8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
1/30
U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A
SONG FI , I NC. , J OSEPH N.BROTHERTON, LI SA M. PELLEGRI NO,N. G. B. , RASTA ROCK, I NC. ,
Pl ai nt i f f s,
v.
GOOGLE, I NC. , YOUTUBE LLC,
Def endant s.
________________________________/
No. C 14- 5080 CW ORDER GRANTI NGMOTI ON TO DI SMI SSSECOND AMENDEDCOMPLAI NT
( Docket No. 77)
Song f i , I nc. , t he Rast a Rock Cor por at i on, J oseph N.
Br ot her t on, pr esi dent of bot h Song f i and Rast a Rock, and
Br ot her t on' s si x- year - ol d son N. G. B. ( col l ecti vel y Pl ai nt i f f s) 1
f i l ed a compl ai nt agai nst Googl e, I nc. and YouTube, LLC. 2
Def endant s moved t o di smi ss t he 2AC under Federal Rul e of Ci vi l
Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) . The Cour t gr ant s t he mot i on, wi t h l eave t o
amend.
BACKGROUND
I . Googl e, YouTube and the al l eged conspi r acy
Thi s case concer ns Def endant s' r emoval of a musi c vi deo
ent i t l ed "LuvYa LuvYa LuvYa" ( her eaf t er LuvYa) f r om i t s or i gi nal
page on YouTube' s websi t e. The Cour t r eci t es t he f act s as al l eged
i n t he 2AC, Docket No. 70.
1 Li sa Pel l egr i no, N. G. B. ' s mot her , i s no l onger a pl ai nt i f f .
2 YouTube i s whol l y owned and operat ed by Googl e.
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
2/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Def endant Googl e, t hr ough Def endant YouTube' s websi t e, i s
" t he domi nant pr ovi der of on- l i ne vi deo host i ng as wel l as a maj or
adver t i si ng pl at f or m f or i ndust r y and consumer ads, usi ng musi c
and ent ert ai nment vi deos as t he magnet f or consumer t r af f i c. " 2AC
¶ 15. Def endant s pr of i t f r om cont r i but or s' upl oaded vi deo cont ent
by sel l i ng pay- per - cl i ck adver t i si ng at pr i ces t hat ar e based on
t he number of t i mes a gi ven vi deo has been vi ewed, t r acked by t he
vi si bl e "vi ew count . " I d. ¶ 17- 19, 26. Def endant s cont r ol t hi s
vi ew count , i d. ¶ 62, and al so r ecei ve money f r om adver t i ser s, i d.
¶ 63.Bef or e i nt er act i ng wi t h YouTube' s websi t e, users must assent
t o a Ter ms of Ser vi ce Agr eement . I d. ¶ 21. I t st at es, i n par t :
"You agr ee not t o use or l aunch any aut omated syst em, i ncl udi ng
wi t hout l i mi t at i on, ' robot s , ' ' spi ders , ' or ' of f l i ne readers , '
t hat accesses t he Servi ce i n a manner t hat sends more r equest
messages t o YouTube servers i n a gi ven per i od of t i me than a human
can r easonabl y pr oduce i n the same per i od by usi ng a convent i onal
on- l i ne web br owser . " I d. ¶ 23.
Vi ew counts can be i nf l ated by t he use of such aut omated
syst ems. Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat Def endant s commi t f r aud by
" i nvoi ci ng f or f ake r obot i c vi ews" t hat t hey know "ar e f ake and
t hat consi st of mi l l i second dur at i on t i mes. " I d. ¶ 31.
Def endant s sel l "sponsored ads" t o or gani zat i ons t hey pr omot e;
t hese or gani zat i ons pr of i t f r om r obot i c vi ew count f r aud t hat
Def endant s do not at t empt t o el i mi nat e. I d. ¶¶ 36- 37. These
pr omot ed or gani zat i ons i ncl ude Uni ver sal Musi c Gr oup ( Uni ver sal ) ,
School Boy Recor ds and Raymond Br aun Medi a Gr oup, al l of whi ch
al l egedl y conspi r ed t o pr omot e cer t ai n ar t i st s si gned t o
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
3/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Uni ver sal . I d. ¶ 58. On Def endant s' si de of t he conspi r acy, t he
2AC names Susan Woj ci cki , Lar r y Page and Ser gey Br i n, who
al l egedl y have di r ect knowl edge of Def endant s' par t i ci pat i on i n
t he vi ew count f r aud. I d. ¶ 59. The exi st ence of vi ew count
f r aud i s not di scl osed on Def endant s' websi t es or wi t hi n t he Ter ms
of Ser vi ce. I d. ¶¶ 42- 44.
Accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f s, t hi s conspi r acy benef i t s t he
conspi r at or s t o t he det r i ment of Pl ai nt i f f s, t he i ndependent
ar t i st communi t y and any ar t i st not si gned t o Uni ver sal or ot her
al i gned compani es. I d. ¶¶ 65- 66, 69. The 2AC names as " t her el evant mar ket s . . . musi c and vi deo di st r i but i on i n Cal i f or ni a
and t he Uni t ed St at es. " I d. ¶ 57; see al so i d. ¶ 65. I t al l eges
t hat t he conspi r acy al l ows Def endant s " t o r est r ai n t r ade by
' f i xi ng' per cei ved publ i c popul ar i t y thr ough i nt ent i onal l y f al se,
decept i ve, and mani pul at ed Vi ew Count s. " I d. ¶ 67.
As exampl es, t he 2AC poi nt s t o J ust i n Bi eber ' s "Baby" and
Psy' s "Gangnam St yl e" vi deos, both of whi ch achi eved f ame on
YouTube. Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat , on or bef or e t he dat e t hat
Bi eber ' s " Baby" vi deo was upl oaded, Def endant s agr eed t o al l ow
Uni ver sal and Bi eber ' s manager , Scoot er Br aun, " t o r obot i cal l y and
syst emat i cal l y i nf l at e t he ' Baby' Vi ew Count t o over a bi l l i on
vi ews. " I d. ¶¶ 70- 75. Pl ai nt i f f s bol st er t hi s al l egat i on by
compar i ng t he "Baby" vi ew count t o Bi eber ' s r ecor d sal es, t he vi ew
count f or Mi chael J ackson' s "Thr i l l er " vi deo and t he popul at i ons
of t he Uni t ed St at es, t he wor l d and Bi eber ' s t ar get audi ence. I d.
