1 8 JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324) jcotchett@cpmlegal.com BRIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403) bdanitz@cpmlegal.com JULIA Q. PENG (SBN 318396) jpeng@cpmlegal.com ANDREW F. KIRTLEY (SBN 328023) akirtley@cpmlegal.com NOORJAHAN RAHMAN (SBN 330572) nrahman@cpmlegal.com COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, California 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO STEVE WOZNIAK, ALEX NARAY, JAMES DENITTO, BERNARDO GARCIA, ALEXANDER GEISLER, ASA JACQUES, ZHENYU LI, JIN LIU, ANTHONY MARTINEZ, HARIVARMAH NAGALINGGAM, PAUL NEWMAN, MYRIELLE PHILISTIN, DARIO LOPEZ PORTILLA, ERIC RESTREPO, RAUL MOREÑO ROMERO, DAVID SCHRADER, LUKE THOMAS, and LUNG HUNG YANG, 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT FOR: (1) VIOLATIONS OF RIGHT OF PUBLICITY; (2) MISAPPROPRIATION OF NAME OR LIKENESS; (3) FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION; (4) AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD; (5) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; (6) NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN; Plaintiffs, 24 26 Case No. 20-CIV-03032 (7) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 23 25 7/21/2020 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL v. YOUTUBE, LLC, a Delaware company; GOOGLE, LLC, a Delaware company; and DOES 1–20, Defendants. COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................... 8 III. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................... 9 5 A. Plaintiffs ........................................................................................................................... 9 6 B. Defendants ..................................................................................................................... 10 7 8 C. Doe Defendants .............................................................................................................. 11 IV. CONSPIRACY, AIDING AND ABETTING, AND CONCERTED ACTION ............. 11 V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 13 9 A. Steve Wozniak’s Success And Reputation Give His Name And Likeness Significant Value. ............................................................................................................................. 13 10 B. Defendants Significantly Harmed WOZNIAK And YOUTUBE Users By Knowingly Allowing The BITCOIN GIVEAWAY Scam To Thrive, Promoting The Scam, Profiting From The Scam, And Failing to Warn Users. ................................................ 14 11 12 C. Defendants Promoted, Monetized, And Materially Contributed To The BITCOIN GIVEAWAY Scam. ....................................................................................................... 16 13 15 D. Defendants Knew About The BITCOIN GIVEAWAY Scam Because WOZNIAK, Countless Other Scam Victims, YOUTUBE Users, And Media Articles Informed YOUTUBE And GOOGLE About Every Aspect Of The Scam. .................................. 19 16 E. Defendants Have The Means To Stop The BITCOIN GIVEAWAY Scam And To Warn YOUTUBE Users But Have Not Done So; Instead Defendants Materially Contribute To The Scam By Failing To Timely Respond, Promoting The Scam, And Selling Targeted Ads For The Scam. ......................................................................................... 25 F. 19 Defendants’ Acts And Omissions Caused Plaintiffs To Lose Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars In The BITCOIN GIVEAWAY Scam. ........................................................ 26 20 G. Defendants’ Misconduct Is Not Immunized By Section 230. ....................................... 33 14 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP VI. CAUSES OF ACTION ....................................................................................................... 34 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Right of Publicity (Cal. Civ. Code § 3344) .............................................................................. 34 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Misappropriation of Name or Likeness .................................................................................... 36 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Fraud and Misrepresentation .................................................................................................... 36 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Aiding and Abetting Fraud ....................................................................................................... 38 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) ....................................... 39 COMPLAINT i 1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Failure to Warn ........................................................................................................ 41 2 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Injunctive Relief ....................................................................................................................... 42 3 4 VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF..................................................................................................... 43 5 VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL .......................................................................................... 44 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT ii 1 Plaintiff STEVE WOZNIAK, together with Plaintiffs ALEX NARAY, JAMES DENITTO, 2 BERNARDO GARCIA, ALEXANDER GEISLER, ASA JACQUES, ZHENYU LI, JIN LIU, 3 ANTHONY MARTINEZ, HARIVARMAH NAGALINGGAM, PAUL NEWMAN, MYRIELLE 4 PHILISTIN, DARIO LOPEZ PORTILLA, ERIC RESTREPO, RAUL MOREÑO ROMERO, 5 DAVID SCHRADER, LUKE THOMAS, and LUNG HUNG YANG (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), 6 bring this Complaint against Defendants YOUTUBE LLC and GOOGLE LLC (collectively, 7 “Defendants”) for injunctive relief and damages, and allege based on personal knowledge as to 8 acts and events taking place in their presence or upon information and belief as to all other acts as 9 follows: 10 11 12 13 I. INTRODUCTION “We’re embarrassed, we’re disappointed, and more than anything, we’re sorry. We know that we must work to regain your trust, and we will support all efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice.” – Twitter (July 18, 2020) 14 15 On July 15, 2020, Twitter suffered a massive hack that hit 130 Twitter accounts of 16 celebrities and public officials, including Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Elon Musk, and many others. 17 The attackers sent tweets from those accounts offering to send $2,000 for every $1,000 sent to an 18 anonymous bitcoin address. That same day, Twitter acted swiftly and decisively to shut down 19 these accounts and to protect its users from the scam, issuing the above apology. 20 2. In stark contrast, for months now, Defendant YOUTUBE has been 21 unapologetically hosting, promoting, and directly profiting from similar scams. YOUTUBE has 22 featured a steady stream of scam videos and promotions that falsely use images and videos of 23 Plaintiff STEVE WOZNIAK, and other famous tech entrepreneurs, and that have defrauded 24 YOUTUBE users out of millions of dollars. 25 ♼ 1. 3. The scam uses images and video of STEVE WOZNIAK to convince YOUTUBE 26 users that he is hosting a live “BTC” or “BITCOIN GIVEAWAY” event and that, for a limited 27 time, any user who sends in their bitcoin will receive twice as much back. But when users transfer 28 their cryptocurrency, in an irreversible transaction, they receive nothing back. COMPLAINT LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 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 ♼ 4. With full knowledge of this scam, YOUTUBE resisted taking the scam videos 26 down, allowed them to multiply, and contributed to the scam by making them appear legitimate. 27 YOUTUBE and GOOGLE took the further step of promoting and profiting from these scams 28 by providing paid advertising that targeted users who were most likely to be harmed. LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 2 1 2 3 STEVE WOZN'AK Fm. MIMI-g sitcom WE oi Crymo Steve Wozniak interview: Blockchain technology, AI, Crypto, Bitcoin BTC Hlving 2020 4 Steve Wozniak ' 9.4K views 5 Stephen Gary Wozniak (/‘wozniekk born August 11. 1950),a so known by his nickname "W02", is Streamed - month ago 1 an American electronics 6 C Steve Wozniak Live Interview: Bitcoin 7 Steve Wozniak ' 245 views ° Streamed I STEVE WOZNIAK — . Woz Association GIVEAWAY/_ — _ —* ,_ ,Im win-n:— _ 4—— — — 1 month ago . . . . . . Steve Wozniak mtervnew: Blockchain technology, Al, Crypto, Bltcom SD Entertainment ' 12 views - Streamed 1 month ago Steve Wozniak shares his ideas on Bitcoin halving, Blockchain innovation, Apple, Bitcoin future in 16 2020 Steve Wozniak aka ”The 17 «RM? We)! his C l Steve Wozniak Live: Blockchain, Crypto, Bitcoin BTC Halving 2020 countdown live Woz Foundation - 62.973 spettatori - 99% Bitcoin Address: 1Woz1 cqjox4FD7tQyJX21v4UKmu1 szHX More info on the website: Woz-promojnfo Steve Wozniak aka “The WEE“ W Mum 20 G Steve Wozniak Live: Blockchain technology, Future of Crypto, 21 5000 BTC 22 Bitcoin BTC Halving 2020 Steve Wozniak Foundation - 15.912 spettatori - 56x https://wozbitcoin.com/ Address: 1WoooZQzBBP5w1 WPMuidbvspkjsw9BNY9 Stephen Gary Wozniak (/ wozniak DAL VIVO ORA 23 born Nuovo C Steve Wozniak Live: Blockchain technology, Future of Crypto, 24 STEVIE LUUIIII’RK 26 Streamed BTC Halving 2020 15 25 - ~ 14 19 ! 15 views - BTC 5000 C Steve Wozniak on Bitcoin, Blockchain Technology, Apple, BTC Halvmg Countdown The Past, Present and ‘"‘”"°"’YP‘° 18 month ago cryptocurrency Steve Wozniak. 10 13 1 btc #bitcoin #stevewozniak In this broadcast, we will be interviewing the creator of the Bitcoin 9 12 2020 News 8. BTC About Raising Prices 8 11 In Bitcoin BTC Halving 2020 Steve Wozniak Foundation 1 BTC BIVERLURY - 64.472 spettatori - 97% Stephen Gary Wozniak (/‘wozniakl; born August American electronics DAL VIVO ORA 1 1, 1950),also known by his nickname 'Woz'. is an Nuovo 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 3 1 5. Other technology entrepreneurs whose images and videos have been hijacked in this 2 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam include Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Michael Dell, Robert Kiyosaki, and 3 Brad Garlinghouse. According to Bitcoin.com, as of June 20, 2020, YOUTUBE users had lost 4 more than $2 million in bitcoin in response to just the Elon Musk BTC GIVEAWAY and the 5 “bitcoin giveaways continue to scam people on Youtube.” 1 As further reported in Bitcoin News in 6 a story titled “Youtube Helps Scammers Steal $130,000 in Bitcoin From Investors Daily: 7 Report,” YOUTUBE’s complicity contributed to approximately $24 million in stolen 8 cryptocurrency during the first six months of 2020.2 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 See Bitcoin News (June 20, 2020), https://news.bitcoin.com/elon-musk-bitcoin-giveaway-scammillions-dollars-btc/. 2 See Jeffrey Gogo, “Youtube Helps Scammers Steal $130,000 in Bitcoin From Investors Daily: Report,” Bitcoin News (July 12, 2020), https://news.bitcoin.com/youtube-helps-scammers-steal130000-in-bitcoin-from-investors-daily-report/. COMPLAINT 4 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 ♼ 4. With full knowledge of this scam, YOUTUBE resisted taking the scam videos 26 down, allowed them to multiply, and contributed to the scam by making them appear legitimate. 27 YOUTUBE and GOOGLE took the further step of promoting and profiting from these scams 28 by providing paid advertising that targeted users who were most likely to be harmed. LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 2 1 2 3 STEVE WOZN'AK Fm. MIMI-g sitcom WE oi Crymo Steve Wozniak interview: Blockchain technology, AI, Crypto, Bitcoin BTC Hlving 2020 4 Steve Wozniak ' 9.4K views 5 Stephen Gary Wozniak (/‘wozniekk born August 11. 1950),a so known by his nickname "W02", is Streamed - month ago 1 an American electronics 6 C Steve Wozniak Live Interview: Bitcoin 7 Steve Wozniak ' 245 views ° Streamed I STEVE WOZNIAK — . Woz Association GIVEAWAY/_ — _ —* ,_ ,Im win-n:— _ 4—— — — 1 month ago . . . . . . Steve Wozniak mtervnew: Blockchain technology, Al, Crypto, Bltcom SD Entertainment ' 12 views - Streamed 1 month ago Steve Wozniak shares his ideas on Bitcoin halving, Blockchain innovation, Apple, Bitcoin future in 16 2020 Steve Wozniak aka ”The 17 «RM? We)! his C l Steve Wozniak Live: Blockchain, Crypto, Bitcoin BTC Halving 2020 countdown live Woz Foundation - 62.973 spettatori - 99% Bitcoin Address: 1Woz1 cqjox4FD7tQyJX21v4UKmu1 szHX More info on the website: Woz-promojnfo Steve Wozniak aka “The WEE“ W Mum 20 G Steve Wozniak Live: Blockchain technology, Future of Crypto, 21 5000 BTC 22 Bitcoin BTC Halving 2020 Steve Wozniak Foundation - 15.912 spettatori - 56x https://wozbitcoin.com/ Address: 1WoooZQzBBP5w1 WPMuidbvspkjsw9BNY9 Stephen Gary Wozniak (/ wozniak DAL VIVO ORA 23 born Nuovo C Steve Wozniak Live: Blockchain technology, Future of Crypto, 24 STEVIE LUUIIII’RK 26 Streamed BTC Halving 2020 15 25 - ~ 14 19 ! 