Three’s 13 a. 14 b. 15 c. 16 ....................... 8 FacebookIsan Interactive ComputerServiceProvider. Six4Three’s ClaimsSeek toHoldFacebookLiable fortheExercise ofa Publisher’s Traditional Editorial Functions ............................ 9 The ContentWas Provided 10 by Someone OtherThan Facebook............... 17 2. ofSuccess on ItsContract Claim............. Six4Three Cannot Showa Likelihood 10 18 3. ofSuccesson ItsSection17200 Six4Three CannotShow a Likelihood 12 Claim................................................................ 4. ofSuccess on ItsFraudClaims................ 14 Six4Three Cannot Showa Likelihood 5. CannotShow a Likelihood ofSuccess on ItsInterference Six4Three 15 Claims. ............................................................... 19 20 21 SHOULD BE AWARDED ITS ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS ................... 15 22 IV. FACEBOOK 23 V. 15 CONCLUSION .................................................................... 24 25 26 27 28 i SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 /\\ ff, \j, » TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Almeidav.Amazoncom, Inc., 7 456 F.3d 1316 (11thCir. 2006)........................................................... Barnesv. Yahoo!,Inc., 570 F.3d1096 (9thCir. 28,2009)...................................... 7, 9 2009),as amended (Sept. Beltonv. Comcast CableHoldings, LLC, ............................................................ 12, 13, 14 151 Cal.App.4th1224 (2007) Ben Ezra,Weinstein, & Co.,Inc.v.Am. OnlineInc., 9 206 F.3d980 (10thCir. 2000)............................................................ Caraccioli v. Facebook,Inc., 167 F. Supp. 1056 3d (N.D.Cal.2016), .................................... June 6,2017) No. 16-15610,2017 WL 2445063 (9thCir. aff’d, 8, 9 Cel—Tech Commc’ns,Inc.v.LA. Cellular Tel.Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (1999).................................................................. 12, 14 Homeowners Ass ’nv.Ivie, CountrySide Villas 3 193 Cal.App. 4th1110 (2011)............................................................ Crossv. Facebook, reviewdenied(Oct.25,2017)....................................... 14 Cal.App. 5th190 (2017), 5, 8, 9 v. Bell & Howell, Dimidowich 803 F.2d 1473 (9thCir.1986), 13 opinion modifiedon denial ofreh’g,810 F.2d 1517 (9thCir.1987)................................. DuPontMerckPharm. Co. v. Superior Court, 4 78 Cal.App.4th562 (2000)............................................................. LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc., Equilon Enterprises, 4 4 29 Cal.4th53 (2002)................................................................... Finkel v. Facebook,Inc., 8 2009 WL 3240365 (N.Y.Sup. Sept.15,2009).................................... No. 102578-09, FoundingMembers oftheNewportBeach CountryClubv.NewportBeach CountryClub, Inc., 10 109 Cal.App.4th944 (2003)............................................................. Court, Good Gov ’tGrp.v. Superior 4 22 Cal.3d 672 (1978).................................................................. ii SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 ,/'\ /m \V/ \J Greater Los AngelesAgency on Deafness,Inc.v. Cable NewsNetwork,Inc., 6 742 F.3d414 (9thCir. 2014)............................................................. DJ Green v.Am. Online(AOL), 318 F.3d465 (3dCir. 9 2002).............................................................. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. OracleCorp., 239 Cal.App.4th1174 (2015)............................................................ 3 Hupp v.Freedom Commc ’ns,Inc., 221 Cal.App.4th398 (2013)............................................................. 5 \DOO\)O\ Ingels v. Westwood One Broad.Servs., Inc., 129 Cal.App.4th 1050 (2005)............................................................ 1, 5 InreIns.Installment Fee Cases, 10 11 . 211 Cal.App.4th1395 (2012)............................................................ 14 v. GoogleInc., Jurin ' 695 F. Supp.2d 1117 (ED.Cal.2010)...................................................... ............. 9 12 13 14 Ketchum v.Moses, 24 Cal.4th1122 (2001)................................................................. 15 Inc., Khouryv.Maly’sofCalifornia, 14 Cal.App.4th612 (1993)................................. .............................................. 12 - 15 16 Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354 (DC.Cir. 2014)........................................................... 9 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 910 F. Supp.2d 314(D.D.C. 753 F.3d 1354 (DC.Cir. 8 2012),afl’d, 2014)............................ Movie Data Kronemyerv.Internet Base,Inc. , 150 Cal.App.4th941 (2007)............................................................. 5, 6 Lam v.Ngo, 91 Cal.App.4th832 (2001).............................................................. 3,4 Lancaster v.Alphabet Inc. , N0. 15-CV—05299-HSG, 2016 WL 3648608 (N.D.Cal.July8, 2016)................................ 10 Maloneyv. T3Media,Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d1128 (CD.Cal.2015),aff’d, 853 F.3d1004 (9thCir. 6 2017)............................ Navellier v.Sletten, 29 Cal.4th82 (2002)................................................................... 4, 5, 7 NewportHarborVentures, Cerullo WorldEvangelism, LLC v.Morris 6 Cal.App. 5th 1207 (2016).............................................................. 3 iii SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 Guar.Co., QuelimaneCo. v. StewardTitle 15 19 Cal.4th26 (1998), as modified (Sept. 23, 1998)............................................. Riverav.Am. Fed ’nofState,Cty.,& Mun. Employees,AFL—CIO, 105 Cal.App.4th913,924 (2003)......................................................... 7 “SFJ”, Sikhsfor Justice Inc.v.Facebook,Inc., 144 F. Supp. 1088 3d (N.D.Cal.2015),afl’dsub nom. Sikhsfor Inc.v. Justice, App’x 697 F. 526 (9thCir.2017).............................................. Facebook,Inc., 10 8, 9, Simmons v.Allstate Ins.Co., 92 Cal.App.4th1068 (2001)............................................................. 