¶¶ 76- 80. Even mor e i ncredi bl e, accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f s, i s the
2. 4 bi l l i on vi ew count di spl ayed f or Psy' s "Gangnam St yl e" vi deo.
I d. ¶¶ 81- 82. The al l eged conspi r acy among Br aun' s management
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
4/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
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
26
27
28
company, wi t h whomPsy si gned, Uni ver sal and Def endant s permi t t ed
r obot i c vi ew count i nf l at i on. I d. ¶¶ 83- 89.
As f ur t her pr oof of t he conspi r acy, Pl ai nt i f f s ment i on an
ar t i cl e ent i t l ed "Psy, Bi eber and My J our ney I nt o t he Wor l d of
Fake YouTube Vi ews. " I d. ¶ 90. The ar t i cl e descr i bes Br aun
possi bl y pur chasi ng 200 mi l l i on YouTube vi ews f or $150, 000. I d.
¶¶ 90- 91. The ar t i cl e f ur t her descr i bes the "YouTube i ndust r y" as
havi ng "been scammi ng bi l l i ons f r om adver t i ser s wi t h f ake vi ews. "
I d. ¶ 93. Pl ai nt i f f s do not att ach t he ar t i cl e or expl ai n how i t s
aut hor obt ai ned t hi s i nf or mat i on.I n f ur t her ance of t hi s conspi r acy, Def endant s r emove vi deos
f r om ar t i st s not si gned wi t h conspi r at or s and post f al se and
def amat or y not i ces about t hem "t o keep vi deos of smal l er r ecor d
l abel s and t he i ndependent ar t i st communi t y f r om compet i ng wi t h
vi deos of t hose i n t he Conspi r acy. " I d. ¶ 94.
I I . Pl ai nt i f f s' LuvYa Vi deo
Pl ai nt i f f s upl oaded LuvYa, "a chi l dr en' s Val ent i ne' s Day
vi deo" on Febr uar y 14, 2014. I d. ¶ 95. The vi deo f eat ur ed
member s of a musi cal group cal l ed t he Rast a Rock Oper a. The 2AC
expl ai ns t hat t he Rast a Rock Cor por at i on does busi ness as t he
Rast a Rock Oper a. The vi deo st ar r ed Pl ai nt i f f N. G. B. I d.
Br ot her t on pl ayed t he t r umpet . I d. ¶ 110. Song f i i s Rast a
Rock' s publ i sher and di st r i but or . Song f i owns f i f t y per cent of
t he publ i shi ng and di st r i but i on r i ght s f or al l musi c, vi deo
pr oduct i ons and ot her i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y cr eat ed by Rast a Rock.
2AC ¶ 184.
Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat , i n deci di ng t o assent t o t he Ter ms of
Servi ce and t o post LuvYa on YouTube, t hey r el i ed on Def endant s'
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
5/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"i ndi cat i on of i t s i nt ent t o pol i ce Vi ew Count f r aud" and t o
enf or ce t he Ter ms of Ser vi ce " f ai r l y among al l users i n an open,
honest and non- pr ej udi ci al manner . " 3 I d. ¶¶ 45- 53.
Br ot her t on and N. G. B. ' s mot her shar ed t he vi deo wi t h f ami l y
and f r i ends; Rast a Rock and Song f i shar ed i t as wel l . I d. ¶¶ 96-
99. The vi deo ul t i mat el y gat her ed over 23, 000 vi ews, l i kes and
publ i c comment s, "al l of whi ch wer e ear ned wi t hout any r obot i c
enhancement or any vi ol at i on" of t he Ter ms of Ser vi ce. I d. ¶ 100.
Song f i and Rast a Rock pr omoted LuvYa "i n negot i at i ons wi t h
pot ent i al f under s, busi ness par t ner s, sponsors and medi aor gani zat i ons. " I d. ¶ 122. I n par t i cul ar , promot i ng LuvYa hel ped
Rast a Rock secur e a sponsorshi p f r om Ni ke f or a pl anned J ul y 4,
2014 per f or mance by St evi e Mar co, a member of t he Rast a Rock Oper a
musi cal gr oup, on t he r oof of Ni ke' s Geor get own st or e i n
Washi ngt on, D. C. I d. ¶ 124. The 2AC does not al l ege t hat any
payment was ant i ci pat ed f or t hi s per f or mance.
I n Apr i l 2014, a Googl e repr esent at i ve cont act ed Song f i and
Rast a Rock t o per suade them t o adver t i se on YouTube, an of f er t hat
Song f i and Rast a Rock r ef used. I d. ¶ 103. Ther eaf t er ,
Def endant s r emoved LuvYa and post ed a not i ce i n i t s pl ace t hat
st at ed: "Thi s vi deo has been r emoved because i t s cont ent vi ol at es
YouTube' s Terms of Ser vi ce . . . Sorr y about t hat . " I d. ¶ 104.
The not i ce cont ai ned a l i nk t o t he Terms of Ser vi ce. The Terms of
Servi ce cont ai ned a l i nk t o and i ncorporated t he Communi t y
Gui del i nes, whi ch descr i bed "cont ent vi ol at i ons as i ncl udi ng chi l d
3 Pl ai nt i f f s make t hese char act er i zat i ons, but t he Ter ms of
Ser vi ce do not i ncl ude these repr esent at i ons.
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
6/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pornogr aphy, chi l d abuse, ani mal abuse, dr ug abuse, under- age
dr i nki ng, under - age smoki ng, bomb maki ng and t er r or i st act i vi t y. "
I d. ¶¶ 107- 08. The not i ce was "kept l i ve" on t he or i gi nal web
addr ess of t he musi c vi deo. I d. ¶ 106. Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat
LuvYa di d not vi ol at e any cont ent pr ohi bi t i ons, i d. ¶ 109, and
t hat t hey have never vi ol at ed any aspect of t he Ter ms of Ser vi ce,
i d. ¶ 24. Def endant s sent a pr i vat e emai l t o Pl ai nt i f f s t hat
cl ar i f i ed t hat LuvYa was r emoved because i t s vi ew count was
i mpr oper l y i nf l at ed i n vi ol at i on of t he Ter ms of Ser vi ce. I d.