15 views - BTC 5000 C Steve Wozniak on Bitcoin, Blockchain Technology, Apple, BTC Halvmg Countdown The Past, Present and ‘"‘”"°"’YP‘° 18 month ago cryptocurrency Steve Wozniak. 10 13 1 btc #bitcoin #stevewozniak In this broadcast, we will be interviewing the creator of the Bitcoin 9 12 2020 News 8. BTC About Raising Prices 8 11 In Bitcoin BTC Halving 2020 Steve Wozniak Foundation 1 BTC BIVERLURY - 64.472 spettatori - 97% Stephen Gary Wozniak (/‘wozniakl; born August American electronics DAL VIVO ORA 1 1, 1950),also known by his nickname 'Woz'. is an Nuovo 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 3 1 sums of money being stolen from its users—YOUTUBE repeatedly has refused or failed to 2 intervene in a timely manner or to warn any of its users about the scam. At the same time, 3 YOUTUBE has knowingly and willingly contributed to and profited from these scams. 4 11. By their conduct, Defendants YOUTUBE and GOOGLE have facilitated, solicited, 5 encouraged, materially contributed to, and otherwise induced this financial criminal activity. 6 Defendants continue to rake in profits at the expense of both STEVE WOZNIAK’s reputation and 7 their users, many of whom have been taken in by these YOUTUBE promotions and suffered 8 substantial financial harm as a result. In essence, unknown fraudsters scam YOUTUBE users out 9 of crypotcurrency using the names and likenesses of WOZNIAK and other celebrities as bait, and 10 YOUTUBE takes its cut of these illegally gotten proceeds by knowingly and willingly selling 11 those same fraudsters targeted advertising that drive additional YOUTUBE users to the fraudulent 12 promotions and videos, thereby further fueling the scam and keeping the money flowing. Pictured 13 here is one such paid YOUTUBE video advertisement for a fraudulent “giveaway” of Ether (ETH) 14 cryptocurrency that misappropriates video of Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ♼ 12. In their drive to maintain their status as the world’s leading online video platform, 27 YOUTUBE is profiting from, and knowingly and materially contributing to, this widespread 28 financial criminal activity on its platform. Defendants engage in such activity because it furthers COMPLAINT 7 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 their growth and revenue strategies, furthers their desire to maintain hegemony over the relevant 2 market, and because they have come to the erroneous legal conclusion that 47 U.S.C. § 230 3 (“Section 230”) immunizes them from civil liability for such reprehensible conduct as facilitating, 4 soliciting, encouraging, contributing to, or otherwise inducing financial criminal activity that 5 scams their own users out of millions of dollars. YOUTUBE is wrong. 6 While Section 230 has played, and continues to play, a vital and important role in 7 ensuring free and open expression and debate on the Internet with a minimum of government 8 regulation, these fraudulent videos and YOUTUBE’s ongoing, knowing, and active participation in 9 their promotion, fall well outside of the immunity from liability that Section 230 provides. Unlike 10 the vast majority of content on the Internet, the promotions at issue here are blatant criminal 11 conduct that is not even arguably protected by the First Amendment. These videos are criminally 12 fraudulent financial enterprises, pure and simple. They must stop. Defendants have improperly 13 refused to act, to warn their users, or to otherwise play a constructive role in stopping this criminal 14 enterprise, and have instead perpetuated and profited from it. Section 230 does not and will not 15 immunize Defendants from answering to those whom their conduct has harmed, and the Court 16 must require Defendants to take reasonable steps to stop contributing to this criminal activity. 17 II. 18 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the claims brought by this Complaint, 19 which are based on violations of California law and/or violations of federal laws over which the 20 Court has concurrent jurisdiction. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum 21 of this Court. 22 15. Venue is proper in this County because Defendants are located in and/or perform 23 substantial amounts of business in the County, and because a substantial part of the events, acts, 24 omissions, and transactions complained of herein occurred in this County. 25 ♼ 13. 16. The Court has general personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because each of 26 their corporate headquarters and principal places of business are in California. The Court also has 27 specific personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because each has sufficient minimum contacts 28 with California, has purposely availed itself of California’s benefits and protection, and does a COMPLAINT LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 8 1 substantial amount of business in California, such that the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over 2 each Defendant is wholly consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 3 III. 4 A. Plaintiffs 5 17. Plaintiff STEVE WOZNIAK is a Silicon Valley icon that co-founded Apple 6 Computer in the 1970s and has subsequently engaged in many entrepreneurial and philanthropic 7 ventures. He is a widely known, recognized, and beloved public figure. He is a United States 8 citizen residing in Los Gatos, California. 9 10 18. 12 Plaintiff ALEX NARAY is a Swiss citizen residing in Geneva, Switzerland. Naray was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 11 19. Plaintiff JAMES DENITTO is a United States citizen residing in Florida. DeNitto was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 13 20. Plaintiff BERNARDO GARCIA is a United States citizen residing in Los Angeles, 14 California. Garcia was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified 15 herein. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ♼ PARTIES 21. Plaintiff ALEXANDER GEISLER is a German citizen residing in Switzerland. Geisler was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 22. Plaintiff ASA JACQUES is a citizen of and resides in the United Kingdom. Jacques was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 23. Plaintiff ZHENYU LI is a citizen of and resides in China. Li was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 24. Plaintiff JIN LIU is a Chinese citizen residing in Japan. Liu was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 25. Plaintiff ANTHONY MARTINEZ is a United States citizen residing in California. Martinez was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 26. Plaintiff HARIVARMAH NAGALINGGAM is a citizen of and resides in 27 Malaysia. Nagalinggam was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as 28 specified herein. LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff PAUL NEWMAN is a citizen of and resides in the United Kingdom. Newman was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 28. Plaintiff MYRIELLE PHILISTIN is a Haitian citizen residing in New York. Philistin was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 29. Plaintiff DARIO LOPEZ PORTILLA is a citizen of and resides in Spain. Portilla was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 30. Plaintiff ERIC RESTREPO is a United States citizen residing in California. Restrepo was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 31. Plaintiff RAUL MARIÑO ROMERO is a citizen of and resides in Spain. Romero was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 32. Plaintiff DAVID SCHRADER is a United States citizen residing in Missouri. Schrader was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 33. Plaintiff LUKE THOMAS is a citizen of and resides in the United Kingdom. Thomas was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 34. Plaintiff HUNG LUNG YANG is a Canadian citizen residing in Pennsylvania. Yang was a recent victim of a cryptocurrency scam video on YouTube, as specified herein. 17 B. Defendants 18 35. Defendant YOUTUBE, LLC (“YOUTUBE”), is a Delaware limited liability 19 company with its principal place of business in San Mateo County at 901 Cherry Avenue, San 20 Bruno, California 94066. YOUTUBE owns and operates the largest video-based website in the 21 world making most of their revenue from advertising. In 2006, YOUTUBE was purchased by 22 Defendant GOOGLE. Since that purchase, YOUTUBE has operated as a wholly owned and 23 controlled subsidiary of GOOGLE. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the website 24 youtube.com was operated and controlled by both YOUTUBE and GOOGLE. From time to time, 25 YOUTUBE conducts business as GOOGLE. For example, YOUTUBE’s support forums and 26 documentation are hosted on support.google.com. 27 ♼ 27. 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 36. Defendant GOOGLE LLC (“GOOGLE”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Santa Clara County at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, COMPLAINT 10 1 Mountain View, California 94043. Since 2006, GOOGLE has wholly owned and controlled 2 YOUTUBE and is the alter ego of YOUTUBE. GOOGLE’s search engine is the largest source of 3 all visits to youtube.com, more than six times that of any other website. GOOGLE and 4 YOUTUBE share a tremendous amount of user data to produce and develop their products and 5 services, and to grow revenues. For example, YOUTUBE and GOOGLE share user data from 6 their respective websites (youtube.com and google.com) to create content and personalized 7 advertisements on both sites. YOUTUBE and GOOGLE also combine their user data and products 8 for purposes of GOOGLE’s advertising program, which allows advertisers to target video 9 advertisements to YOUTUBE users based on whether they recently searched for a specific term on 10 11 C. Doe Defendants 12 37. In addition to the named Defendants, various other individuals and entities 13 performed acts and made statements in furtherance thereof, and otherwise participated in, the 14 violations of law alleged herein. The true names and capacities of these individuals and entities, 15 Does 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. Plaintiffs, therefore, sue these 16 Defendants, Does 1 through 20, by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs further allege that each of 17 these Defendants, Does 1 through20, is responsible for the acts and occurrences set forth herein. 18 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that discovery will reveal additional information concerning the 19 identities of these Defendants, Does 1 through 20, and each of their acts and statements made in 20 furtherance of the violations of law alleged herein. Plaintiffs will seek to amend this complaint to 21 show the true names and capacities of each of these defendants, Does 1 –20, and the manner in 22 which each of them is responsible for the damages alleged herein, when such information is 23 ascertained. 24 IV. 25 ♼ GOOGLE’s search engine. CONSPIRACY, AIDING AND ABETTING, AND CONCERTED ACTION 38. At all relevant times, Defendants (including Does 1-20) were agents of other 26 Defendants, and in doing the acts alleged herein, were acting within the course of scope of such 27 agency. Defendants and Does 1-20 ratified and/or authorized the wrongful acts of each of the 28 other Defendants. Defendants and Does 1-20, and each of them, are individually sued as COMPLAINT LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 11 1 participants and as aiders and abettors in the improper acts, plans, schemes, and transactions that 2 are the subject of this Complaint. 3 In committing the wrongful acts alleged herein, Defendants and Does 1-20 have 4 pursued, or joined in the pursuit of, a common course of conduct, and have acted in concert with 5 and conspired with one another in furtherance of the improper acts, plans, schemes, and 6 transactions that are the subject of this Complaint. In addition to the wrongful conduct herein 7 alleged as giving rise to primary liability, Defendants and Does 1-20 further aided and abetted 8 and/or assisted each other in breaching their respective duties. 9 40. Defendants and Does 1-20, and each of them, engaged in a conspiracy, common 10 enterprise, and/or common course of conduct. During all times relevant hereto, Defendants and 11 Does 1-20, and each of them, initiated a course of conduct that was designed to and did conceal the 12 wrongful acts alleged herein. In furtherance of this plan, conspiracy, and course of conduct, 13 Defendants and Does 1-20, collectively and individually, took the actions set forth herein. 