4 Young v.Facebook,Inc., No. 5:10-CV—03579-JF/PVT, 2010 WL 4269304 (N.D.Cal.Oct.25,2010)............................ 8 Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia, 103 Cal.App.4th298 (2002)............................................................. 3 Zeranv.Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d327 (4thCir.1997)............................................................. 7, 8 Zhang v.Baidu.comInc., 10 F. Supp. 3d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 6 2014)........................................................ Statutes 47 U.S.C.§ 230(c)(1) ..................................................................... passim Cal.Bus.Prof. Code § 17200 Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.16............................................................... passim Civ.Proc.Code § ....................................... passim ................................................................. 425.16(c) 15 Cal.Civ.Code § 1639..................................................................... 11 Cal.Civ.Code § 1643 ..................................................................... 11, 12 Cartwright Act.......................................................................... 13 OtherAuthorities First Amendment ........................................................................ 4, 6 Cal.RulesofCourt, rule8.1115(6) ............................................................ 4 iv SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 (J I. INTRODUCTION pursuantto the and shouldbe stricken Thiscase is an attackon Facebook’sfreespeech rights U.) anti-SLAPPstatute, Cal. Civ.Proc.Code § 425.16. Facebook bringsthismotionbecause Plaintiff setofclaims, and allofits itsfifthshotat an ever-expanding LLC (“Six4Three”) istaking Six4Three, ‘whichis absolutely decision stop to protected:Facebook’seditorial claimsturnon one decision, user-generated publishing tothird-party app developers. certain content viaitsPlatform accessed and Six4Threewas a two-man company thatdevelopedone app: Pikinis. Pikinis \DOO\]O\ photoson Facebookto find pictures ofwomen inbikinis. As reported inthe analyzeda user’sfriends’ Huffington app was tested ofLauraE. Miller inSupportof Post,this“creepy” boys. Declaration by frat 1o “ThisCreepy iPhoneApp FindsPictures Decl.”) (“Miller Motionto Strike Ex. 1. Gizmodo reported of 11 Your FacebookFriendsinBikinis.” Decl.EX. Miller 12 users’friends’ $400 in sales. But when Facebook decidedto stoppublishing photosviaitsPlatform, 13 Six4Threesued. Now, Six4Three’s isbankrolling single investor thislawsuit and seekinga windfall of 14 Facebook’sdecision $100M. Six4Threechallenges what third-party regarding to contentitpublishes 15 developers, and seekstoforceFacebooktopublish allofitsusers’friends’ photostoallapp developers. 2.Unsurprisingly, made Pikinis little more than The fatal flaw isthat Facebook has a right decisions as towhat third(andneed)tomake editorial 16 17 throughitsPlatform.The Facebook Platform is a freeserviceavailable to partycontentis available 18 ofthird-party thatletsthem accesscertain millions app developers F acebookuserdataand content viaits 19 APIs,when authorized by a user.Facebookmade—and needs to 2o aboutwhat third-party throughitsPlatform contentisavailable to protect itsusers’experience. To that 21 end, on 22 elected tonotpublish viaitsPlatform thatan app user’s friends APlscontent had sharedwiththeuseron 23 Facebook. As a result, couldno longeraccess friends’ Pikinis photosvia the Facebook Platform. 24 permission toaccessand analyzetheir isfreetoseek direct fromitsusers’friends (Pikinis photos). make—editorial decisions continue to itgave app developers April noticeofthependingchange,Facebook 30, 2015, one yearafter Six4Three’s all Facebookfordeciding friends’ tode-publish claims, photosand ofwhichfault 25 26 otherthird-party eontent,fallsquarelywithinthe anti-SLAPPstatutebecause each implicates 27 Facebook’sconductinfurtherance to ofitsconstitutional right 28 Each free speech on issuesofpublic concern. Facebook’seditorial ofthe eightcauses ofactionchallenges decisions about what third-party 1 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 and throughitsPlatform, app developers to third-party to allowor notallowto be disseminated content due to Facebook’s those decisions.As Six4Threealleges, Facebook’spublicstatementsregarding ofwhat user-generated socialmedia company in the world,itsdetermination position as the largest interest.” “greatly implicates thepublic app developers tothird-party content topublish viaitsPlatform a probability ofsuccess actual evidence demonstrating burdento offer Six4Threecannotmeet its Six4Three’s claimsare barredby theCommunicationsDecency Act, on themeritsofitsclaims.First, computerservice, seekstoholdFacebook,an interactive as Six4Three 47 U.S.C.§ 230 etseq.(“CDA”), \DOO\10\ breach provided users.Second,Six4Three’s liable as thepublisher or speakerofcontent by third-party noteven foundintheoperative reading ofa provision claimisbased on a facially-implausible ofcontract 10 Six4Three’s to any antitrust under Section17200 theoryisuntethered contract. Third, law,as required 11 Six4Three’s additional tort and fraudclaimsallfail on multiple grounds. controlling authority. Finally, 12 II.. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 13 service to third parties thatFacebook makes available that is a free The Facebook Platform Facebook Platform allowsdevelopers to,among 14 4AC register as Facebook developers. 