¶ 113.Fol l owi ng t he vi deo removal , Ni ke cancel l ed Mar co' s Four t h of
J ul y per f or mance ci t i ng "a possi bl e i mage probl em i n associ at i ng
Ni ke wi t h i nappr opr i at e chi l dr en' s cont ent . " I d. ¶ 126.
Addi t i onal l y, Song f i ' s f under , a const r uct i on f i r m whi ch had
shar ed LuvYa to hi ghl i ght i t s i nvest ment i n t he ar t s and f ami l y
val ues, suspended al l f undi ng unt i l t he not i ce coul d be r et r act ed.
I d. ¶ 129.
I I I . Pr ocedur al Hi st or y
Pl ai nt i f f s or i gi nal l y f i l ed t hei r compl ai nt i n t he Di str i ct
Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a. Docket No. 1. Def endant s
moved t o enf or ce the cont r act ' s f or um sel ect i on cl ause, whi ch
r equi r ed t hat al l di sput es be deci ded i n Sant a Cl ar a Count y i n
Cal i f or ni a. Pl ai nt i f f s ar gued t hat t he cont r act wi t h YouTube,
i ncl udi ng bot h t he f or um sel ect i on cl ause and t he Ter ms of
Ser vi ce, was unconsci onabl e. Appl yi ng t he l aw of t he Di st r i ct of
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
7/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Col umbi a, 4 Docket No. 19, Di st r i ct of Col umbi a Opi ni on at 11, t he
Di st r i ct of Col umbi a cour t concl uded t hat t he Ter ms of Ser vi ce
wer e not unconsci onabl e, and t hat t he venue sel ect i on cl ause
r equi r i ng l i t i gat i on i n Sant a Cl ar a Count y was enf or ceabl e, i d. at
14- 15. The cour t t r ansf er r ed t he case t o t he Nor t her n Di st r i ct of
Cal i f orni a. I d. at 16.
On J une 10, 2015, Nor t her n Di st r i ct of Cal i f or ni a J udge Cont i
r ul ed on Def endant s' mot i on t o di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f s' Fi r st Amended
Compl ai nt , whi ch Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed bef or e t he case was t r ansf er r ed.
Docket No. 53, Or der Di smi ss i ng Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt ( 1AC) . That compl ai nt al l eged f i ve causes of act i on: l i bel , breach of
expr ess cont r act , br each of i mpl i ed cont r act , t or t i ous
i nt er f er ence wi t h busi ness r el at i onshi ps, and vi ol at i ons of t he
D. C. Consumer Pr ot ect i on Pr ocedur es Act . I d. at 6.
The cour t di smi ssed t he breach of expr ess and i mpl i ed
cont r act cl ai ms. I t f ound t hat " t he Ter ms of Ser vi ce per mi t t ed
YouTube t o r emove ' Luv ya' and el i mi nat e i t s vi ew count , l i kes,
and comment s. " I d. at 13. "As a r esul t , " t he cour t concl uded,
"Pl ai nt i f f s cannot st at e a cl ai m f or br each of t he Ter ms of
Servi ce i n r emovi ng t he vi deo, because conduct aut hor i zed by a
cont r act cannot gi ve r i se t o a cl ai m f or br each of t he agr eement . "
I d. Fur t her , Pl ai nt i f f s di d not have a cause of act i on f or br each
of cont r act based on t he vi deo' s r el ocat i on because, under t he
Terms of Ser vi ce, " t he speci f i c l ocat i on of a vi deo i s an aspect
4 The Di st r i ct of Col umbi a cour t concl uded t hat "Cal i f or ni a
and Di st r i ct of Col umbi a l aw on t he i ssue of unconsci onabi l i t y donot conf l i ct . " D. C. Opi ni on at 11.
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
8/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of YouTube' s ' Ser vi ce' t hat i t r et ai ns t he r i ght t o di scont i nue at
any t i me. " I d. at 14.
Regar di ng t he l i bel cl ai m, t he cour t f ound " t hat YouTube' s
al l egedl y l i bel ous st at ement i s not l i bel ous on i t s f ace . . .
I nst ead, t o t he ext ent Pl ai nt i f f s have an act i onabl e l i bel cl ai m
i t i s a cl ai m f or l i bel per quod. " I d. at 16. Because l i bel per
quod r equi r es pl eadi ng speci al damages, t he cour t di smi ssed
Pl ai nt i f f s' l i bel cl ai ms but gr ant ed l eave t o amend. I d. at 17.
A t or t i ous i nt er f er ence cl ai m r equi r es an al l egat i on t hat t he
def endant ' s conduct was "wr ongf ul by some l egal measur e ot her t hant he f act of i nt er f er ence i t sel f . " I d. at 18 ( quot i ng Del l a Penna
v. Toyot a Mot or Sal es, U. S. A. , I nc. , 11 Cal . 4t h 376, 385 ( 1995) ) .
Because Pl ai nt i f f s had not adequat el y al l eged any of t hei r ot her
l egal t heor i es, J udge Cont i concl uded t hat t hey di d not sat i sf y
t hi s el ement . The cour t gr ant ed l eave t o amend t he t or t i ous
i nt er f er ence cl ai m, t oo. The cour t al so di smi ssed t he Di st r i ct of
Col umbi a Consumer Protect i on Procedur es Act cl ai m, but gr ant ed
l eave t o amend to pl ead a si mi l ar Cal i f or ni a consumer pr ot ect i on
cl ai m. I d. at 20.
I n J ul y 2015, Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a mot i on f or l eave f ur t her t o
amend t hei r compl ai nt by addi ng a f r aud cl ai m, a Cal i f or ni a
Car t wr i ght Act cl ai m and a Cal i f or ni a Consumer Legal Remedi es Act
cl ai m. The pr oposed compl ai nt st i l l cont ai ned t he t or t i ous
i nt er f er ence cl ai m and t he l i bel cl ai m. The cour t gr ant ed l eave
t o amend t o al l ow t he addi t i onal cl ai ms, but st at ed t hat "al l owi ng
addi t i onal new cl ai ms af t er t hi s amendment woul d be t oo
pr ej udi ci al t o Def endant s and no l onger i n t he i nt er est s of
j ust i ce, and caut i ons Pl ai nt i f f s agai nst any such f uture r equest . "
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
9/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Docket No. 67, Or der on Mot i on t o Fi l e Second Amended Compl ai nt at
8. Because J udge Cont i was about t o r et i r e and t he case woul d be
t r ansf er r ed t o a new j udge, t he cour t decl i ned t o make any
f i ndi ngs wi t h r espect t o t he suf f i ci ency of t he f r aud and
Car t wr i ght Act cl ai ms i n t he pr oposed Second Amended Compl ai nt
f i l ed wi t h t he mot i on. I d. The cour t al so gr ant ed l eave t o amend
t he pr oposed compl ai nt at t ached to t he mot i on to al l ow counsel "a
chance t o ensur e t hat t he act ual [ 2AC] f i l ed i s r ef i ned i n l i ght
of ar gument s by counsel and l aw ci t ed by t he Cour t . " I d.