14 41. The purpose and effect of Defendants’ and Does 1-20’s conspiracy, common 15 enterprise, and/or common course of conduct was, among other things, to disguise and conceal 16 their egregious conduct and violations of law. 17 42. Defendants and Does 1-20 accomplished their conspiracy, common enterprise, 18 and/or common course of conduct by knowingly failing to remove the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 19 scam videos, knowingly failing to warn YOUTUBE users regarding the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 20 scam, and knowingly promoting and monetizing the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam. Each of the 21 Defendants and Does 1-20 was a direct, necessary, and substantial participant in the conspiracy, 22 common enterprise, and/or common course of conduct complained of herein. 23 ♼ 39. 43. Each of the Defendants and Does 1-20 aided and abetted and rendered substantial 24 assistance in and material contribution to the wrongs complained of herein. In taking such actions 25 to substantially assist and materially contribute to the commission of the wrongdoing complained 26 of herein, each of the Defendants acted with knowledge of the primary wrongdoing, substantially 27 assisted in and materially contributed to the accomplishment of that wrongdoing, and was aware of 28 his or her overall contribution to and furtherance of the wrongdoing. COMPLAINT LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 12 1 2 V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Steve Wozniak’s Success And Reputation Give His Name And Likeness Significant Value. 44. STEVE WOZNIAK, commonly known as “Woz,” is a Silicon Valley icon and a 3 4 5 key figure in the personal computer revolution of the late twentieth century. WOZNIAK designed 6 the Apple I. Believing the design could be commercialized, WOZNIAK co-founded Apple 7 Computer with Steve Jobs. A year later, WOZNIAK and Jobs (pictured below) completed the 8 Apple II, the first personal computer to have 9 appeal beyond hobbyist circles. In addition to 10 the Apple I and II, WOZNIAK developed 11 numerous other early Apple and Macintosh 12 products, including Apple’s 5.25-inch floppy 13 disk drive and significant parts of Apple’s 14 operating systems and software. 15 In 1980, Apple went public with a market capitalization that exceeded $1 billion— 16 the fastest rise to that milestone in corporate history at that time. Apple’s initial public offering 17 made WOZNIAK one of the original famous tech entrepreneurs to come from Silicon Valley, and 18 the source of significant media coverage in industry press and mass media. In 1985, President 19 Reagan awarded WOZNIAK the National Medal of Technology, the highest honor that can be 20 bestowed on an American innovator. 21 ♼ 45. 46. Since 1985, WOZNIAK has engaged in a wide variety of technology businesses, 22 philanthropic causes, and other public-facing activities. For many years after leaving Apple, 23 WOZNIAK personally taught after-school computer classes at schools in Silicon Valley. In 1990, 24 Wozniak helped found the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He was the founding sponsor of 25 numerous Silicon Valley institutions, including the Tech Museum, Silicon Valley Ballet, and 26 Children’s Discovery Museum of San Jose. Over the years, he has received numerous honors and 27 awards, including the Heinz Award for Technology, the Hoover Medal, and induction into the 28 National Inventors Hall Fame, as well as ten Honorary Doctor of Engineering degrees. An COMPLAINT LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 13 1 indication of his enduring popularity, the public in 2015 voted WOZNIAK to become the third 2 tech entrepreneur (after Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg) to have his likeness cast in wax at 3 Madame Tussaud’s. 4 47. 5 Some of his more recent ventures include co-founding Woz U, a postsecondary education and 6 training platform focused on software engineering and technology development, and Efforce, 7 which leverages blockchain technology to decentralize and optimize the global energy efficiency 8 market. WOZNIAK maintains an Internet presence at woz.org and on social media and regularly 9 appears on television news programs. He is a highly sought-after keynote speaker at business and 10 technology conferences and corporate events. WOZNIAK is beloved in the Silicon Valley and 11 around the world not only for having invented the personal computer, but because of his amiable 12 and approachable personality, his willingness to speak openly and honestly about the issues facing 13 technology and society, and his decades of generosity in giving back to the community. 14 48. In sum, WOZNIAK’s name and likeness are instantly and widely recognizable 15 within the technology sector and beyond. He has a unique and compelling personal brand that is 16 highly sought-after and of tremendous commercial value. 17 18 B. Defendants Significantly Harmed WOZNIAK And YOUTUBE Users By Knowingly Allowing The BITCOIN GIVEAWAY Scam To Thrive, Promoting The Scam, Profiting From The Scam, And Failing to Warn Users. 49. Over the past several months, WOZNIAK has suffered—and continues to suffer— 19 20 21 irreparable harm to his public image and reputation as a direct consequence of YOUTUBE’s 22 deliberate and inexplicable failure to address the promotion of a pervasive fraud occurring on its 23 platform. This fraud, which bills itself as a BITCOIN GIVEAWAY, misappropriates 24 WOZNIAK’s name and identity and uses it to scam YOUTUBE users out of cryptocurrency. 25 ♼ Today, WOZNIAK continues to pursue entrepreneurial and philanthropic interests. 50. The scam typically loops a video of WOZNIAK, or another tech entrepreneur such 26 as Bill Gates or Elon Musk, speaking at a cryptocurrency or technology conference, and surrounds 27 the video with images and text promoting a false, limited-time “giveaway” of bitcoin. The text 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 14 1 invites users to send bitcoin to a specified bitcoin address and provides a QR code that links 2 directly to that address. The images and text often includes trademarks, such as the Apple logo, 3 and a link to a fraudulent web address that incorporates WOZNIAK’s name, such as 4 WOZBTC.ORG. The text falsely states that once the viewer sends their bitcoin, they will 5 immediately be returned twice the original amount. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 For months on end, the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam has been replicated on 18 YOUTUBE many times over in substantially the same form. The scam videos and promotions are 19 substantially similar in title and appearance, reuse many of the same words and phrases, reuse the 20 same celebrities (including WOZNIAK), and reuse the same past video footage of those 21 celebrities. Each day that passes brings new iterations of the same essential scam, with each 22 iteration attracting new viewers and leaving new victims in its wake. 23 ♼ 51. 52. While Plaintiffs do not know the precise number of defrauded individuals, the scope 24 of the harm is vast. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that millions of persons have 25 viewed the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and promotions, which has resulted in individuals 26 from the United States and around the world being defrauded of millions of dollars of bitcoin and 27 other cryptocurrencies. Recent reporting indicates that the scammers received approximately $24 28 million worth of cryptocurrency during the first six months of 2020, with YOUTUBE being the COMPLAINT 15 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 scam’s base of operations. 53. 3 by misappropriating his image and likeness to defraud people of cryptocurrency. YOUTUBE’s 4 egregious refusal to protect its users by taking timely action and its active participation in 5 promoting and profiting from the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam has materially contributed to the 6 scam and caused Plaintiffs’ harm. In addition to defrauding YOUTUBE users of millions of 7 dollars in cryptocurrency, the scam fosters uncertainty about whether WOZNIAK is somehow 8 responsible for or associated with the scam (he is not). It also causes WOZNIAK’s name to be 9 negatively associated with the scam. This distracts from and displaces the many positive 10 associations with WOZNIAK’s name, casts a cloud over his good reputation, and ultimately 11 decreases the commercial value of his right of publicity. 12 C. Defendants Promoted, Monetized, And Materially Contributed To The BITCOIN GIVEAWAY Scam. 54. YOUTUBE is a video-sharing platform that generates billions of dollars in annual 13 14 15 revenue. YOUTUBE’s primary source of revenue is from selling ads to third parties. This 16 revenue is in addition to revenue that YOUTUBE derives from subscriptions, various YOUTUBE 17 services, and the exploitation of personal data harvested from its users. GOOGLE similarly makes 18 billions in annual revenue from harvesting the personal data of its users, which allows it to sell 19 third parties highly targeted ads. 20 55. YOUTUBE enables its users to view, post, and comment on video content hosted 21 on its platform at youtube.com. YOUTUBE “creators” can set up their own “channel,” which 22 makes it easier for users to find all of a creator’s content in one place. These channels allow 23 creators to develop a following, with the most popular channels having millions of subscribers. 24 ♼ The BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam has irreparably harmed WOZNIAK’s reputation 56. Every time that a viewer engages with the YOUTUBE platform, YOUTUBE and 25 GOOGLE harvest valuable personal information on individual user preferences, aggregate user 26 demographics, and other information that Defendants exploit and monetize by selling targeted 27 advertising through their own websites (i.e., YOUTUBE and GOOGLE), and across the Internet 28 via GOOGLE products and services which generate additional billions of dollars for GOOGLE. LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 16 1 GOOGLE is estimated to control 40% of the online advertising market, with much of it built on 2 data gathered from YOUTUBE viewers. 3 In a recent San Francisco Chronicle article featuring an interview with former 4 GOOGLE executive Sridhar Ramaswamy, who ran GOOGLE’s $115 billion advertising arm, 5 Ramaswamy described how the “relentless pressure to maintain GOOGLE’s growth” had come at 6 a heavy cost to the company’s users. Ramaswamy’s responsibilities included overseeing 7 advertising at YOUTUBE, which required him “to take a video service replete with problematic 8 content” and transform it into a platform that would challenge television networks for advertising 9 revenue. Faced with the conflict between the interests of advertisers and users, Ramaswamy says 10 there was an implicit understanding that his and his team’s job was to “keep money flowing.” In 11 2017, in the wake of media coverage about YOUTUBE not only hosting videos that exploited 12 young children and appealed to pedophiles, but making money on those videos by selling 13 advertising alongside them, Ramaswamy finally decided that it was time for him to leave 14 GOOGLE, stating: “All of us have boundaries for what we will tolerate in our jobs.” 15 58. YOUTUBE has not only allowed the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam to flourish but 16 has promoted and materially contributed to the scam. For example, YOUTUBE has repeatedly 17 and falsely represented that the videos are “live” when they are not, that large numbers of users are 18 watching the videos when they are not, that large numbers of users have “liked” the videos when 19 they have not, and other similarly false or misleading statements of fact that cause the videos and 20 promotions to appear authentic, thereby increasing the number of victims and the amount of 21 cryptocurrency taken by the scam. 22 ♼ 57. 59. YOUTUBE has also falsely indicated that the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam is 23 legitimate by displaying its own “verification badge” beside the names of channels that were 24 furthering the scam. A verification badge communicates, among other things, that a channel 25 “represent[s] the real creator, brand, or entity it claims to be” because YOUTUBE has “check[ed] 26 different factors to help verify [the channel owner’s] identity.” Through this communicative 27 conduct, YOUTUBE is speaking on its own behalf, informing its users (independent of any 28 content on the channel) that this account is verified as “the official channel of a creator, artist, COMPLAINT LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 17 1 company, or public figure” and therefore can be trusted. In doing so, YOUTUBE is both speaking 2 independently for itself and is materially contributing to the criminally fraudulent enterprise that is 3 the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam. 4 YOUTUBE also has provided the scammers readymade tools of fraud, such as by 5 giving users free reign to rename channels and/or accounts in ways that are obviously misleading, 6 such as allowing scammers to rename channels and/or accounts “Steve Wozniak” or “Steve 7 Wozniak Official,” thereby providing yet another information point to mislead its users into 8 believing that the scam is a legitimate live event. Such channels and/or accounts, which do not 9 belong to WOZNIAK, have featured BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and promotions, which 10 11 YOUTUBE knows are nothing more than criminally fraudulent enterprises. 