15 contentthatFacebook has decidedto publish viaitsPlatform, access certain third-party otherthings, 16 includes and news to userconsent.Id.Thisuser-created content photos,videos, events, subject 17 Id.111} 60—62. By usingtheFacebookPlatform developers can build mobile and accessing thiscontent, 18 withenhanced and web-basedapplications 19 nothing foraccesstotheuser-created thatFacebookdecidestopublish through itsPlatform. content Id. 20 1H] 1, 28. The stories. experiences. user Id. App developers likeSix4Threepay the user-created published Six4Threetried to get richby building an app thatutilized content fl 21 throughthe Facebook Platform.4AC 22 (“SRR”), and inreturn December 2012,agreedto Facebook’sStatementofRightsand Responsibilities 23 was givenaccessto the content at thetime(when authorized Facebookmade available by a Facebook 24 photosand users’newsfeeds.Id.1111 87, 99—100. Using whichincluded Facebookusers’friends’ user), 25 thatcontent, developedPikinis. Six4Three 1, 25. Six4Threeset up a Facebook accountin developer 26 APIs on April wouldupdatethePlatform Facebookannouncedon April 30, 2015 30,2014 thatit 27 friends had sharedwiththe to de-publish certain including content thatan app user’s third-party content, 28 friends’ photosornewsfeed.4AC a user’s user,like 11 thischange inApril 118. Facebookimplemented 2 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 tode—publishthiscontent decision developers. 2015 forall Id.11 152. Six4ThreeclaimsthatFacebook’s Id.11 141. tostopworking. causedPikinis throughitsPlatform APIs Six4Threefiledand serveditsFourthAmended Complainton November 1, 2017. The same breachof eightcauses ofaction: allegedconductby F acebookformsthe basisforeach ofSix4Three’s and negligent misrepresentation, violation of Section 17200, concealment,intentional contract, intentional interference with prospective interference with contract, and intentional and negligent For each claim,Six4Threeallegesthatitwas harmed by Facebook’seditorial economic relations. \OOO\]O‘\ friends’ categories ofuser-created decision tode-publish certain including content, newsfeed,and photos, othercontent.As to each oftheclaims, Six4Threeseeks an injunction requiring F acebooktore-publish 10 user-generated this viaitsPlatform content APIs. 11 III. ARGUMENT Id. 11 92. ThisMotionIsTimely. 12 A. 13 Under Section425.16(f), an anti-SLAPPmotionmay be filed“within 60 days ofthe service of 14 the complaint timeupon termsitdeems proper.” discretion, at any later Serviceofan or,inthe court’s 15 amended complaint resetsthe 60-daydeadline to file.See, e.g., Lam v. Ngo, 91 Cal.App. 4th 832, 835 16 has specifiedthatthe anti-SLAPPsuitlaw . (2001)(“Becausethe Legislature 17 ‘may be filedwithin the provision in the law thata special motionto strike 60 days ofthe broadly, 18 complaint’ amended includes 19 SignetBank/Virginia, the First District Appellate Courtheldthatan anti-SLAPPmotionwas timely 20 because itwas filedwithin 60 days ofservice ofthethird amended complaint, even thoughthe motion 21 couldhave been filedearlier and “nothing thatimplicated the anti-SLAPPlaw”was added in the 22 amendments. 103 Cal.App. 4th 298, 315 (2002); see alsoCountrySide Villas Homeowners Ass ’n v. 23 193 Cal.App. 4th 1110, 1115 (2011)(holding thatan anti-SLAPPmotionon the first amended Ivie, 24 complaint was timely, even thoughit was filedafter 60 days ofservice oftheoriginal and the complaint, 25 amendments were unrelated toanti-SLAPPissues). 26 as . . is to be construed complaints”) wellas original citations (internal omitted).In Yu v. thatFacebook is aware of,NewportHarborVentures,LLC v. The onlycase to the contrary 27 MorrisCerullo 28 PackardCo. v. OracleCorp,239 Cal.App. 4th 1174 (2015).As thatcase thatiscurrently beforethe World 6 Cal.App. 5th 1207 (2016), follows dictaina footnote Evangelism, inHewlett— 3 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 (“Pending rule8.1115(e) Cal.RulesofCourt, Supreme Court,itisno longergood authority. California reviewand filing ofthe Supreme Court’sopinion. . . a opinionofa CourtofAppeal inthe published persuasive valueonly.”). matterhas no binding or precedential and may be citedforpotentially effect, the California Supreme Courthas notyetdirectly addressedthisissue,itsprior although Furthermore, . decisions thatitviewsthe60-daydeadline supportan inference after service as resetting ofan amended complaint. InDuPont MerckPharm. Co. v. Superior Court,the Courtdirected Supreme an appellate courttoreconsider ofa petition a summary denial fora writ ofmandate seekingto compelthetrial court \OOOQO to granta special motionto strike. 78 Cal.App. 4th562,565 (2000), as modified (Jan.25,2000). The was based on thefactthatthe special summary denial motionwas untimely because the 60 days began 10 runningfromtheoriginal, as distinct fromtheamended, complaint. Inotherwords,the Supreme Court, 11 courtto reconsider, saw nothing wrong in by askingthe appellate 12 directed against an amended complaint, even thoughmore than60 days had elapsedsincethe 13 theoriginal complaint. Lam, 91 Cal.App.4that 842. service of Six4Threefiledthe FourthAmended Complainton November 1, 2017. Facebook bringsthis 14 15 considering an anti-SLAPPmotion motionon November 21,2017,within the60-daystatutory timeframe.1 LegalStandardforSpecial MotiontoStrike. 16 B. 17 California favorssummary resolution ofFirst Amendment cases because ofthe special burden 18 theyplaceon freespeech. See, e.g.,Good Gov ’tGrp. v. Superior Court,22 Cal.3d 672, 685 (1978). 19 Section425.16provides“a mechanism throughwhich complaints thatarisefrom the exerciseoffree 20 ‘canbe evaluated speech rights process’and resolved at an earlystageinthe litigation expeditiously.” 21 Simmons v. Allstate Ins.Co.,92 Cal.App. 4th 1068, 1073 (2001)(citation The statute omitted). was 22 amended in 1997 to mandate thatit“shall broadly” be construed to 23 Code § achieve itsends. Cal.Civ.Proc. 425 .16(a); Equilon Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th53, 60 (2002). Section425.16involves a two-part, burden-shifting test.Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82, 88 24 25 26 theCourtdetermines Even if thatFacebook’s motionisuntimely as toSix4Three’s that causesofaction were notamended withnew allegations Facebook’s intheFourthAmended Complaint, motionremains as to Count III Count VII(intentional timely withprospective interference (concealment), economic and CountVIII withprospective economic advantage), interference (negligent advantage). 