Pl ai nt i f f s' 2AC does add f act ual al l egat i ons beyond t hose i n t hepr oposed amended compl ai nt f i l ed wi t h t hei r mot i on f or l eave t o
amend. However , as di scussed bel ow, t hei r al l egat i ons ar e st i l l
i nsuf f i ci ent t o st at e a cl ai m.
Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege f i ve l egal cl ai ms: f r audul ent conceal ment ,
vi ol at i on of t he Car t wr i ght Act , l i bel per quod, t or t i ous
i nt er f er ence and vi ol at i on of t he Cal i f or ni a Consumer s Legal
Remedi es Act . Def endant s f i l ed t hi s mot i on t o di smi ss, Docket No.
77, Pl ai nt i f f s r esponded, and Def endant s r epl i ed. The Cour t hel d
oral argument on Febr uary 23, 2016.
LEGAL STANDARD
A compl ai nt must cont ai n a “shor t and pl ai n st at ement of t he
cl ai m showi ng t hat t he pl eader i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef . ” Fed. R.
Ci v. P. 8( a) . On a mot i on under Rul e 12( b) ( 6) f or f ai l ur e t o
st at e a cl ai m, di smi ssal i s appr opr i at e onl y when t he compl ai nt
does not gi ve t he def endant f ai r not i ce of a l egal l y cogni zabl e
cl ai m and t he gr ounds on whi ch i t r est s. Bel l At l . Cor p. v.
Twombl y, 550 U. S. 544, 555 ( 2007) . I n consi der i ng whet her t he
compl ai nt i s suf f i ci ent t o st at e a cl ai m, t he cour t wi l l t ake al l
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
10/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
mat er i al al l egat i ons as t r ue and const r ue t hem i n t he l i ght most
f avor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f . NL I ndus. , I nc. v. Kapl an, 792 F. 2d
896, 898 ( 9t h Ci r . 1986) . However , t hi s pr i nci pl e i s i nappl i cabl e
t o l egal concl usi ons. "Thr eadbar e r eci t al s of t he el ement s of a
cause of act i on, suppor t ed by mer e concl usory st at ement s, " ar e not
t aken as t r ue. Ashcr of t v. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662, 678 ( 2009)
( ci t i ng Twombl y, 550 U. S. at 555) .
I n I qbal , 556 U. S. at 679, t he Supr eme Cour t l ai d out t he
f ol l owi ng appr oach f or assessi ng t he adequacy of a pl ai nt i f f ’ s
compl ai nt :
a cour t consi der i ng a mot i on to di smi ss can choose t o begi nby i dent i f yi ng pl eadi ngs t hat , because t hey ar e no mor e t hanconcl usi ons, ar e not ent i t l ed t o t he assumpt i on of t r ut h.Whi l e l egal concl usi ons can pr ovi de the f r amewor k of acompl ai nt , t hey must be suppor t ed by f act ual al l egat i ons.When t her e ar e wel l - pl eaded f act ual al l egat i ons, a cour tshoul d assume t hei r ver aci t y and then determi ne whether t heypl ausi bl y gi ve r i se t o an ent i t l ement t o r el i ef .
A cl ai m has f aci al pl ausi bi l i t y “when t he pl ai nt i f f pl eads f actual
cont ent t hat al l ows t he cour t t o dr aw t he reasonabl e i nf er ence
t hat t he def endant i s l i abl e f or t he mi sconduct al l eged. ” I d. at
678. “The pl ausi bi l i t y st andar d i s not aki n t o a ‘ pr obabi l i t y
r equi r ement , ’ but i t asks f or mor e t han a sheer possi bi l i t y t hat a
def endant has acted unl awf ul l y. ” I d. ( quot i ng Twombl y, 550 U. S.
at 556) . Det er mi ni ng whet her a compl ai nt st at es a pl ausi bl e cl ai m
f or r el i ef i s “a cont ext - speci f i c t ask t hat r equi r es t he r evi ewi ng
cour t t o dr aw on i t s j udi ci al exper i ence and common sense. ” I d.
at 679.
When gr ant i ng a mot i on t o di smi ss, t he cour t i s gener al l y
r equi r ed t o gr ant t he pl ai nt i f f l eave t o amend, even i f no r equest
t o amend the pl eadi ng was made, unl ess amendment woul d be f ut i l e.
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
11/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cook, Per ki ss & Li ehe, I nc. v. N. Cal . Col l ect i on Ser v. I nc. , 911
F. 2d 242, 247 ( 9t h Ci r . 1990) . I n determi ni ng whether amendment
woul d be f ut i l e, t he cour t exami nes whet her t he compl ai nt coul d be
amended t o cur e t he def ect r equi r i ng di smi ssal "wi t hout
cont r adi ct i ng any of t he al l egat i ons of [ t he] or i gi nal compl ai nt . "
Reddy v. Li t t on I ndus. , I nc. , 912 F. 2d 291, 296 ( 9t h Ci r . 1990) .
Leave t o amend shoul d be l i beral l y gr ant ed, but an amended
compl ai nt cannot al l ege f act s i nconsi st ent wi t h t he chal l enged
pl eadi ng. I d. at 296- 97. Cour t s consi der whet her t he pl ai nt i f f s
have pr evi ousl y amended t he compl ai nt i n determi ni ng whet her t ogr ant l eave t o amend. See, e. g. , Fi d. Fi n. Cor p. v. Fed. Home
Loan Bank of S. F. , 792 F. 2d 1432, 1438 ( 9t h Ci r . 1986) ( "The
di st r i ct cour t ' s di scret i on t o deny l eave t o amend i s par t i cul ar l y
br oad wher e t he cour t has al r eady gi ven t he pl ai nt i f f an
oppor t uni t y t o amend hi s compl ai nt . " ) .