61. YOUTUBE also has materially contributed to the scam by both recommending 12 videos and selling advertisements. Even after having been reliably informed about the 13 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam on countless occasions by individuals and media coverage, 14 YOUTUBE has continued to disseminate the scam videos on its platform, to recommend videos to 15 its users, and to sell the scammers advertisements to promote their videos. 16 62. For example, so-called “video discovery ads” puts the scam right in front of 17 YOUTUBE users. Video discovery ads consist of a thumbnail image from the BITCOIN 18 GIVEAWAY scam video with some text that invite users to click on the ad to watch the video. 19 When the user clicks on the ad, it takes them to the video and generates revenue for YOUTUBE. 20 Defendants’ targeted advertising technology provides a highly efficient and effective vehicle by 21 which they can deliver scam ads on behalf of the scammers to the very subset of YOUTUBE and 22 GOOGLE users that Defendants know are interested in cryptocurrency and, thus, would be most 23 vulnerable to the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam. 24 ♼ 60. 63. YOUTUBE has also sold “in-stream” ads that positioned the BITCOIN 25 GIVEAWAY scam in front of users in an even more direct way. In-stream ads are video ads that 26 play before, during, or after other YOUTUBE video content that a user is watching. In-stream ads 27 for the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam permit users to click on the in-stream ad, which then takes 28 the user to the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam video and generates revenue for YOUTUBE. Such COMPLAINT 18 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 in-stream ads have included BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and promotions 2 misappropriating the image and likeness of a number of celebrities, including WOZNIAK. 4 3 64. YOUTUBE’s sale of these ads drives ever more users to view the criminally 4 fraudulent videos perpetuating the Scam, increasing YouTube revenues and profits at the expense 5 of its own users, who have fallen victim to the Scam and lost many millions of dollar worth of 6 cryptocurrency. 7 8 D. Defendants Knew About The BITCOIN GIVEAWAY Scam Because WOZNIAK, Countless Other Scam Victims, YOUTUBE Users, And Media Articles Informed YOUTUBE And GOOGLE About Every Aspect Of The Scam. 65. The BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam is not a new phenomenon. It has existed on 9 10 11 12 13 YOUTUBE since at least October 2018, when Coin Rivet reported that Twitter had done well to eliminate the scam on its platform, and that the scam had now made its way to YOUTUBE: Previously, bots would create false profiles on Twitter then reply to influential figures with details of their scam, which usually went along the lines of: “Send 1 Ethereum to our wallet and we’ll send you 10 back in return.” They even created more false profiles to reply, saying ‘thank you for the giveaway’, in an attempt to legitimise the practice. Twitter did well to eliminate the majority of bots from its platform, but they have now made their way onto popular video sharing site YouTube.5 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 66. scams has hit the cryptocurrency community hard”: 21 Scammers are now posing as the official foundations and development teams of popular cryptocurrencies on live YouTube streams in a bid to defraud victims of their crypto. The videos, which embed footage from official crypto conferences and interviews, are typical scams asking users to send funds to a given address to receive an airdrop of greater value. Interestingly, the resurgence of this type of fraud 22 23 24 25 26 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP In November 2019, it was reported that a “fresh wave of YouTube live stream 4 See, e.g., Zoran Spirkovski, “Despite Crypto Bans, YouTube Now Shows Ads Asking Users to Send Bitcoin,” Crypto Briefing (July 11, 2020), https://cryptobriefing.com/despite-crypto-bansyoutube-now-shows-scam-ads-asking-users-send-bitcoin/ (reporting that “YouTubers have reported seeing fake BTC giveaway ads pop up while watching content on the streaming platform,” including ads using Wozniak’s image and likeness). 5 Oliver Knight, “Crypto scam bots make way onto YouTube,” Coin Rivet (Oct. 24, 2018), https:// coinrivet.com/crypto-scam-bots-make-way-onto-youtube/. COMPLAINT 19 1 comes almost exactly a year after similar live video scams were reported by the crypto community in 2018.6 2 3 The article specifically reported BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and promotions featuring 4 Litecoin CEO Charlie Lee and Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin, and further reported that 5 YOUTUBE’s algorithm was “actively promoting” the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam promotions 6 as “popular videos” on its platform. 67. 7 Around the same time, a popular Reddit cryptocurrency forum with over one 8 million members contained numerous postings discussing the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam, with 9 one poster explaining the mechanics of the scam and that the scammers “will reach almost 10 anybody in crypto [i.e., in the cryptocurrency community] that’s on youtube right now as youtube 11 shows it [i.e., a BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam video] at the very top” of YouTube-recommended 12 videos.7 68. 13 On January 15, 2020, in one of many such instances, it was reported that a 14 YOUTUBE account with 840,000 subscribers was hacked by cryptocurrency scammers, renamed 15 after the Ethereum cryptocurrency platform and used the Ethereum logo, and was broadcasting a 16 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam video promotion that misappropriated the image and likeness of 17 Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin. As reported, the scam video had been running for over 10 18 hours as of the article’s publication, and the actual YOUTUBE account holder claimed that, 19 despite all his efforts to contact and alert YOUTUBE about the matter, YOUTUBE was allowing 20 the blatant scam to continue. The article further noted that “[s]imilar live stream scams have 21 become prevalent on YouTube, with the platform doing little to dissuade crypto fraudsters from 22 hosting their videos.”8 23 24 25 26 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 6 Elliot Hill, “Crypto scammers take to YouTube streams to defraud victims,” Coin Rivet (Nov. 4, 2019), https://coinrivet.com/crypto-scammers-take-to-youtube-live-streams-to-defraud-victims/. 7 See https://reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/dqsuqm/psa_trying_to_warn _rcryptocurrency_users_about_a/ (Nov. 2, 2019 10:09:23 PT). 8 Elliot Hill, “YouTube channel Pogo hijacked to promote crypto scam,” Coin Rivet (Jan. 15, 2020) https://coinrivet.com/youtube-channel-pogo-hijacked-used-to-promote-crypto-scam/. COMPLAINT 20 1 69. On March 30, 2020, ZDNet reported that dozens of YOUTUBE accounts had been 2 hijacked, renamed to various Microsoft brands, misappropriated the image and likeness of 3 Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and were broadcasting BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos. The 4 article further reported that the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam was “part of a growing issue on 5 YouTube.”9 6 70. On April 21, 2020, the enterprise blockchain company Ripple Labs, Inc., and its 7 CEO Bradley Garlinghouse, decided that they had had enough of YOUTUBE’s inaction and 8 complicity in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam, one version of which misappropriated 9 Garlinghouse’s image and likeness and infringed on Ripple’s trademarks. Ripple Labs and 10 Garlinghouse filed a federal complaint against YOUTUBE for violations of the Lanham Act, 11 California’s statutory and common law right of publicity, and California’s unfair competition law. 12 See Ripple Labs, Inc. v. YouTube, L.L.C., Case No. 3:20-cv-02747 (N.D. Cal.). The filing of the 13 complaint received widespread media coverage, including by Reuters, Fortune, Law360, and other 14 news outlets. 15 71. Since at least May 8, 2020, a version of the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam has 16 repeatedly appeared on YOUTUBE’s website that misappropriates the name, image, and likeness 17 of WOZNIAK to scam YOUTUBE users. 18 72. WOZNIAK has directly and repeatedly requested that YOUTUBE stop this 19 unauthorized use of his name that has injured so many innocent YOUTUBE users. Beginning no 20 later than May 10, 2020, WOZNIAK has repeatedly informed YOUTUBE that the scam videos 21 are fraudulent and that WOZNIAK has not consented to these unauthorized and illegal uses of his 22 name and likeness. Despite WOZNIAK’s efforts, YOUTUBE has consistently failed or refused to 23 timely intervene, or even to have a human being respond, to stop the scam videos and promotions 24 and to stop selling ads to the scammers. 25 26 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 9 Catalin Cimpanu, “Hacker hijacks YouTube accounts to broadcast Bill Gates-themed crypto Ponzi scam” (Mar. 30, 2020), https://www.zdnet.com/article/hacker-hijacks-youtube-accounts-tobroadcast-bill-gates-themed-crypto-ponzi-scam/. COMPLAINT 21 1 73. 2 YOUTUBE reporting the numerous individual BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos that 3 YOUTUBE was allowing to proliferate on its website, and their fraudulent nature. For example:  4 May 15, 2020: “This is fraudulent…YouTube needs to take down all of these 5 videos. You are promoting FRAUD videos & you should be liable for the damages 6 you are doing. I have been reporting this every day since May 10, 2020 and you 7 keep allowing these people to dupe people out of bitcoin. Please REMOVE ALL of 8 these video with Steve Wozniak & Bitcoin. [¶] Janet Wozniak, Woz’s wife[.]”  9 May 18, 2020: “This is fraud. YouTube should be liable for allowing people to 10 keep positing this. I have been asking for YouTube to take these [videos] down 11 since May 10, 2020. [¶] Janet Wozniak, Woz’s wife[.]”  12 May 21, 2020: “This is a fraudulent site that YouTube keeps promoting. Why are 13 you doing this. You are helping scam people & you should be liable for their loses. 14 I have been asking daily since May 10, 2020 to have these videos removed. . . . 15 Janet Wozniak[.]” 16 74. Nevertheless, the problem persists. On July 20, 2020, Janet Wozniak located three 17 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scams on YOUTUBE fraudulently using WOZNIAK’s name and likeness 18 and again requested that YOUTUBE take them down. 19 75. The other Plaintiffs have also repeatedly informed Defendants regarding the scam 20 and demanded that YOUTUBE take action to prevent further harm to other YOUTUBE users. For 21 example: 22 ♼ For example, Janet Wozniak, WOZNIAK’s wife, sent daily messages to  On or about March 31, 2020, shortly after Plaintiff Yang was scammed out of 1.0 23 bitcoin by a BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam video on YOUTUBE impersonating 24 Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, Yang contacted YOUTUBE, Coinbase, local law 25 enforcement, and the FBI, and joined a victim group to organize against the 26 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam. With respect to YOUTUBE, Yang reported the 27 video at issue to YOUTUBE with the comment that the video had just scammed 28 him out of $6,500 of bitcoin and that there was a broader issue of scammers COMPLAINT LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 22 1 illegally accessing YOUTUBE accounts and pretending to be from Coinbase in 2 order to scam people out of bitcoin. Yang only ever received an automated 3 response. Yang also tried to speak to a real person at YOUTUBE about the issue, 4 but he was unable to do so.  5 6 and reported the video to YOUTUBE. Like Yang, Newman never received a 7 substantive response.  8 9 Also on May 11, 2020, Plaintiff Naray was scammed out of 5.0 bitcoin by a BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam video on YOUTUBE impersonating Robert 10 Kiyosaki. The following day, Naray emailed Kiyosaki’s website about the incident, 11 and a member of Kiyosaki’s team responded that they were aware of the situation 12 and had repeatedly reported the videos to YOUTUBE.  