1 27 28 4 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 in activities claimsarisefromthe defendant’s thedefendant must show thattheplaintiffs (2002).First, as withan issueofpublic interest, right offreespeech in connection furtherance ofthe constitutional “anyotherconductinfurtherance oftheexercise include definedby Section425 .16(a).These activities witha public ortheconstitutional offreespeech inconnection right oftheconstitutional right ofpetition “A defendant’s interest.” Id.at§ 425.16(e)(4). burdenon thefirst prongisnot issueoran issueofpublic an onerousone. A defendantneed onlymake a primafacieshowingthatplaintiff’s claimsarisefrom rights.” defendant’s freespeech or petition protected constitutionally 0koriev. Los Angeles Unified \000\]O\ SchoolDistrict, review 14 Cal.App. 5th574,590 (2017), omitted). filed(Oct.2,2017)(citation To determinewhethera defendanthas met its burden,the courtfocuseson the “defendant’s 10 thatgivesriseto his or her assertedliability.” activity 29 Cal. 4th Navellier, 11 “plainly appliesto any 12 Commc’ns, Inc., 221 Cal.App. 4th 398, 402 (2013)(finding breach ofcontract claimfell the within 13 “Intheanti-SLAPPcontext, scope ofSection omitted). thecritical 425.16)(citation pointiswhetherthe 14 plaintiff’s cause ofaction itself was based onan actinfurtherance right ofthedefendant’s or ofpetition 15 freespeech.”Kronemyerv. Internet MovieDataBase,Inc., 150 Cal.App. 4th941,946 (2007)(citation 16 see alsoIngels v. Westwood One Broad.Servs., omitted); 129 Cal.App. 4th 1050, 1064 (2005)(“a Inc., 17 courtmust consider the 18 withand burdenthedefendant’s exercise ofhisfreespeechand petition rights”) (citation omitted). cause 92. Section425.16 at requirements.” of actionthatmeets the statutory Hupp objective actual thetrue ofthe suitand grantthe motionif v. Freedom isto interfere goal 19 Ifthe defendantmeets itsprimafacieburdenofshowingthatthe claimiswithinthe scope of 20 Section425.16,thentheburdenshifts to the to show a probability plaintiff ofsuccesson themeritsofits 21 claims.The plaintiff must “demonstrate isbothlegally thatthe complaint sufficient and supported by a 22 sufficient theevidencesubmitted a favorable judgmentif primafacieshowingoffactsto sustain by the 23 plaintiff is credited.” 29 Cal.4that 88—89 (internal and citation Navellier, quotations Ifthe omitted). 24 plaintiff ofprevailing cannot show a probability Id.at89. on a claim, theclaimisstricken. Six4Three’s toa Special ClaimsAre Subject MotiontoStrike. 25 C. 26 AllofSix4Three’s claimsarisefromFacebook’sexercise ofitsspeech rights connection in with 27 Facebook’seditorial issuesofpublic interest: to de-publish categories decision to certain ofcontent 28 createdby itsbillions ofusersthatitpreviously throughitsPlatform, published and public statements 5 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 Six4Three’s pursuant Section to claims must be stricken 425.16(e)(4). thosedecisions. regarding 1. Facebook’sSpeech and Conductin Six4Three’s ClaimsArise From Amendment Rights.2 ofItsFirst Furtherance oftheExercise ofcontentcreatedby itsusers was an Facebook’sdecision categories to de-publish certain right to freespeech,and each of ofitsconstitutional exercise ofeditorial discretion takeninfurtherance target Six4Three’s such as this ofeditorial discretion. Lawsuits, claimsarisesfromthatexercise one,that a “based on operator’s discretion editorial in the maintenanceofitsforum are indisputably platform \DOO\]O\ conductinfurtherance offreespeech rights scrutiny concern]and must withstand [onmattersofpublic anti-SLAPPstatute.” Greater Los AngelesAgency on Deafness,Inc.v. CableNews underCalifomia’s 10 742 F.3d414,424—25 (9thCir.2014);Zhang v. Baidu.comInc., Network,Inc., 10 F. 11 decisions (S.D.N.Y. whichresults to publish protected 2014) (holding by searchenginesregarding by 12 FirstAmendment). The decisionto de-publish contentis affordedthe exact same constitutional Supp. 433, 3d 438 protection itinthefirstplace.See, e.g.,Kronemyer,150 Cal.App. 4that947 as thedecision publish to 14 (“It thatthe constitutional right the right offreespeech includes notto is,ofcourse,wellestablished 15 speak”)(citations content— And the method by whichFacebook publishes or de-publishes omitted). 16 either throughitsAPIs or on itswebsite—cannot theconclusion alter thatitisdoingso infurtherance of 17 Amendment rights. theexercise ofitsFirst 2. 18 Facebook’s ContentIsan IssueofPublic Decision toDe-Publish Interest. developers’ F acebook’seditorial user-created decision access to Facebook’s to limit third-party 19 2o “doesnotdefine a ‘public issue’ content interest. isa matterofpublic Althoughthe anti-SLAPPstatute 21 or an ‘issue ofpublic interest[,]’ have considered thestatute’s explicit thatit‘shall provision be [c]ourts 22 construedbroadly’ and foundthat‘an issueofpublic interest . . 23 interested.” Maloney v. T3Media,Inc,94 F. Supp. 3d 1128, 1134 (CD. Cal.2015),afl’d,8-53 F.3d 24 1004 (9thCir.2017)(quoting 159 Cal.App. 4th 1027, 1042 (2008)); see Nygard,Inc.v. Uusi—Kerttula, . is any issuein which thepublic is 25 26 27 28 2 For the reasonsset forth Amendment because claimsare alsobarredby the First here,Six4Three’s Facebook’seditorial discretion regardingwhat user-created contentto publishis constitutionally protected freespeech. The remedy soughtby Six4Three—an injunction mandatingthatFacebook content—would publish Amendment rights. certain be compelled ofFacebook’sFirst speech,inviolation 6 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI—SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 alsoRiverav.Am. Fed ’nofState,Cty.,& Mun. Employees,AFL—CIO, 105 Cal.App.4th913,924 (2003) “conductthatcoulddirectly affect a largenumber ofpeoplebeyond the direct issueincludes (public L») participants”). allegesthatthe Facebook Six4Threedoes not and cannotdisputethispoint.Six4Threeitself softwaredevelopersto improve the Platformis utilized by hundreds of thousandsof third-party and user experienceoftheir mobileand web-based applications. Six4Threeexpressly functionality “tensofthousandsof “decision alleges thatFacebook’s to closeaccesstothe Graph API Data”affected \DOO\IO\ companies”thathad built their businesseson the Facebook Platform.4AC 11 231. These “tensof thousands” ofdevelopers on Facebook Platform that“relied fororganicgrowt” were allegedly “h[e]ld 10 hostage”by Facebook’seditorial decisions regarding which categories ofuser-generated contentto 11 providethroughthe Platform.Id.fl 279. Thus, according Six4Three’s Facebook’s to own theory, 12 decisions how it regarding publishes thecontent provided by itsusersisofconcerntothepublic. CannotEstablish a Likelihood ofSuccesson ItsClaims. Six4Three 13 D. 14 Because Six4Three’s withinthe scope claimsfall 15 16 17 of Section425 .16,the burden shifts to show a probability Six4Three to ofsuccesson themerits. 