DI SCUSSI ON
I . Pr el i mi nar y Mat t er s
Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he Cour t has di ver si t y j ur i sdi cti on
over t hi s l awsui t . 2AC ¶ 7. Thi s al l egat i on i s based i n par t on
t he asser t i on t hat Br ot her t on and N. G. B. ar e " r esi dent s" of
Washi ngt on, D. C. I d. ¶¶ 3- 4. However , t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t r equi r es
an al l egat i on of ci t i zenshi p, r at her t han mer e r esi dency. See
Mant i n v. Br oad. Musi c, I nc. , 248 F. 2d 530, 531 ( 9t h Ci r . 1957) .
I ndi vi dual r esi dent s of Washi ngt on, D. C. can be ci t i zens of
Washi ngt on, D. C. f or di ver si t y j ur i sdi ct i on pur poses and must so
al l ege. See Dr ai m v. Vi r t ual Geosat el l i t e Hol di ngs, I nc. , 522
F. 3d 452, 454 n. 1 ( D. C. Ci r . 2008) ( gr ant i ng an unopposed mot i on
t o amend t he compl ai nt t o st at e t hat an i ndi vi dual " r esi des i n,
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
12/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and i s a ci t i zen of , Washi ngt on, D. C. ") . Thus, f or t he Cour t ' s
j ur i sdi ct i on t o be proper , Pl ai nt i f f s must al l ege t hat Br ot her t on
and N. G. B. ar e ci t i zens of Washi ngt on, D. C.
I n addi t i on, i f N. G. B. i s t o cont i nue as a pl ai nt i f f , a
qual i f i ed adul t must move t he cour t t o be appoi nt ed N. G. B. ' s
guar di an ad l i t em.
I I . Car t wr i ght Act
The Car t wr i ght Act , codi f i ed at Cal i f or ni a Busi ness and
Prof essi ons Code sect i on 16700 et seq. , was "enacted t o pr omote
f r ee market compet i t i on and t o pr event conspi r aci es or agr eement si n r est r ai nt or monopol i zat i on of t r ade. " Exxon Cor p. v. Super .
Ct . , 51 Cal . App. 4t h 1672, 1680 ( 1997) . To st at e a cl ai m under
t he Car t wr i ght Act , Pl ai nt i f f s must al l ege: "( 1) t he f or mat i on and
oper at i on of t he conspi r acy; ( 2) i l l egal act s done pur suant
t her et o; and ( 3) damage pr oxi mat el y caused by such act s. " I n r e
Hi gh- Tech Emp. Ant i t r ust Li t i g. , 856 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1126 ( N. D.
Cal . 2012) ( quot i ng Kol l i ng v. Dow J ones & Co. , 137 Cal . App. 3d
709, 718 ( 1982) ) . "Car t wr i ght Act cl ai ms ar e pr oper l y di smi ssed
' wher e the compl ai nt makes concl usor y al l egat i ons of a combi nat i on
and does not al l ege wi t h f act ual par t i cul ar i t y t hat separ at e
ent i t i es mai nt ai ni ng separ at e and i ndependent i nt er est s combi ned
f or t he pur pose t o r est r ai n t r ade. ' " I n r e Net f l i x Ant i t r ust
Li t i g. , 506 F. Supp. 2d 308, 320 ( N. D. Cal . 2007) ( quot i ng Fr eeman
v. San Di ego Ass' n of Real t or s, 77 Cal . App. 4t h 171, 189 ( 1999) ) ;
see al so Medi na v. Mi cr osof t Corp, 2014 WL 4243992, at *3 ( N. D.
Cal . ) ( "Li t i gant s must pl ead Car t wr i ght Act vi ol at i ons wi t h a hi gh
degr ee of par t i cul ar i t y, al l egi ng f actual al l egat i ons of speci f i c
conduct di r ect ed t owar d t he f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy, i n mor e
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
13/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t han concl usor y t er ms. " ( ci t i ng G. H. I . I . v. MTS, I nc. , 147 Cal .
App. 3d 256, 265- 66 ( 1978) ) ) .
Def endant s argue t hat t he Car t wr i ght Act al l egat i ons i n t he
2AC ar e i nsuf f i ci ent wi t h r espect t o causat i on and damages.
Pl ai nt i f f s r espond t hat par t of t he al l eged conspi r acy was t hat
Def endant s r emoved vi deos of ar t i st s not si gned wi t h t hei r co-
conspi r at or s; al l egedl y, Pl ai nt i f f s wer e i nj ur ed by bot h t he
r emoval of t he vi deo and t he deval uat i on of t hei r i nt el l ect ual
pr oper t y r esul t i ng f r om i nf l at ed vi ew count s of ot her vi deos. See
2AC ¶ 94 ( "Whi l e G- Y and t he named G- Y i ndi vi dual s al l ow t heConspi r at or s t o r obot i cal l y i nf l at e t he Vi ew Count of cer t ai n
vi deos i n vi ol at i on of 4H of t he TOS wi t h i mpuni t y, G- Y at i t s
whi m r emoves cer t ai n vi deos of ar t i st s not si gned t o t he
Conspi r at or s and who have not vi ol ated the TOS. " ) . 5
Under t he Car t wr i ght Act , a pr oxi mat e cause r equi r ement ,
f r equent l y ref er r ed t o as t he "st andi ng t o sue" r equi r ement ,
r equi r es t hat t he par t y br i ngi ng t he act i on must be wi t hi n t he
"t ar get ar ea" of t he ant i t r ust vi ol at i on r at her t han "i nci dent al l y
i nj ur ed t her eby. " Kol l i ng, 137 Cal . App. 3d at 723. The i nj ur y
must be t he "di r ect r esul t of t he unl awf ul conduct , " r at her t han
"secondar y, " "consequent i al " or "r emot e. " I d. at 724. I n ot her
wor ds, an ant i t r ust pl ai nt i f f "must show t hat i t was i nj ur ed by
t he ant i compet i t i ve aspect s or ef f ect s of t he def endant ' s conduct ,
as opposed t o bei ng i nj ur ed by t he conduct ' s neut r al or even
pr ocompet i t i ve aspect s. " Fl agshi p Theat r es of Pal m Deser t , LLC v.