13 On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff Martinez was scammed out of approximately 0.434 14 bitcoin by a BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video on YOUTUBE and emailed YOUTUBE 15 about the incident. Like other Plaintiffs who contacted YOUTUBE, he never 16 received a substantive response. 17 76. Frustrated by YOUTUBE’s refusal to stop the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam on its 18 platform, many of the Plaintiffs joined online groups that sought to better understand and to 19 organize against the scam. One such group was a forum on YOUTUBE’s and GOOGLE’s online 20 help center, located at google.support.com. The forum was started on May 9, 2020, but 21 Defendants shut it down sometime on or after June 7, 2020, shortly after posts were made to the 22 forum in which users suggested the possibility of filing a lawsuit against YOUTUBE because of its 23 ongoing complicity in the scam. 24 77. Countless other individuals have also informed Defendants of the same, and many 25 media sources have publicly reported on the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam, how it works, and that 26 WOZNIAK’s name and likeness is being misappropriated in furtherance of the scam. 10 There is 27 ♼ On or about May 11, 2020, Plaintiff Newman was scammed out of over 1 bitcoin 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 10 See, e.g., Jason Murdock, “YouTube Bitcoin Scammers Pose as Elon Musk’s SpaceX, Steal Cryptocurrency ‘Worth $150,000,’” Newsweek (June 10, 2020), available at COMPLAINT 23 1 no doubt that YOUTUBE knows about the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam and that the scam videos 2 and promotions are flagrantly violating WOZNIAK’s right to publicity and defrauding 3 YOUTUBE’s users, yet YOUTUBE has consistently failed or refused to intervene in a timely 4 manner, to stop contributing to the scam, and to stop selling ads for the scam videos and 5 promotions. 6 78. All the while, the media continues to report on the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam’s 7 pervasiveness on YOUTUBE and the many YOUTUBE users who are being scammed out of 8 money every day as a result of Defendants’ actions and egregious failures to act. To this day, the 9 scam continues unabated on YOUTUBE in substantially the same form as it has in recent years 10 and, with respect to WOZNIAK, in the last several months. Below is a screenshot of a BITCOIN 11 GIVEAWAY scam video captured from YOUTUBE on July 20, 2020, just one day before the 12 filing of this Complaint, which has the same content, verbiage, appearance, design, and other 13 elements as scam videos that have been on YOUTUBE for months now. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP https://www.newsweek.com/youtube-cryptocurrency-bitcoin-scam-elon-musk-spacex-hijackedaccounts-live-stream-1509865. COMPLAINT 24 1 E. Defendants Have The Means To Stop The BITCOIN GIVEAWAY Scam And To Warn YOUTUBE Users But Have Not Done So; Instead Defendants Materially Contribute To The Scam By Failing To Timely Respond, Promoting The Scam, And Selling Targeted Ads For The Scam. 79. Despite Defendants knowing that YOUTUBE is being used to perpetrate the 2 3 4 5 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam, Defendants have failed and refused to take common sense 6 measures to take down the fraudulent videos in a timely manner, and thereby stem the bleeding of 7 severe financial losses being suffered by their users. For example, a simple word search for 8 “bitcoin” on YOUTUBE often reveals one or more currently “live” BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam 9 promotions high in the search results. 10 YOUTUBE has robust and sophisticated tools to regulate content on its platform. 11 These include tools that enable YOUTUBE to identify, flag, and remove fraudulent content, such 12 as the criminally fraudulent videos at issue in this Complaint. YOUTUBE regularly touts these 13 capabilities and highlights its ability to use these tools to detect misleading and fraudulent scams. 14 According to YOUTUBE, it relies on “a combination of people and technology to flag 15 inappropriate content and enforce” its Community Guidelines. YOUTUBE states that its 16 technologies include “cutting-edge machine learning,” and that it employs a “global team of over a 17 hundred PhDs, data scientists, engineers, and researchers” that “constantly” monitor and analyze 18 traffic on YOUTUBE. 19 81. Through its Community Guidelines, YOUTUBE purports to bar “scams” and “other 20 deceptive practices that take advantage of the YouTube community.” Included in YOUTUBE’s 21 definition of “scams” is “content offering cash gifts, ‘get rich quick’ schemes, or pyramid schemes 22 (sending money without a tangible product in a pyramid structure).” As an example of a 23 prohibited scam, YOUTUBE cites content that makes “exaggerated promises, such as claims that 24 viewers can get rich fast,” promotes “cash gifting or other pyramid schemes,” or is “dedicated to 25 cash gifting schemes.” YOUTUBE falsely claims that if content violates this policy, they will 26 “remove the content.” 27 ♼ 80. 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 82. With respect to advertising, Defendants have the means to identify and stop selling ads to the scammers, but Defendants have failed or refused to do so. For example, Defendants have COMPLAINT 25 1 the means to block and/or flag for human review the sale of advertisements based on their verbal 2 content, such as ads that contain the phrases “BTC GIVEAWAY” or “5000 BTC” or any one of the 3 handful of words and phrases that consistently and repeatedly appear in the ads that Defendants 4 knowingly sell to the scammers. Upon information and belief, Defendants have numerous means 5 of blocking and/or flagging the scam ads, but they have refused to employ those means. 6 F. Defendants’ Acts And Omissions Caused Plaintiffs To Lose Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars In The BITCOIN GIVEAWAY Scam. 83. On or about May 11, 2020, Plaintiff ALEX NARAY was a victim of the BITCOIN 7 8 9 GIVEAWAY scam on YOUTUBE, losing 5.0 bitcoin (worth approximately $43,000 at that time). 10 May 11, 2020 was the date of the bitcoin halving event, which the cryptocurrency community had 11 eagerly awaited and was the source of much excitement. Naray was on YOUTUBE watching a 12 legitimate live stream about the halving event when YOUTUBE recommended to Naray the above- 13 referenced “live” scam video for a BITCOIN GIVEAWAY. The YOUTUBE promotion included 14 the image and likeness of wealthy financial celebrity and bitcoin enthusiast Robert Kiyosaki, with 15 whom Naray was familiar. When Naray clicked to open the YOUTUBE-recommended video, 16 YOUTUBE incorrectly indicated that the scam video was “live,” was currently being watched by 17 more than 100,000 users, and had a substantial number of “likes” from YOUTUBE users. This 18 along with other false and misleading information provided by YOUTUBE to promote the 19 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led Naray to believe that the video was what it purported to be. Naray sent 20 5.0 bitcoin according to instructions provided in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video. Naray has 21 been unable to recover any of that bitcoin. 22 ♼ 84. Plaintiff JAMES DENITTO was a recent victim of the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 23 scam on YOUTUBE, losing 0.00005 bitcoin. DeNitto was recently watching YOUTUBE videos 24 and saw two separate YOUTUBE-recommended videos featuring WOZNIAK and Robert Kiyosaki, 25 both of whom DeNitto admired. When DeNitto clicked to open the YOUTUBE-recommended 26 videos, YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly indicated that the scam video was a “live” interview 27 with WOZNIAK or Kiyosaki and was currently being watched by a substantial number of viewers. 28 This along with other false and misleading information provided by YOUTUBE to promote the COMPLAINT 26 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led DeNitto to believe that the video was what it purported to be. Denitto 2 sent approximately 0.00005 bitcoin based on instructions provided in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 3 video. DeNitto has been unable to recover any of that bitcoin. 4 Plaintiff BERNARDO GARCIA was a recent victim of a BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 5 scam video on YOUTUBE, losing approximately 1.29675957 bitcoin. On or about June 19, 2020, 6 Garcia was on the YOUTUBE website and saw a YOUTUBE-recommended livestream video 7 titled “Space X – Elon Musk Giveaway” featuring the name and image of Elon Musk, whom 8 Garcia admires. When Garcia clicked on the YOUTUBE-recommended video, YOUTUBE 9 incorrectly and wrongly indicated that the scam video was “live” and that it had been running for 10 multiple hours. This along with other false and misleading information provided by YOUTUBE to 11 promote the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led Garcia to believe that the video was what it purported to 12 be. Garcia sent 1.29675957 bitcoin based on instructions provided in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 13 video. Garcia has been unable to recover any of that bitcoin. 14 86. Plaintiff ALEXANDER GEISLER was a recent victim of the BITCOIN 15 GIVEAWAY scam on YOUTUBE, losing approximately 0.117 bitcoin. Geisler was on the 16 YOUTUBE website and saw a YOUTUBE-recommended livestream video with a thumbnail 17 featuring the name and image of WOZNIAK, whom Geisler admires. When Geisler clicked on the 18 YOUTUBE-recommended video, YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly indicated that the scam 19 video was “live,” had been running for multiple hours, and was playing on a channel with “Apple” 20 in the title. This along with other false and misleading information provided by YOUTUBE to 21 promote the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led Geisler to believe that the video was what it purported to 22 be. Geisler sent 0.117 bitcoin based on instructions provided in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video. 23 Geisler has been unable to recover any of that bitcoin. 24 ♼ 85. 87. Plaintiff ASA JACQUES was a recent victim of the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam 25 on YOUTUBE, losing approximately 0.2 bitcoin. On or about May 14, 2020, Jacques was on the 26 YOUTUBE website and saw a YOUTUBE-recommended livestream video titled “Michael 27 Bloomberg Q&A: Bitcoin BTC Halving, Blockchain, World News” featuring the name and image 28 of Michael Bloomberg, with whom Jacques was familiar. When Jacques clicked on the COMPLAINT LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 27 1 YOUTUBE-recommended video, YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly indicated that the scam 2 video was “live,” had been running for multiple hours, was currently being watched by over 3 30,000 users, had a substantial number of “likes” from YOUTUBE users, and was playing on a 4 channel with “Bloomberg” in the title. This along with other false and misleading information 5 provided by YOUTUBE to promote the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led Jacques to believe that the 6 video was what it purported to be. Jacques sent 0.2 bitcoin based on instructions provided in the 7 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video. Jacques has been unable to recover any of that bitcoin. 8 Plaintiff ZHENYU LI was a recent victim of the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam on 9 YOUTUBE, losing approximately 5.5692 bitcoin. Li was watching YOUTUBE videos and saw a 10 YOUTUBE-recommended video on the first page of the YOUTUBE website. The thumbnail for 11 the video was titled “5000 BTC GIVEAWAY” and featured the name and image of celebrity 12 Nassim Nicholas Taleb, with whom Li was familiar and admired. When Li clicked to open the 13 YOUTUBE-recommended video, YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly indicated that the scam 14 video was a “live” interview with Taleb, was currently being watched by more than 30,000 15 YOUTUBE users, had approximately 1,000 likes and only a few dislikes, and was on a channel 16 named “Nassim Taleb” with 198,000 subscribers. This along with other false and misleading 17 information provided by YOUTUBE to promote the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led Li to believe that 18 the video was what it purported to be. Li sent approximately 5.5692 bitcoin based on instructions 19 provided in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video. Li has been unable to recover any of that bitcoin. 20 ♼ 88. 