29 Cal.4that88—89. Navellier, 1. The Communications ofSix4Three’s Claims. Decency ActBarsAll The CDA immunizesFacebook from liability. Section230 ofthe CDA establishes a “broad 18 immunity,” Almeidav. Amazon.com, Inc., 456 F.3d 1316, 1321—22 (11thCir.2006),which statutory 19 “protects thatcan be boiled fromliability down to deciding whetherto excludematerial that any activity 20 seek to post online.” third parties Barnes v. Yahoo!,Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9thCir.2009),as 21 amended (Sept.28, 2009)(internal quotations and citation Thisprotection omitted). includes decisions 22 “lawsuits to withdraw content: seekingto holda service provider liable foritsexerciseofa publisher’s 23 functions—suchas decidingwhetherto publish, traditional editorial withdraw, postpone,or alter 24 barred.” content—are Zeranv.Am. Online, 129 F.3d327,330 (4thCir.1997)(emphasisadded). Inc., 25 Under CDA Section230,online platforms areprotected fromliability related totheselection and 26 removalof contentcreatedby third parties.Section230 statesthat“[n]o provider or user of an 27 interactive be treated or computerservice shall as thepublisher speaker provided ofany information by 28 provider.” anotherinformation 47 U.S.C.§ 230(c)(1). An “information content contentprovider” is 7 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 or developmentof “any person or entity in whole or in part,forthe creation thatis responsible, Id.§ 230(f)(3). computerservice.” throughthe Internet or any otherinteractive provided information createdby a Section230 createsbroad immunityfroman arrayofclaimsthatmightarisefromcontent platform’s and no liability cause ofactionmay be brought (“[njo users. See id.§ 230(c)(3) may be withthissection”) lawthatisinconsistent (emphasisadded). imposedunderany Stateor local a federal immunityto any cause ofactionthat By itsplainlanguage,Section230(c)“creates .” userofthe service . . providers liable witha third-party forinformation originating wouldmake service KOOO\]O\ isentitled a defendant to immunityif Zeran,129 F.3dat330. Under Section230(c)(1), (1)thedefendant provides an “interactive computerservice,” claimtreats thedefendant of as the“publisher” (2)plaintiff’s 10 provider.” the contentat issue,and (3)the content was “provided 47 content by anotherinformation 11 U.S.C.§ 230(c)(1). Each prongissatisfied. 12 a. 13 FacebookIsan Interactive ComputerService Provider. The firstprong of the CDA-immunitytestis easilymet: Facebook is a “provider” of an 14 “interactive 47 U.S.C.§ 230(c)(1). The CDA broadly computerservice.” defines “interactive computer 15 service” as “any information thatprovidesor enables service, system,or access softwareprovider 16 computeraccess by multiple users to a computerserver.” Id.§ 230(t)(2). Every courtto consider 17 whetherFacebook meets thisdefinition has rightly concludeditdoes, including thisCourt.See, e.g., 18 Crossv. Facebook,14 Cal.App. 5th 190 (2017), reviewdenied(Oct.25,2017);Caraccioli v. Facebook, 19 167 F. Supp. Inc., 20 providers” that“immunity June 6, 2017)(holding bestowedon interactive computersservice applies to 21 ”SFJ”, 144 F. Supp.3d 1088, 1093 (N.D.Cal.2015) Justice Inc.v. Facebook,Inc., Sikhsfor Facebook); 22 afl’dsub nom. SikhsforJustice, (“Sikhs”), Inc.v. Facebook,Inc., 697 F. App’x526 (9thCir.2017); 23 910 F. Supp. 2d 314,318 (D.D.C.2012),aff’d, 753 F.3d 1354 (DC. Cir. Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 2014) 24 830 F. v. Facebook,Inc., (quoting Fraley 25 No. 5:10-CV—03579-JF/PVT, 2010 WL 4269304,at *5 (ND. Cal. Oct. 25, 2010) (same);Finkel v. 26 No. 102578-09, 2009 WL 3240365 (N.Y.Sup. Sept.15, 2009). Facebook,Inc., 3d 1056, 1066 (NB. Cal.2016),afl’d,No. 16-15610,2017 WL 2445063 (9thCir. Supp. 2d 785, 801 (ND.Cal.2011));Young v. Facebook,Inc., 27 28 8 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 /“\ b. z/\ Six4Three’s ClaimsSeek toHoldFacebookLiable fortheExercise ofa Publisher’s Traditional Editorial Functions. The second prong ofthe CDA-immunitytestalso is met: Facebook’sdecisions to de-publish categories ofuser-generated certain throughitsPlatform are unequivocally content published previously a publisher’s decision.Decidingwhat contentto make available is a traditional publisher function. “[R]emoving contentis somethingpublishers do, and to impose on the basisofsuch conduct liability involves treating the liable necessarily Sikhs,144 F. Supp. 3d partyas a publisher.” at 1095 (quoting KOOO\]O\ involves Barnes,570 F.3dat 1103);id.at 1094 (“publication and deciding whetherto reviewing, editing, content” publish or to withdrawfrompublication third-party see (quoting Barnes,570 F.3d at 1102)); 10 alsoKlayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354, 1359 (D.C.Cir.2014)(“the is veryessenceofpublishing 11 makingthedecision whethertoprint orretract Section230(c)(1) a givenpieceofcontent”). barsany and 12 ofcontentfrom [a coveredservice’s] and deletion allclaims“relating to the monitoring, screening, 13 role.”Green v. Am. Online(AOL),318 F.3d network—actions related to a publisher’s quintessentially 14 206 F.3d980,986 & C0.,Inc.v.Am. OnlineInc., 465,471 (3d Cir.2002);see alsoBen Ezra,Weinstein, 15 230 “forbid[s] theimposition on a service provider forthe ofpublisher (10thCir.2000)(Section liability 16 functions”). exercise ofitseditorial and self-regulatory “whatmattersisnot whethera theoryofliability treats a defendant as a publisher, Indetermining 17 “whether butrather thecause ofaction thecourtto ofthecause ofaction,” requires inherently 18 thename 19 provided to another.”3 the defendantas the ‘publisher or speaker’ofcontent treat Barnes,570 F.3d at 20 de-published thatFacebook inappropriately claimsrelyon allegations 1101. Because Six4Three’s 21 on Facebook,as a itimpermissibly