Cent ur y Theat r es, I nc. , 198 Cal . App. 4t h 1366, 1380 ( 2011) .
5 The 2AC r ef er s t o Def endant s as " G- Y. "
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
14/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
For exampl e, consumers who al l eged payi ng excess i ve pr i ces
f or cel l ul ar ser vi ce due t o a pr i ce f i xi ng agr eement cl ai med a
di r ect i nj ur y. Cel l ul ar Pl us v. Super . Ct . , 14 Cal . App. 4t h
1224, 1234- 35 ( 1993) . Cor por at i ons t hat ef f ect ed sal es t hat wer e
i mpact ed by a pr i ce f i xi ng agr eement l i kewi se al l eged i nj ur y
adequat el y. I d. at 1235. However , " not al l busi ness ent i t i es
cl ai mi ng sal es wer e l ost due t o pr i ce f i xi ng" have necessar i l y
suf f er ed a di r ect ant i t r ust i nj ur y. I d.
The al l egat i ons i n t he 2AC do not suppor t t hat Pl ai nt i f f s'
i nj ur i es wer e pr oxi mat el y caused by t he al l eged conspi r acy. Thef act s al l eged i n t he 2AC r el at e t o a conspi r acy t o i nf l at e t he
YouTube vi ew count s of Uni ver sal ar t i st s such as Psy and J ust i n
Bi eber . No f act ual al l egat i ons suppor t t hat t hese conspi r at or s
al so agr eed t o r emove musi c vi deos f r om non- Uni ver sal ar t i st s.
Thus, t he 2AC does not al l ege t hat t he conspi r acy di r ect l y i nj ured
Pl ai nt i f f s.
Pl ai nt i f f s have al so i nsuf f i ci ent l y al l eged t hat t he al l eged
conspi r acy caused har m t o compet i t i on. Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f s ar gued
at t he hear i ng t hat YouTube i s an i mpor t ant vehi cl e f or musi c
di st r i but i on, t he conspi r acy al l egat i ons r el at e not t o YouTube as
a whol e but t o vi ew count mani pul at i on. Pl ai nt i f f s must al l ege
wi t h gr eat er par t i cul ar i t y how t he vi ew count mani pul at i on
conspi r acy al l egedl y har med compet i t i on.
I n addi t i on t o al l egi ng har m st emmi ng f r om t he vi deo' s
r emoval , Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t hey ar e ent i t l ed t o damages based
on t hei r "i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y . . . t hat was deval ued by
def endant s' ant i t r ust vi ol at i ons under t he Car t wr i ght Act . " 2AC
¶ 168. Pl ai nt i f f s' deval uat i on t heor y goes as f ol l ows.
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
15/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Def endant s per mi t t ed t hei r co- conspi r at or s t o use r obot i c vi ew
count i nf l at i on f or some vi deos, l i ke "Baby" and "Gangnam St yl e. "
Thi s caused ot her vi deos, l i ke Pl ai nt i f f s' , t o appear by
compar i son l ess popul ar t han t hey other wi se woul d. Thi s i n t ur n
woul d r educe f ut ur e sal es of ot her musi c t hat Pl ai nt i f f s woul d t r y
t o sel l . The Cour t concl udes t hat any damages al l eged under t hi s
t heor y ar e, at most , r emot e and specul at i ve.
Fur t her , t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he f act ual al l egat i ons ar e
i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a cl ai m t hat Googl e or YouTube wer e
i nvol ved i n a conspi r acy t o i nf l at e vi ew count s. See Bel l At l .Cor p. v. Twombl y, 550 U. S. 544, 556 ( 2007) ( hol di ng t hat st at i ng a
cl ai m under t he Sherman Act " r equi r es a compl ai nt wi t h enough
f act ual mat t er ( t aken as t r ue) t o suggest t hat an agr eement was
made") . The 2AC f ai l s t o pr ovi de f act s wi t h any par t i cul ar i t y
suppor t i ng t hat Googl e or YouTube ent er ed i nt o t he conspi r acy.
Fur t her , i t does not al l ege suf f i ci ent l y how Def endant s wor ked
wi t h t he ot her al l eged conspi r at or s. Fi nal l y, Pl ai nt i f f s '
descr i pt i on of vi ew count s suggest s t hat t he number of "vi ews" i s
equal t o t he number of vi ewer s. I t i s pr obabl e t hat t hese vi ew
count s encapsul at e more vi ews t han vi ewers because vi ewers may
vi ew a vi deo mul t i pl e t i mes.
Because Pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o al l ege f act s suppor t i ng
t hat t he al l eged ant i t r ust vi ol at i on pr oxi mat el y caused t hem
i nj ur y, and f ai l ed t o al l ege f act s wi t h par t i cul ar i t y t hat woul d
suppor t a conspi r acy i ncl udi ng Def endant s, Def endant s' mot i on t o
di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f s' Car t wr i ght Act cl ai m i s GRANTED wi t h l eave t o
amend.
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
16/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I I I . Fr audul ent Conceal ment 6
“I n al l egi ng f r aud or mi st ake, a par t y must st at e wi t h
par t i cul ar i t y t he ci r cumst ances const i t ut i ng f r aud or mi st ake. ”
Fed. R. Ci v. P. 9( b) . The al l egat i ons must be “speci f i c enough t o
gi ve def endant s not i ce of t he par t i cul ar mi sconduct whi ch i s
al l eged t o const i t ut e t he f r aud charged so that t hey can def end
agai nst t he charge and not j ust deny t hat t hey have done anyt hi ng
wr ong. ” Semegen v. Wei dner , 780 F. 2d 727, 731 ( 9t h Ci r . 1985) .
St at ement s of t he t i me, pl ace and nat ur e of t he al l eged f r audul ent
act i vi t i es ar e suf f i ci ent , i d. at 735, pr ovi ded t he pl ai nt i f f set sf or t h “what i s f al se or mi sl eadi ng about a st at ement , and why i t
i s f al se. ” Ebei d v. Lungwi t z, 616 F. 3d 993, 998 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) .
Sci ent er may be aver r ed gener al l y, si mpl y by sayi ng t hat i t
exi st ed. See Odom v. Mi cr osof t Cor p. , 486 F. 3d 541, 554 ( 9t h Ci r .