89. Plaintiff JIN LIU was a recent victim of the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam on 21 YOUTUBE, losing approximately 3.5996 bitcoin, 50 ether, and 53,199.7 XRP. On or about May 22 14, 2020, Liu opened the YOUTUBE website and came across a YOUTUBE-recommended 23 livestream video in the top left corner of the first page titled “Walmart 5000 BTC Giveaway,” 24 referencing a company that Liu admired and patronized. When Liu clicked on the YOUTUBE- 25 recommended video, YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly indicated that the scam video was a 26 “live” interview with Walmart CEO Doug McMillon, that the livestream video had been running 27 for multiple hours with tens of thousands of viewers, and that the video was on a YOUTUBE 28 channel that had approximately 500,000 subscribers. This along with other false and misleading COMPLAINT 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 information provided by YOUTUBE to promote the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led Liu to believe 2 that the video was what it purported to be. Liu sent approximately 3.5996 bitcoin, 50 ether, 3 53,199.7 XRP based on instructions provided in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video. Liu has been 4 unable to recover any of that cryptocurrency. 5 Plaintiff ANTHONY MARTINEZ was a recent victim of the BITCOIN 6 GIVEAWAY scam on YOUTUBE, losing approximately 0.43426 bitcoin. On or about June 4, 7 2020, Martinez was on the YOUTUBE website and saw a YOUTUBE-recommended livestream 8 video titled “Space X Giveaway” featuring the name and image of Elon Musk. Martinez admires 9 Musk and his company Space X and clicked on the YOUTUBE-recommended video. When 10 Martinez did this, YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly indicated that the scam video was “live,” 11 had been running for multiple hours, was currently being watched by tens of thousands of users, 12 had a substantial number of “likes” from YOUTUBE users, and was playing on a channel named 13 “Space X” (i.e., the name of one of Musk’s companies). This along with other false and 14 misleading information provided by YOUTUBE to promote the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led 15 Martinez to believe that the video was what it purported to be. Martinez sent 0.43426 bitcoin 16 based on instructions provided in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video. Martinez has been unable to 17 recover any of that bitcoin. 18 ♼ 90. 91. Plaintiff HARIVARMAH NAGALINGGAM was a recent victim of the 19 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam on YOUTUBE, losing approximately 0.58286326 bitcoin. On or 20 about May 13, 2020, Nagalinggam was on the YOUTUBE website to get his daily cryptocurrency 21 news when YOUTUBE recommended to him a live giveaway event featuring the name and image 22 of Robert Kiyosaki, with whom Nagalinggam was familiar. When Nagalinggam clicked on the 23 YOUTUBE-recommended video, YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly indicated that the scam 24 video was “live,” was currently being watched by a substantial number of users, and had a 25 substantial number of “likes.” This along with other false and misleading information provided by 26 YOUTUBE to promote the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led Nagalinggam to believe that the video was 27 what it purported to be. Nagalinggam sent 0.58286326 bitcoin based on instructions provided in 28 the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video. Nagalinggam has been unable to recover any of that bitcoin. COMPLAINT 29 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 Plaintiff PAUL NEWMAN was a recent victim of the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 2 scam on YOUTUBE, losing approximately 1.00002899 bitcoin. On or about May 11, 2020, 3 Newman was on the YOUTUBE website when he saw a YOUTUBE-recommended livestream 4 video featuring the name and image of WOZNIAK, whom Newman admires. When Newman 5 clicked on the YOUTUBE-recommended video, YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly indicated 6 that the scam video was “live,” was currently being watched by watched by a substantial number 7 of other users, and had a substantial number of “likes” from YOUTUBE users. This along with 8 other false and misleading information provided by YOUTUBE to promote the BITCOIN 9 GIVEAWAY led Newman to believe that the video was what it purported to be. Newman sent 10 1.00002899 bitcoin based on instructions provided in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video. Newman 11 has been unable to recover any of that bitcoin. 12 93. Plaintiff MYRIELLE PHILISTIN was a recent victim of the BITCOIN 13 GIVEAWAY scam on YOUTUBE, losing approximately 0.08443594 bitcoin. On or about May 14 15, 2020, Philistin was on the YOUTUBE website homepage when YOUTUBE recommended to 15 her a livestream video featuring the Dell Computer logo and the name and image of Michael Dell, 16 the founder of Dell Computer and with whom Philistin was familiar. When Philistin clicked on the 17 YOUTUBE-recommended video, YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly indicated that the scam 18 video was “live,” was being watched by thousands of users, and had a substantial number of 19 “likes” from YouTube users. This along with other false and misleading information provided by 20 YOUTUBE to promote the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led Philistin to believe that the video was 21 what it purported to be. Philistin sent 0.08443594 bitcoin based on instructions provided in the 22 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video. Philistin has been unable to recover any of that bitcoin. 23 ♼ 92. 94. Plaintiff DARIO LOPEZ PORTILLA was a recent victim of the BITCOIN 24 GIVEAWAY scam on YOUTUBE, losing approximately 0.1 bitcoin. On or about May 13, 2020, 25 Portilla was on the YOUTUBE website and saw a YOUTUBE-recommended livestream video 26 featuring the name and image of Robert Kiyosaki, with whom Portilla was familiar. When Portilla 27 clicked on the video, YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly indicated that the scam video was 28 “live,” was being watched by over 100,000 users, and had a substantial number of “likes” from COMPLAINT 30 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 YouTube users. This along with other false and misleading information provided by YOUTUBE 2 to promote the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led Portilla to believe that the video was what it purported 3 to be. After watching the video for approximately 30 minutes and seeing that YOUTUBE had not 4 taken it down, Portilla sent 0.1 bitcoin based on instructions provided in the BITCOIN 5 GIVEAWAY video. Portilla has been unable to recover any of that bitcoin. 6 Plaintiff ERIC RESTREPO was a recent victim of the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 7 scam on YOUTUBE, losing approximately 3.577 bitcoin. Restrepo was on the YOUTUBE 8 website and saw a YOUTUBE-recommended livestream video featuring the name and image of 9 Canadian-American venture capitalist Chatham Palihapitiya, whom Restrepo admires. When 10 Restrepo clicked on the YOUTUBE-recommended video, YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly 11 indicated that the scam video was “live,” was currently being watched by a substantial number of 12 users, and had a substantial number of “likes” from YOUTUBE users. This along with other false 13 and misleading information provided by YOUTUBE to promote the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led 14 Restrepo to believe that the video was what it purported to be. Restrepo sent approximately 3.577 15 bitcoin based on instructions provided in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video. Restrepo has been 16 unable to recover any of that bitcoin. 17 ♼ 95. 96. Plaintiff RAUL MARIÑO ROMERO was a recent victim of the BITCOIN 18 GIVEAWAY scam on YOUTUBE, losing approximately 0.12 bitcoin. Romero was watching 19 YOUTUBE videos and saw that YOUTUBE was recommending a live video to him. The 20 thumbnail for the video included the name and likeness of WOZNIAK, with whom Romero was 21 familiar and admired. When Romero clicked to open the YOUTUBE-recommended video, 22 YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly indicated that the scam video was a “live” interview with 23 WOZNIAK, had a substantial number of viewers, and had been running for multiple hours. This 24 along with other false and misleading information provided by YOUTUBE to promote the 25 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led Romero to believe that the video was what it purported to be. Romero 26 sent approximately 0.12 bitcoin based on instructions provided in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 27 video. Romero has been unable to recover any of that bitcoin. 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 31 1 Plaintiff DAVID SCHRADER was a recent victim of the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 2 scam on YOUTUBE, losing approximately 1.0 bitcoin. Schrader opened the YOUTUBE website 3 and came across a YOUTUBE-recommended livestream video in the top left corner of the first 4 page. The thumbnail of the YOUTUBE-recommended livestream featured wealthy financial 5 celebrity and bitcoin enthusiast Robert Kiyosaki, with whom Schrader was familiar and admired. 6 When Schrader clicked to open the YOUTUBE-recommended video, YOUTUBE incorrectly and 7 wrongly indicated that the scam video was a “live” interview of Kiyosaki discussing his belief in 8 bitcoin, was currently being watched by thousands of YOUTUBE users, and had a substantial 9 number of “likes” from YOUTUBE users. This along with other false and misleading information 10 provided by YOUTUBE to promote the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led Schrader to believe that the 11 video was what it purported to be. Schrader sent 1.0 bitcoin based on instructions provided in the 12 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video. Schrader has been unable to recover any of that bitcoin. 13 98. Plaintiff LUKE THOMAS was a recent victim of the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 14 scam on YOUTUBE, losing approximately 0.2 bitcoin. On or about May 8, 2020, Thomas was on 15 the YOUTUBE website and saw a YOUTUBE-recommended livestream video featuring the name 16 and image of Robert Kiyosaki, with whom Thomas was familiar. When Thomas clicked on the 17 YOUTUBE-recommended video, YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly indicated that the scam 18 video was “live,” was currently being watched by over 50,000 users, and was playing on a channel 19 with a name that included “Robert Kiyosaki.” This along with other false and misleading 20 information provided by YOUTUBE to promote the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led Thomas to 21 believe that the video was what it purported to be. Thomas sent 0.2 bitcoin based on instructions 22 provided in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video. Thomas has been unable to recover any of that 23 bitcoin. 24 ♼ 97. 99. Plaintiff HUNG LUNG YANG was a recent victim of the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 25 scam on YOUTUBE, losing approximately 1.0 bitcoin. On or about March 31, 2020, Yang was 26 on the YOUTUBE website and saw a YOUTUBE-recommended livestream video in the top left 27 corner of the website’s homepage titled “Brian Armstrong about Coinbase Tutorial, Bitcoin 28 Halving, New Strategy,” featuring the name and likeness of Coinbase co-founder Brian COMPLAINT LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 32 1 Armstrong, whom Yang admired. When Yang clicked to open the YOUTUBE-recommended 2 video, YOUTUBE incorrectly and wrongly indicated that the video was a “live” interview with 3 Armstrong and was being viewed by thousands of users. This along with other false and 4 misleading information provided by YOUTUBE to promote the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY led Yang 5 to believe that the video was what it purported to be. Yang sent approximately 1.0 bitcoin based 6 on instructions provided in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY video. Yang has been unable to recover 7 any of that bitcoin. 8 100. 9 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scams in a timely manner, in failing to warn Plaintiffs about the known 10 scam, and in promoting and actively contributing to the scam, Plaintiffs would not have been taken 11 in by the scam and would not have sent their cryptocurrency to the criminal enterprise. 12 G. Defendants’ Misconduct Is Not Immunized By Section 230. 13 101. Section 230 of “[t]he Communications Decency Act was not meant to create a 14 lawless no-man’s-land on the Internet.” Fair Housing Council v. Roomates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 15 1157, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008). In enacting 47 USC § 230 (“Section 230”), “Congress has not 16 provided an all purpose get-out-of-jail-free card for businesses that publish user content on the 17 internet . . . .” Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846, 853 (9th Cir. 2016). In construing 18 Section 230, “we must be careful not to exceed the scope of the immunity provided by Congress.” 19 Id. 20 ♼ In the absence of Defendants’ wrongful conduct in failing to take down the 102. Defendants’ knowing failures to act and affirmative acts materially contributing to 21 the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam are not immunized by Section 230. The BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 22 videos themselves constitute criminal conduct that is not protected free speech under the First 23 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article 1 of the California Constitution. Defendants 24 repeatedly were put on notice regarding the criminal videos and, far from ending it, Defendants 25 materially contributed to them by promoting the videos, by selling targeted ads driving traffic 26 to the videos, by falsely verifying YOUTUBE channels that carry the videos, and by providing 27 false and misleading information to promote the videos. Section 230 does not protect this 28 conduct. LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 33 1 103. YOUTUBE’s refusal to stop contributing to the scam and to take appropriate 2 remedial action compels WOZNIAK and the other Plaintiffs to seek relief from this Court. Absent 3 a Court Order requiring YOUTUBE to act, the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam will continue to 4 flourish and continue to cause substantial harm to countless more victims. 5 6 7 VI. CAUSES OF ACTION 104. Except where indicated otherwise below, each of the Plaintiffs bring each of the following causes of action against all Defendants. 8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Right of Publicity (Cal. Civ. Code § 3344) (brought by Plaintiff Wozniak Only) 9 10 11 12 13 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 106. At all relevant times, Defendants knowingly used WOZNIAK’s name, voice, and 14 likeness in images and videos for commercial and monetary purposes. Defendants had actual or 15 constructive knowledge that YOUTUBE was hosting BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and 16 promotions were illegally using WOZNIAK’s name, likeness, and voice, as well as photographs and 17 videotaped interviews of him, in violation of his right of publicity under California Civil Code 18 § 3344(a). 19 107. These uses were directly connected to Defendant’s commercial purposes of collecting 20 users’ data, increasing traffic and viewership, increasing revenues and profits, and growing and 21 maintaining their businesses and relevant market shares. 22 ♼ 105. 108. WOZNIAK has never consented to these unauthorized and illegal uses of his name, 23 image, voice, likeness, or photos or videos of him. Defendants knew or should have known of 24 WOZNIAK’s non-consent because WOZNIAK himself and/or through his agents has directly and 25 repeatedly informed Defendants of the same, because countless other individuals have informed 26 Defendants of the same, and because of the countless media articles reporting on the Scam and 27 how it works, including that WOZNIAK’s name and likeness are being misappropriated to further 28 the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam. LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 34 1 109. At all relevant times, Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that they 2 were materially contributing to this violation of WOZNIAK’s right of publicity by making false 3 and misleading statements of fact that made the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos appear as if 4 they were authorized uses of WOZNIAK’s right of publicity, which they were not. As stated 5 herein, Defendants’ false and misleading statements include but are not limited to statements that 6 the scam videos were “live,” that they were currently being watched by substantial numbers of 7 users, that they had a substantial number of “likes” from YOUTUBE users, and that the scam 8 videos were being aired by “verified” or otherwise legitimate accounts or channels. 9 110. At all relevant times, Defendants used the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and 10 promotions to generate revenue by selling targeted paid advertisements for the BITCOIN 11 GIVEAWAY scam videos, not only profiting from the scam, but increasing traffic to the scam 12 videos and driving to the scam those of its users that Defendants knew or should have known 13 would be most vulnerable to the scam. In doing so, Defendants significantly expanded the number 14 of victims, the amount of stolen cryptocurrency, the number and scope of the violations of 15 WOZNIAK’s right of publicity, and the extent to which WOZNIAK has been harmed. 16 111. Defendants’ wrongful conduct, which is ongoing, has irreparably harmed 17 WOZNIAK’s reputation and the commercial value of his right of publicity, both of which he is and 18 has been committed to protecting and developing. The irreparable harm to WOZNIAK’s 19 reputation is evidenced by victim complaints, news articles, and false associations suggested on the 20 Internet, amongst other sources. 21 22 23 112. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ violation of WOZNIAK’s right of publicity has been deliberate, willful, and in utter disregard of WOZNIAK’s rights. 113. WOZNIAK seeks injunctive relief to put an end to this ongoing irreparable harm, 24 for which there is no adequate remedy at law. WOZNIAK also seeks all available compensatory, 25 punitive, statutory, and other damages for past harm, as well as the value of any gains, profits, or 26 advantages wrongfully obtained by Defendants, in an amount to be proven at trial. 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 35 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Misappropriation of Name or Likeness (brought by Plaintiff Wozniak Only) 2 3 4 5 114. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 115. During all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have misappropriated, and 6 continue to misappropriate, WOZNIAK’s name, image, and likeness, in violation of California 7 common law. 8 9 116. During all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have and still are permitting, encouraging, materially contributing to, and otherwise inducing the illegal use of 10 WOZNIAK’s name, likeness, and other aspects of his identity for Defendants’ own commercial 11 benefit or advantage, such as by selling the scammers ads that misappropriate WOZNIAK’s name, 12 likeness, and identity. 13 117. WOZNIAK has never consented to the use of his name, likeness, or identity as part 14 of, or in furtherance of, the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam—a fact that Defendants knew or 15 reasonably should have known. 16 118. Defendants’ wrongful conduct has been, and continues to be, an actual and 17 proximate cause of WOZNIAK’s injuries, including but not limited to the harm to his reputation 18 and to the commercial value of his name, likeness, and identity, which WOZNIAK is and has been 19 committed to protecting and developing. 20 119. Defendants’ ongoing wrongful conduct is causing irreparable harm to WOZNIAK’s 21 reputation and to the commercial value of his name, likeness, and identity. WOZNIAK thus seeks 22 injunctive relief to halt this irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 23 WOZNIAK also seeks all available damages for past harm, in an amount to be proven at trial. 24 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Fraud and Misrepresentation 25 26 27 ♼ 120. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 36 1 Defendants falsely represented to Plaintiffs and their other users who viewed 2 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos on YOUTUBE’s website that the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 3 scam videos were “live,” that they were currently being watched by a certain large number of 4 users, that they had a certain large number of “likes” from YOUTUBE users, that the scam videos 5 were being aired by “verified” or otherwise legitimate channels or persons, that WOZNIAK and 6 other celebrities had consented to and were sponsoring the scam videos, and other false 7 representations as alleged herein. Such representations were false because they were factually 8 untrue. 9 122. Defendants knew or had reason to know that these representations were false when 10 they made, made the representations recklessly and without regard for their truth, and/or made the 11 representations without any reason to believe that they were true in light of Defendants’ then- 12 existing knowledge of the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam and of their own failure to implement and 13 maintain sufficient processes and standards to ensure the truth and accuracy of the kinds of false 14 representations complained of herein. Defendants further knew or had reason to know that they 15 would continue to make such false representations in the future unless they acted to prevent such 16 false representations, yet Defendants have consistently failed or refused to do so. 17 123. Defendants intended users, including Plaintiffs, to rely on Defendants’ 18 representations as a means of inducing users to further utilize Defendants’ online platforms and 19 services and thereby further increase Defendants’ collection of users’ data, as well as Defendants’ 20 traffic, viewership, revenues, and profits. Defendants alternatively made these false statements 21 negligently, without reasonable ground for believing they were true. 22 124. Defendants’ false representations were material to Plaintiffs, who believed and 23 reasonably relied upon Defendants’ false representations when they sent bitcoin and other 24 cryptocurrency to the bitcoin wallet addresses provided by the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam 25 videos and promotions. 26 ♼ 121. 125. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendants’ false representations was an actual and 27 proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ decisions to send bitcoin and other cryptocurrency to the bitcoin 28 wallet addresses provided by the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and promotions. In the COMPLAINT 37 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 absence of Defendants’ false representations, Plaintiffs would not have been taken in by the 2 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam and would not have sent their cryptocurrency to the scammers. 3 126. Defendants’ wrongful conduct is fraud under California law, including but not 4 limited to Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(3), and was done with malice, fraud, oppression, and/or 5 reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages. 6 127. Plaintiffs seek all available compensatory, punitive, statutory, and other damages 7 for past monetary, emotional, and other harm, as well as the value of any gains, profits, or 8 advantages wrongfully obtained by Defendants, in an amount to be proven at trial. 9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Aiding and Abetting Fraud 10 11 12 13 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 129. During all times relevant to this Complaint, the unknown persons and their co- 14 conspirators who create, upload, and profit from the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and 15 promotions have committed fraud by soliciting and otherwise inducing YOUTUBE users to send 16 bitcoin to them in exchange for a benefit that does not materialize. 17 130. During all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants knew or should have known 18 that the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam was occurring on their platforms, and Defendants knew or 19 should have known about the criminally fraudulent nature of the scam. Defendants’ experience 20 and sophistication in identifying scams and other fraudulent activity on their platforms was 21 sufficient on its own to give Defendants actual or constructive knowledge of all the foregoing. 22 Moreover, the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam has been the subject of significant media coverage 23 and online commentary and discussion for well over a year, and Defendants have received 24 countless communications about the scam from their users, including from Plaintiffs and other 25 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam victims. 26 27 ♼ 128. 