seeks to impose liability categories certain ofuser-generated content, 22 “publisher,” content. itspublisher functions the dissemination oflimiting ofuser-created forexercising 23 to “theveryessence F acebook’sdecision—“whether toprint orretract a givenpieceofcontent”—goes 24 ofpublishing.” Klayman,753 F.3dat 1359 (emphasisadded);see alsoSikhs,144 F. Supp. 3d 1095— at 25 26 27 28 toall ofSix4Three’s claims.See, e.g.,Cross,14 Cal.App. 5that Courtshave extendedCDA immunity negligent and misrepresentation, 206 (findingCDA immunityas to claimsforbreach of contract, CDA immunityas to a Section at (finding negligent 167 F. Supp. 3d1066 Caraccioli, interference); Jurinv. Google Inc.,695 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1122—23 (E.D.Cal.2010) (findingCDA 17200 claim); and fraud). economicrelations withcontract and prospective immunityforinterference 3 9 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 claimsagainst to reject F acebookforremovingcontent 96. Courtshave invokedSection from 230(c)(1) itsplatform, Sikhs,144 F. Supp. at 3d1094—96, and against YouTube fortakingdown the plaintiffs’ Lancaster No. 15-CV-05299-HSG,2016 WL 3648608,at *2—3 (N.D.Cal.July v.Alphabet videos, Inc., not to publishcertain decision user contentwas implemented 8, 2016). That Facebook’seditorial throughitsAPIs,rather is no thanremovingithe from itswebsite, The situation content is irrelevant. than a newspaper publisher different choosingto includedifferent contentin itspaper versionas ofdeciding comparedto itsonline the core publishing function version. to Here,Facebookisexercising \OOO\10\ remove content, and the mechanism by which Facebook chooses to implementthat has no decision bearingon theCDA analysis. Six4Three’s baselessallegations as to Facebook’sintent are irrelevant. Even Finally, 10 ifthere 11 were any doubtaboutthelegitimacy likeSix4Three ofFacebook’sconcernsabouthow developers were 12 utilizing the content at thetime(whichthereshouldnotbe, as numerous websites Facebookpublished 13 Decl.Exs. Miller describedPikinis as “creepy”, 14 regardless ofdefendants’ allegedmotive.See, e.g.,Sikhs,144 F. Supp. 3d at and applies requirement 15 even where 1095 (finding discrimination claimprecluded 16 discrimination”). solely by unlawful c. 17 1 & 2),CDA Section230(c)(1) has no good faith conduct“was motivated allegations that were The ContentWas Provided by Someone OtherThan Facebook. thatSix4ThreeclaimsFacebook prongofthe CDA-immunitytestis met: the content The third 18 (“By‘content’ 19 4AC de-published was created and postedby Facebookusers.See, e.g., wrongfully 20 content usersare the“information . . . usersposton Facebook”). we mean anything Thus,Facebook’s 21 thatthecreator of providers” atissue.See, e.g., ofthecontent Sikhs,144 F. Supp.3d at1093—94 (finding 22 a 23 AllthreeprongsoftheCDA-immunitytestaremet,and itbarsallof CDA immunity) omitted). (citation 11 190 provider” forpurposesof content blockedwas the“information Facebookpage thatFacebookallegedly V 24 25 26 SiX4Three’s claims. 2. Claim. ofSuccesson ItsContract CannotShow a Likelihood Six4Three as underwhichitistheobjective intent, adheresto “theobjective California theoryofcontracts,” 27 Members interpretation. thatcontrols evidencedby thewords ofthecontract, See, e.g.,Founding 28 109 Cal.App. 4th944,956 (2003) Beach CountryClub,Inc., NewportBeach CountryClub v.7Newp0rt 10 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 ofthe (citation see alsoCal.Civ.Code omitted); § 1639 (“When a contract isreducedtowriting, theintention “A contract oftheparties isto be ascertained fromthewriting alone,if possible[.]”). must receive such an interpretation make as will itlawful, and capableofbeingcarried definite, reasonable, operative, into itcan be done without if violating theintention oftheparties.” effect, Cal.Civ.Code OO\]O\UI-P-UJN § 1643. Six4Three cannotshow a likelihood ofsuccesson itsbreachofcontract claimforatleast two reasons. Six4Three’s breachofcontract claimisbased on itsallegation that First, Facebookbreachedthe provision oftheDecember 2012 SR inwhichFacebookagreedto giveSix4Three“all rights necessary to use the code,APIs,data,and tools fromus.” 4AC you receive \D 11 190. The fimdamentalproblemis thatthe operative SRR does notinclude thisprovision. Miller Decl.Ex. 3 at Exhibit B. Thatcontract foritsbreachclaim. 10 does notinclude and isnotalleged to include theprovision thatSix4Threerelies on 11 “all Id.To be sure,earlier thatFacebookwill versions theprovision oftheSR include givedevelopers 12 rights to use thecode,APIs,data,and tools necessary fromus.”See, e.g.,id.atExhibit A § you receive 13 9.2.8.Butthecontract to the was amended to remove thatprovision prior alleged breachinApril 2015. 14 Id.atExhibit B. And Six4Threeaccepted 15 fatal breachofcontract claim. to Six4Three’s 16 the amendments. See, e.g., id.at Exhibit A § 14.3. Thisis non-operative theCourtwere to find thattheearlier, version oftheSR controls Second,even if facially-invalid interpretation clause oftherelevant 17 Six4Three’s claimisbased on claim,Six4Three’s 18 inthe earlier SRR. The plainlanguageofthe clausemakes clearthatFacebookagreedto provide the 19 legal rights Facebookpublishes butonlytothe touse thecontent todevelopers, necessaryfordevelopers 2o receives such content extent a developer fromFacebook. 