2007) ( en banc) ; Fed. R. Ci v. P. 9( b) ( “Mal i ce, i nt ent , knowl edge,
and other condi t i ons of a person' s mi nd may be al l eged
gener al l y”) . As t o mat t er s pecul i ar l y wi t hi n t he opposi ng par t y’ s
knowl edge, pl eadi ngs based on i nf or mat i on and bel i ef may sat i sf y
Rul e 9( b) i f t hey al so st at e t he f act s on whi ch t he bel i ef i s
f ounded. Moor e v. Kaypor t Package Expr ess, I nc. , 885 F. 2d 531,
540 ( 9t h Ci r . 1989) .
To be l i abl e f or f r audul ent conceal ment under Cal i f or ni a l aw,
“( 1) t he def endant must have conceal ed or suppr essed a mater i al
f act , ( 2) t he def endant must have been under a dut y t o di scl ose
6 Def endant s st at e t hat Pl ai nt i f f s "vaci l l at e bet ween
advanci ng an i mpl i ed mi sr epr esent at i on and a f r audul entconceal ment t heor y. " Repl y Br . at 6. Because t her e i s no i mpl i edmi sr epr esent at i on t heor y i n t he 2AC, t he Cour t di scusses onl y t hef r audul ent conceal ment t heor y.
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
17/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t he f act t o t he pl ai nt i f f , ( 3) t he def endant must have
i nt ent i onal l y conceal ed or suppr essed t he f act wi t h t he i nt ent t o
def r aud t he pl ai nt i f f , ( 4) t he pl ai nt i f f must have been unawar e of
t he f act and woul d not have act ed as he di d i f he had known of t he
conceal ed or suppr essed f act , and ( 5) as a r esul t of t he
conceal ment or suppr essi on of t he f act , t he pl ai nt i f f must have
sust ai ned damage. ” Hahn v. Mi r da, 147 Cal . App. 4t h 740, 748
( 2007) . Pl ai nt i f f s must pl ead f act s suppor t i ng t hese el ement s.
A dut y may ar i se wher e t her e i s a f i duci ar y or conf i dent i al
r el at i onshi p, wher e a def endant does not di scl ose f act s t hatmat er i al l y qual i f y a separ at e di scl osur e or r ender t hat di scl osur e
l i kel y t o mi sl ead, wher e a def endant knows t hat f act s not
r easonabl y di scover abl e by t he pl ai nt i f f ar e onl y known or
accessi bl e t o t he def endant , and wher e a def endant act i vel y
conceal s di scover y f r om t he pl ai nt i f f . War ner Const r . Cor p. v.
Ci t y of L. A. , 2 Cal . 3d 285, 294 ( 1970) . Wher e t her e i s no
f i duci ar y or conf i dent i al r el at i onshi p, t her e must be "some
r el at i onshi p bet ween t he par t i es whi ch gi ves r i se t o a dut y t o
di scl ose such known f act s. " Hof f man v. 162 N. Wol f e LLC, 228 Cal .
App. 4t h 1178, 1187 ( 2014) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . Thi s dut y "may
ar i se f r om t he r el at i onshi p bet ween . . . par t i es ent er i ng i nt o
any ki nd of cont r act ual agr eement . " I d. Thus, al t hough a
cont r act ual r el at i onshi p may l ay t he gr oundwor k f or a dut y t o
di scl ose, i t does not necessar i l y creat e a f i duci ar y dut y.
Def endant s ar gue t hat Pl ai nt i f f s di d not pr oper l y pl ead
damages f r om t he f r audul ent conceal ment . Under Cal i f or ni a l aw,
when no f i duci ar y r el at i onshi p exi st s, a f r audul ent conceal ment
pl ai nt i f f may onl y r ecover out - of - pocket l osses. Dal y v. Vi acom,
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
18/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I nc. , 238 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1126 ( N. D. Cal . 2002) ; see al so
Al l i ance Mor t g. Co. v. Rot hwel l , 10 Cal . 4t h 1226, 1240 ( 1995)
( "I n Cal i f or ni a, a def r auded par t y i s or di nar i l y l i mi t ed t o
r ecover i ng hi s ' out - of - pocket ' l oss. ") . Out - of - pocket damages ar e
"di r ected t o r est or i ng t he pl ai nt i f f t o t he f i nanci al posi t i on
enj oyed by hi m pr i or t o t he f r audul ent t r ansact i on, and t hus
awar ds t he di f f er ence i n act ual val ue at t he t i me of t he
t r ansact i on bet ween what t he pl ai nt i f f gave and what he r ecei ved. "
Al l i ance Mor t g. , 10 Cal . 4t h at 1240; see al so Fl adeboe v. Am.
I suzu Mot or s I nc. , 150 Cal . App. 4t h 42, 66 ( 2007) . Out - of - pocketdamages are usual l y cal cul at ed as of t he t i me of t he t r ansact i on.
Ambassador Hotel Co. v. Wei - Chuan I nv. , 189 F. 3d 1017, 1032 ( 9t h
Ci r . 1999) ( ci t i ng Sal ahut di n v. Val l ey of Cal . , I nc. , 24 Cal .
App. 4t h 555, 568 ( 1994) ) ; see al so Negr et e v. Al l i anz Li f e I ns.
Co. of N. Am. , 2011 WL 4852314, at *9 ( C. D. Cal . ) .
As a t hr eshol d mat t er , t he 2AC does not suppor t t hat
Pl ai nt i f f s and Def endant s wer e i n a f i duci ar y r el at i onshi p. The
2AC st at es t hat a f i duci ar y r el at i onshi p "i s pr esent her e i n t he
f or m of a [ Ter ms of Ser vi ce] cont r act . " 2AC ¶ 20. Thi s i s a
l egal concl usi on t hat does not suf f i ce. Fur t her , under Cal i f or ni a
l aw, a cont r act , wi t hout mor e, does not cr eat e a f i duci ar y
r el at i onshi p. Oakl and Rai der s v. Nat ' l Foot bal l League, 131 Cal .
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
19/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
App. 4t h 621, 633- 34 ( 2005) ( col l ect i ng cases) . 7 Al t hough t he
cont r act may have cr eat ed a r el at i onshi p f r om whi ch a dut y t o
di scl ose ar i ses, Pl ai nt i f f s have not pr oper l y al l eged a f i duci ar y
dut y. Thus, t he 2AC must al l ege out - of - pocket l osses t o sat i sf y
t he damages el ement of f r audul ent conceal ment .