131. During all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have given substantial assistance and encouragement to, materially contributed to, and otherwise aided and abetted this 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 38 1 fraud by (a) hosting, displaying, recommending, selling ads to, and failing or refusing to prevent 2 and/or timely take down the scam videos and promotions; (b) by repeatedly making false 3 representations about the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos, as alleged herein, such as the 4 number of viewers, number of likes, that videos were “live,” that accounts and/or channels 5 furthering the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam were “verified” as authentic, and other false 6 representations that made the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and promotions appear 7 authentic when they were not; and (c) by maintaining certain policies, which Defendants knew or 8 should have known that the scammers have been exploiting in furtherance of the BITCOIN 9 GIVEAWAY scam. 10 132. Defendants’ wrongful conduct in aiding and abetting the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 11 scam was an actual and approximate cause of Plaintiffs’ harm, including but not limited to the 12 harm to WOZNIAK’s reputation and right of publicity, and the other Plaintiffs’ losses of 13 cryptocurrency as a result of the scam. 14 133. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was willful, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, 15 and/or in reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive 16 damages. 17 134. Defendants’ wrongful conduct is irreparably harming WOZNIAK, who seeks 18 injunctive relief because there is no adequate remedy at law. All Plaintiffs further seek any and all 19 available damages and/or restitution, in an amount to be proven at trial. 20 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) 21 22 23 24 135. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 136. Because of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants engaged in unfair, deceptive, 25 fraudulent, and otherwise unlawful business practices within the meaning of Cal. Bus. & Prof. 26 Code § 17200 et seq. 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 39 1 During all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants knowingly hosted, 2 displayed, recommended, sold ads for, failed to warn, and failed or refused to prevent and timely 3 take down the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and promotions. During all times relevant to 4 this Complaint, Defendants also repeatedly made false representations about the BITCOIN 5 GIVEAWAY scam videos, such as the number of viewers, the number of likes, that videos were 6 “live,” that accounts and/or channels furthering the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam met and 7 continued to meet the requirements for being “verified” as authentic, and other false 8 representations that made the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and promotions appear 9 authentic when they were not, knowing that these misrepresentations were likely to mislead the 10 11 public. 138. During all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants knew or reasonably should 12 have known that their conduct constituted false or misleading statements as to their own and 13 another’s products. 14 139. These false and misleading statements have had a tendency to deceive a substantial 15 portion of the intended audience and actually did deceive substantial numbers of persons, 16 including all Plaintiffs except WOZNIAK, into believing (a) that the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 17 scam videos and promotions were actually sponsored by and/or associated with the companies and 18 celebrities (including WOZNIAK) whose names, marks, images, and likenesses were 19 misappropriated in furtherance of the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam, and (b) that the BITCOIN 20 GIVEAWAY scam videos and promotions were legitimate events. This deception was material in 21 that it was likely to influence viewers’ decisions to send cryptocurrency as the BITCOIN 22 GIVEAWAY scam invited them to do, and in that it actually did influence Plaintiffs’ decisions to 23 send cryptocurrency. 24 ♼ 137. 140. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was an actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ 25 injuries, including but not limited to the reputational and monetary harms to WOZNIAK, and the 26 monetary and other harms to the other Plaintiffs from being scammed out of substantial sums of 27 cryptocurrency. 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 141. Defendants’ wrongful conduct giving rise to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and COMPLAINT 40 1 Sixth Causes of Action set forth in this Complaint are each separate and distinct unlawful business 2 practices within the meaning of California law. 3 142. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was willful, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, 4 and/or in reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive 5 damages. 6 143. Defendants’ wrongful conduct is irreparably harming WOZNIAK, who seeks 7 injunctive relief as there is no adequate remedy at law. All Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief because 8 an injunction “may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice 9 which constitutes unfair competition” under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203. Plaintiffs seek all 10 monetary and non-monetary relief allowed by law, including restitution of all profits stemming 11 from Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices; reasonable attorneys’ fees 12 and costs under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; injunctive relief; and other 13 appropriate equitable relief. 14 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Failure to Warn 15 16 17 18 ♼ 144. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 145. During all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants had actual or constructive 19 knowledge of all relevant aspects of the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam, including but not limited to 20 the visual and verbal elements of the scam videos, promotions, and advertisements; the identity of 21 the public figures and companies whose names, images, likenesses, and protected marks were 22 wrongfully and repeatedly exploited to promote the Scam (including but not limited to 23 WOZNIAK, Elon Musk, Robert Kiyosaki, and all others mentioned in this Complaint); the 24 wording that was typically used in the scam videos and advertisements (such as “5000 BTC 25 GIVEAWAY” and the like); the past video footage of WOZNIAK and other public figures that 26 were repeatedly used to further the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam; the instructions that were 27 typically given to victims in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and promotions; the use of 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 41 1 QR codes linking to bitcoin wallet addresses in the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and 2 promotions; and other common elements of the scam. 3 146. During all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants had a duty to exercise 4 reasonable and ordinary care and skill, and to behave in accordance with applicable standards of 5 conduct, in adequately warning their users about the criminally fraudulent BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 6 scam videos and promotions on its platforms. 7 147. Defendants breached their duty by failing to adequately warn its users about the 8 Scam, including but not limited to users that Defendants knew or should have known had a history 9 of viewing content or performing searches related to cryptocurrency, or who otherwise might 10 foreseeably come into contact with the advertising on Defendants’ platforms for the BITCOIN 11 GIVEAWAY scam videos and promotions. 12 148. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have been 13 severely harmed. WOZNIAK has suffered severe harm to his reputation and the commercial value 14 of his name, image, likeness, and right of publicity. Each of the other Plaintiffs have suffered the 15 monetary harms specified herein, as well as the dignitary, emotional, and other harms that result 16 from being the victim of a scam. 17 18 149. Defendants’ failure to warn was willful, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, and/or in reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages. 19 150. Defendants’ ongoing failure to warn their users about the Scam is irreparably 20 harming WOZNIAK, who seeks injunctive relief because there is no adequate remedy at law. All 21 Plaintiffs further seek any and all available damages and/or restitution, in an amount to be proven 22 at trial. 23 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Injunctive Relief 24 25 26 151. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 42 1 152. 2 harm to WOZNIAK’s reputation and the commercial value of his name and likeness, for which 3 there is no adequate remedy at law. 4 153. Accordingly, WOZNIAK seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendants to end the 5 ongoing irreparable harm to his reputation by removing all BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos, 6 promotions, and advertisements using his name and likeness. 7 154. All Plaintiffs seek an injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants and all 8 persons or entities in concert with them, during the pendency of this action and perpetually 9 thereafter, from: (1) Committing any violations of law with respect to the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 10 scam set forth above; (2) Ignoring and delaying its responses to takedown notices concerning the 11 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam; (3) Awarding or maintaining verification badges to youtube.com 12 channels perpetuating the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam; (4) Recommending BITCOIN 13 GIVEAWAY scam videos to their users; (5) Displaying false information to their users that 14 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos are “live” and that they have higher numbers of viewers and 15 likes than they actually have; and (6) Selling advertisements in furtherance of or otherwise 16 profiting from the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam in any manner. 17 155. Plaintiffs further seek injunctive relief requiring Defendant YOUTUBE (1) to warn 18 its users about the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam, and (2) to use its content regulation, moderation, 19 and screening tools, and all other reasonable efforts, to prevent the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam 20 from being perpetrated on YOUTUBE. 21 VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 22 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: 23 A. 24 25 ♼ Defendants’ wrongful actions have caused and are continuing to cause irreparable Injunctive relief requiring Defendants to remove all BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos and promotions using WOZNIAK’s name and likeness. B. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants and 26 all persons or entities in concert with them, during the pendency of this action and perpetually 27 thereafter, from: (1) Committing any violations of law with respect to the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY 28 scam set forth above; (2) Ignoring and delaying its responses to takedown notices concerning the COMPLAINT 43 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam; (3) Awarding or maintaining verification badges to youtube.com 2 channels perpetuating the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam; (4) Recommending BITCOIN 3 GIVEAWAY scam videos to their users; (5) Displaying false information to their users that 4 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam videos are “live” and that they have higher numbers of viewers and 5 likes than they actually have; and (6) Selling advertisements in furtherance of or otherwise 6 profiting from the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam in any manner. 7 C. Further injunctive relief requiring Defendant YOUTUBE (1) to warn its users about 8 the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam, and (2) to use its content regulation, moderation, and screening 9 tools, and all other reasonable efforts, to prevent the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam from being 10 perpetrated on its platforms. 11 12 D. damages, as permitted by law and in such amounts to be proven at trial. 13 14 Damages, including but not limited to, compensatory, statutory, and punitive E. Restitution and disgorgement of profits made by promoting the BITCOIN GIVEAWAY scam. 15 F. An award of Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees. 16 G. Pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law. 17 H. Any such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 18 VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 19 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 20 21 July 21, 2020 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 22 23 24 25 26 27 ♼ By: JOSEPH W. COTCHETT BRIAN DANITZ JULIA Q. PENG ANDREW F. KIRTLEY NOORJAHAN RAHMAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 44