4AC 21 throughtheFacebookPlatform, itensuresthatdevelopers have typesofcontent 22 use thatcontent. agreedto provide all inperpetuity. Facebook never ofits“code,APIs,data,and tools” a 1[ 190. When Facebook publishes certain the to necessaryrights languageofthe SR and the withthe clearand explicit wouldbe inconsistent Any such interpretation 24 25 objective intent oftheparties. Six4Three’s to the plainlanguage of the provision, implicit In addition to being contrary 26 necessary” rights inotherprovisions interpretation withhow theSR uses thephrase“all isalsoat odds 27 rights agreedtoprovide Facebookwith“all Six4Three oftheSR. Forexample,ina mirrored provision, 28 the right to incorporate to work withFacebook,including necessaryto enable [Pikinis] 1 1 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 content and stories.” information tous intostreams, Miller Ex. 3 atExhibit A timelines, and useraction you provide § 9.15.Justas F acebookdid not agreealwaystoprovide allofitsdatatoSix4Three, Six4Threesimilarly didnotagree to provideallofits“content to Facebookforever. and information” Rather,bothparties 4; agreedtogivetheother thelegal rights provided to the other. actually necessarytouse theinformation Six4Three’s thatFacebookwas obligated thiscontent viaits interpretation, to continuepublish to Platform to Six4Threeand hundredsofthousandsofotherdevelopers forfreeforever, isinconsistent \OOONONUI withtheobjective intent evidencedby thewords ofthecontract, and would isobjectively unreasonable, renderthecontract See Cal.Civ.Code indefinite intoeffect. and incapable ofbeingcarried 3. § 1643. CannotShow a Likelihood ofSuccesson ItsSection17200 Claim. Six4Three 10 prongof Prong. Six4Threedoes not and cannotstatea claimunderthe “unlawful” Unlawful 11 ‘anyunlawful’ Section17200. “Byproscribing businesspractice, section17200 ‘borrows’ violations of 12 competition otherlaws and treats practices thatthe unfair them as unlawful 13 actionable.” Beltonv. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, 151 Cal.App. 4th 1224, 1233 (2007)(citation 14 omitted).Six4Threedoes not allegethatFacebook violated any otherlaw; itmerely assertsthat 15 Facebook’s alleged conductwas “unlawful.” 4AC 16 specificlawallegedly violated prong.See, tostatea claimundertheunlawful by F acebook,ithas failed 17 14 Cal.App. 4th612,619 (1993)(sustaining demurrerwhere Inc., Khouryv. Maly’sofCalifornia, e.g., 18 “complaint and fails to scheme which was violated identifies no particular sectionofthe statutory 19 violation”). describe withany reasonable thefactssupporting particularity 1] makes law independently 183. Because Six4Three has failed to identify any is UnfairProng. Six4Three’scomplaintthatFacebook’sallegedconductwas “unfair” 20 21 competitors Law. Ina case involving alleged Competition insufficient toallege a claimundertheUnfair 22 “theword ‘unfair’ ofan antitrust an incipient violation thatthreatens . . . means conduct and competition, 23 are comparableto orthesame orspirit ofone ofthoselawsbecause itseffects thepolicy law,orviolates 24 as a 25 Commc’ns,Inc.v.L.A.Cellular Tel.C0.,20 Cal.4th163, 187 (1999). 26 Cel—Tech threatensor harms competition.” violation of the law, or otherwisesignificantly Section17200 claimwas based on a theoryof unilateral For over two years,Six4Three’s 27 accessto itsuserdataso to Six4Three, Facebookengaged ina scheme torestrict monopoly.According 28 or sorting capableofsearching the ability to createapplications foritself thatitcould“monopolize[] 12 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 KN /~«. . photos.”Miller Decl.Ex. 4 (SAC) 11 116. But to avoidfederal Six4Threeunequivocally jurisdiction, disavoweditsmonopolyantitrust thisyear.So now Six4ThreeadvancesitsSection17200 theoryearlier “oligopoly.” claimby transforming itintoone ofan allegedly illegal 4AC 1H] 4, 19, 85, 165, 168, 177. But Six4Threedoes‘notand cannotallegefactsto supportitsclaim. At best,itallegesthat Facebookenteredintoagreementswithsome third-party developers thatgave thosedevelopers accessto certain categories butdidnotenterintosuch an agreementwithSix4Three.See, ofuser-created content, e.g.,id.fl 168. Even ifthiswere true,a refusal deal to is not a cognizable antitrust violation under \OOO\]O\ California law. See, e.g., Dimidowichv. Bell& Howell,803 F.2d 1473, 1478 (9thCir.1986),opinion 810 F.2d 1517 (9thCir.1987) (“Amanufacturer modified on denial may choose thosewith ofreh’g, 10 whom itwishesto dealand unilaterally or customerforbusiness may refuseto dealwitha distributor 11 laws.”) running afoul reasonswithout oftheantitrust (citation omitted). 12 To the extentthatSix4ThreeallegesthatFacebook enteredintoprohibited tyingarrangements 13 “A tying complaint—that. parties—aclaimnot explicitly withthird made in Six4Three’s also fails. 14 lawsexists arrangement underantitrust when a partyagreesto sellone product on the product) (thetying 15 condition thatthebuyeralsopurchasesa different product curbing competition thereby product), (thetied 16 inthesaleofthetiedproduct.” Freeman v. San DiegoAss ’11 151 Cal.App. 4that 1234 (quoting Belton, 17 77 ofRealtors, 18 harm tocompetitionthe inalleged tied product notthealleged product market. market, tying The closest thatSix4Threecomes to alleging arrangementprohibited a tying by the Cartwright 19 20 Cal.App. 4th 171, 183—94 (1999)).The concernwithunlawful tyingarrangementsis Actisthisconclusory allegation: Facebook and certain of itsexecutives[] combined and conspiredwithotherlarge specificvertical unequalaccess to the companiesto oligopolize marketsby providing unrelated advertising Social Graph inexchangeforthesecompaniesproviding payments orotherin-kind detriment considerationthe to extreme ofallothermarketparticipants. 21 22 23 ifFacebook had conditioned access to itsuser—createdcontenton “unrelated 24 4AC 25 product” advertising” claim.Here,the“tying isallegedly payments,thisdoes notstatean antitrust tying 26 product”is “unrelated advertising the unequal access to the user-generated and the “tied content, 27 consideration” paid thatothercompanies,but not Six4Three,allegedly payments or otherin-kind 28 content.But Six4Three does notand cannotclaimthat Facebooktoget“unequal” accesstouser-created 1[ 168. Even 13 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 Facebook’sallegedconductharmed competition in the allegedtiedproductmarket,which is the “advertising” market. See Belton,151 Cal.App. 4th at 1240 (“In the absence ofsome restraint upon the mere practice competition, ofpackagingservicestogetheris not inherently anticompetitive or harmful toconsumers”) (citations Thisisfatal to Six4Three’s omitted). claim. Six4Threehas notpledthatthe allegedconduct“violates the policy Finally, or spirit” ofany antitrust law. “[A]ny findingofunfairness to competitors under section17200 [must]be tethered to some legislatively declared orproof orthreatened Cel— policy impacton competition.” ofsome actual Tech, 20 Cal.4th at 186—87 (emphasisadded). But Six4Threehas not identified any “legislatively policy” declared Facebookviolated, norhas italleged orthreatened impacton competition.4 any actual 4. 