Case 3:19-cv-01356-VC Document 54 Filed 07/11/19 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MON CHERI BRIDALS, LLC, et al.,

Case No. 19-cv-01356-VC

Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.
CLOUDFLARE, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 40

Defendants.
The motion to dismiss is denied. The plaintiffs have plausibly stated a claim for
contributory copyright infringement against Cloudflare.
1. Cloudflare’s main argument – that contributory liability cannot be based on a
defendant’s knowledge of infringing conduct and continued material contribution to it – is
wrong. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv., Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788, 795 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[O]ne
contributorily infringes when he (1) has knowledge of another’s infringement and (2) either (a)
materially contributes to or (b) induces that infringement.”); see also Perfect 10, Inc. v.
Giganews, Inc., 847 F.3d 657, 671 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[A] computer system operator is liable
under a material contribution theory of infringement if it has actual knowledge that specific
infringing material is available using its system, and can take simple measures to prevent further
damage to copyrighted works, yet continues to provide access to infringing works.” (internal
quotations and italics omitted)). Allegations that Cloudflare knew its customer-websites
displayed infringing material and continued to provide those websites with faster load times and
concealed identities are sufficient to state a claim.
2. The notices allegedly sent by the plaintiffs gave Cloudflare specific information,
including a link to the offending website and a link to the underlying copyrighted material, to

 Case 3:19-cv-01356-VC Document 54 Filed 07/11/19 Page 2 of 2

plausibly allege that Cloudflare had actual knowledge of the infringing activity. This is
sufficient, at least at the pleading stage. A prior judicial determination of infringement was
unnecessary.
3. Cloudflare’s challenge to the sufficiency of the notices under 17 U.S.C. section 512 is
misplaced. Section 512 limits available relief based on certain safe harbors. Cloudflare has not
shown that its conduct should be considered under one safe harbor rather than under another safe
harbor (and thus has not shown that the alleged notice would need to be formatted in one way
rather than another). In any event, this issue is neither dispositive to the action nor appropriate
for resolution at this stage of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 11, 2019
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2