10 Six4Three CannotShow a Likelihood ofSuccesson ItsFraudClaims. Six4Threecannotshow a likelihood ofsuccesson itsnegligent and intentional misrepresentation 11 12 because itstwo principals didnotvieworreceive claims, thealleged misrepresentations identified inthe 13 Fourth Amended Complaint,let alone rely upon them.5 14 misrepresentations thatsupposedlyinduceditto register as a developer in2012 include (1)statements 15 made by Facebook at the launchofthe FacebookPlatform 2007, in see, e.g.,4AC 16 statements made by FacebookatthelaunchofGraph API in2010,see,e.g.,id.11‘”64—72. Six4Three claims that the alleged 1111 29—42, and (2) Six4Three’s two principals confirmedinsworn deposition thattheydidnotreviewthe testimony 17 18 Six4Three’s statements issue at beforetheanticipation founderand managingmember, Ted oflitigation. 19 Kramer, testified thathe was not aware of any presentations given duringFacebook’sdeveloper 20 conferences beforeJanuary2015—wellafter Six4Threecontemplated thislawsuit—and bringing didnot 21 recall reviewing any documentson theF acebook 22 232:23—23329, 23423—25. 23 2014 F8 speech,he had notseen any presentations. exception ofpartsofMr.Zuckerberg’s Decl. Miller developers website then. Miller before Decl.Ex. 5 at Tim Gildea,Six4Three’s othermember, testified that,withthe possible 24 25 26 27 28 4 Six4Threedoes not allegethe fraudprong in itsSection17200 claim. A businesspractice is “fraudulent” “members ofthepublic are likely within themeaning ofSection17200 if to be deceived.” In re Ins.Installment Fee Cases, 211 Cal.App. 4th 1395, 1416 (2012). Six4Threemakes no such allegation intheFourthAmended Complaint. 5 Inaddition, Six4Threecannotshow a likelihood ofsuccesson itsconcealmentclaimsforthe reasons setforth inFacebook’sDemurrerto Six4Three’s FourthAmended Complaint, herein. incorporated 14 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 _ r\\ 1/ I Ex. 6 at 1162—10. Six4Threehas notproducedany documentsor evidenceshowingthatSix4Three was aware ofthesepublic statements. has confirmed,underoath,thatneither Six4Three ofitsprincipals ever saw thealleged misrepresentations, so Six4Three couldnothave relied upon them. Claims.6 Six4Three CannotShow a Likelihood ofSuccesson ItsInterference 5. 4; Foran intentional interference withcontract theplaintiff claim, must provethatthedefendant had \]O\U\ knowledge of the contract and took intentional steps designedto induce a breach or disrupt the contractual relationship. QuelimaneCo. v. StewardTitle Guar. Co., 19 Cal.4th 26, 55 (1998),as modified (Sept.23, 1998). Six4ThreeclaimsthatFacebook interfered with Six4Three’s license agreementswithitsusersby de-publishing certain categories ofuser-generated thatthePikinis content 10 friends’ app used to function, including photos. 4AC 11 announced thisdecision on 12 App Store. See Miller-Decl. Exs. 7 & 13 agreementswhen itannounceditspolicy change.And Six4Three was in fact aware ofthechangestothe 14 as earlyas May 2014,but chose to go Platform. 15 summer 16 interference claiminthefaceofthis withcontract undisputed evidence. 17 IV. The problemis thatFacebook See 8. Facebook couldnot have aheadand enterintoagreementswithitsusersinthe Miller Decl.Ex. SHOULD BE AWARDED known of Six4Three’s future 9. Six4Threecannot prevail on itsintentional ITS ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS. Facebookrequestsan orderawardingitsreasonableattorneys’ fees and costs. “[A] prevailing 18 19 defendant on a special motionto strike be entitled shall to recoverhisor her attorney’s feesand costs.” 20 CiV. Proc.Code 21 fees.” SLAPP defendantwho bringsa successful is entitled motionto strike to mandatoryattorney 22 Ketchum v.Moses,24 Cal.4th1122, 1131 (2001). 23 V. :5 § thisto mean that“any Supreme Courthas interpreted 425.16(c).The California CONCLUSION For the foregoing FourthAmended Complaintbe reasons,Facebook requeststhatSix4Three’s 24 ' 267—271. April was even available forsaleon the iOS 30, 2014,wellbeforePikinis of 2014 anyway. FACEBOOK 1111 dismissed withprejudice, and thatFacebookbe awardeditsattomey’s feesand costs. 26 27 28 Six4Threealsocannotshow a likelihood with ofsuccesson itsintentional and negligent interference prospective forthe reasonssetforth economicrelations claims inFacebook’sDemurrerto Six4Three’s FourthAmended Complaint, herein. incorporated 6 15 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 \q DURIE TANGRI LLP Dated:November 21,2017 By: 45-9l LAURA E. MILLER forDefendant Attorneys Facebook.Inc. \IONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328 PROOF OF SERVICE Iam a citizen Iam employedinSan oftheUnitedStatesand resident oftheStateofCalifornia. Francisco intheofficeofa member County,StateofCalifornia, ofthebarofthisCourt,atwhose direction theservice was made. Iam overtheage ofeighteen action. years,and nota partytothewithin San Francisco, CA 94111. Street, My businessaddressis217 Leidesdorff On November 21,2017,Iservedthefollowing documentsinthemanner described below: NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT \OOO\IC\ lg 10 ll 12 13 14 [15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By electronically a trueand correct mailing copythrough - DurieTangri’s electronic mailsystemfromjcotton@durietangri.com totheemail addressessetforth below. On thefollowing in this action: part(ies) BasilP. Fthenakis CRITERION LAW 2225 E. BayshoreRoad, Suite200 PaloAlto, CA 94303 650-352-8400 Telephone: 650-352-8408 Facsimile: bpf@criterionlaw.com DavidS. Godkin James Kruzer BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 280 Summer Street Boston,MA 02210 617-307-6100 Telephone: godkin@bimbaumgodkin.com kruzer@bimbaumgodkin.com Attorneys forPlaintiff Six4Three,LLC underthelawsoftheUnitedStatesofAmericathatthe Ideclareunderpenaltyofperjury California. Executedon November 21,2017,atSan Francisco, foregoing istrueand correct. 24 25 gs , wW 26 27 Janelle Cotton 28 17 SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 425.16(ANTI-SLAPP)/ CASE NO. CIV 533328