Pl ai nt i f f s do not al l ege any out - of - pocket damages f r om
Def endant s' al l eged f r audul ent conceal ment of i nf l at ed vi ew
count s. The ment i ons of "out of pocket " damages and expenses
t hr oughout t he 2AC const i t ut e l egal concl usi ons. See, e. g. , 2AC
¶¶ 159; 203- 206. The damages Pl ai nt i f f s descr i be do not amount t oout - of - pocket damages because they do not r ef l ect t he di f f er ence
between what Pl ai nt i f f s pai d YouTube and what t hey r ecei ved.
I nst ead, t hey r el at e t o pot ent i al l osses of f ut ur e i ncome and
f i nanci al r el at i onshi ps wi t h ot her s. See, e. g. , 2AC ¶¶ 160
( "deval uat i on of pl ai nt i f f s' i nt el l ectual pr oper t y and t he mar ket
val ue of pl ai nt i f f s' l i ve per f or mances") , 203- 04 ( money l ost f r om
Rast a Rock' s ar r angement wi t h i t s const r uct i on f i r m f under ) . Some
of t he damages al l eged r ef l ect money t hat Pl ai nt i f f s pai d af t er
t hey agr eed t o t he Ter ms of Servi ce. See i d. ¶¶ 205- 06
( di scussi ng money pai d i n pr epar at i on f or t he J ul y 4, 2014
per f or mance on Ni ke' s r oof ) . Fi nal l y, i t i s not cl ear whi ch
Pl ai nt i f f s, i f any, suf f er ed any al l eged out - of - pocket damages.
7 I ndeed, t he Cal i f or ni a Cour t of Appeal hel d t hat a t ypi cal
f i l m di st r i but i on cont r act does not creat e a f i duci ar yr el at i onshi p bet ween t he owner of t he f i l m and t he di st r i but or .Recor ded Pi ct ur e Co. v. Nel son Ent m' t , I nc. , 53 Cal . App. 4t h 350,370 ( 1997) . I n l i ght of t hi s concl usi on, i t cannot be sai d t hatPl ai nt i f f s and Def endant s wer e i n a f i duci ar y r el at i onshi p basedon a cont r act t hat per mi t t ed Pl ai nt i f f s t o upl oad a vi deo ont o YouTube f or publ i c vi ewi ng.
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
20/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I n sum, no damages al l eged const i t ut e out - of - pocket l osses
pr oxi matel y caused by Def endant s' al l eged conceal ment of t hei r own
compl i ci t y i n and f aci l i t at i on of ar t i f i ci al vi ew count i nf l at i on.
See 2AC ¶¶ 42- 44. Rather , any damages were al l egedl y proxi matel y
caused by t he vi deo' s r emoval and the not i ce.
Pl ai nt i f f s make t wo addi t i onal ar gument s r egar di ng t he
damages they pl ead. They argue t hat a compl ai nt need not al l ege a
pr eci se cal cul at i on of damages and t hat t hey ar e ent i t l ed t o
exempl ar y damages under Cal i f or ni a Ci vi l Code sect i on 3343.
Nei t her argument ci r cumvent s t he out - of - pocket damagesr equi r ement .
I n addi t i on, Pl ai nt i f f s ' al l egat i ons of f r audul ent
conceal ment ar e not par t i cul ar enough t o sat i sf y Rul e 9( b) . The
2AC st at es t hat Def endant s pr omot e compani es t hat r obot i cal l y
i nf l at e t hei r vi ew count s, 2AC ¶¶ 35- 36, 42, but i t i s not cl ear
whi ch compani es t hese ar e. Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l t o al l ege when t he
al l eged f r audul ent scheme began. Fur t her , as t he Cour t poi nt ed
out at t he hear i ng, t he 2AC does not suf f i ci ent l y al l ege
det r i ment al r el i ance. Pl ai nt i f f s expl ai ned at t he hear i ng t hat
t hey woul d not have used YouTube as a cent r al component of t hei r
pr omot i onal ef f ort s had t hey known of Def endant s' vi ew count
pr act i ces, but t hey do not al l ege t he more advant ageous market i ng
t hey woul d have pursued had t hey not post ed LuvYa on YouTube.
Pl ai nt i f f s al so f ai l t o al l ege t hat t hey wer e unawar e of t he
f act s t hat Def endant s conceal ed.
For t hese r easons, Def endant s' mot i on to di smi ss wi t h respect
t o the f r audul ent conceal ment cl ai m i s GRANTED wi t h l eave to
amend.
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
21/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I V. Li bel Per Quod
"Li bel i s a f al se and unpr i vi l eged publ i cat i on by wr i t i ng,
pr i nt i ng, pi ctur e, ef f i gy, or other f i xed r epr esent at i on t o t he
eye, whi ch exposes any per son t o hat r ed, cont empt , r i di cul e, or
obl oquy, or whi ch causes hi m t o be shunned or avoi ded, or whi ch
has a t endency t o i nj ur e hi m i n hi s occupat i on. " Cal . Ci v. Code
§ 45. Li bel t hat i s not def amat or y on i t s f ace, t hat i s, l i bel
per quod, "i s not acti onabl e unl ess t he pl ai nt i f f al l eges . . .
t hat he has suf f er ed speci al damage as a pr oxi mat e resul t
t her eof . " I d. § 45a. J udge Cont i f ound t hat t he l i belal l egat i ons wer e not def amat or y per se, and expl ai ned t hat t hi s
cl ai m coul d move f or war d onl y i f Pl ai nt i f f s pr oper l y pl ead speci al
damages. 8 Or der Di smi ss i ng 1AC at 16- 17; see Newcombe v. Adol f
Coor s Co. , 157 F. 3d 686, 694 ( 9t h Ci r . 1998) ( expl ai ni ng t hat ,
under Cal i f or ni a l aw, "a pl ai nt i f f may onl y pr evai l on a cl ai m f or
l i bel i f t he publ i cat i on i s l i bel ous on i t s f ace or i f speci al
damages have been pr oven") . Def endant s do not di sput e t hat
Pl ai nt i f f s pl ead speci al damages i n t he 2AC. See Docket No. 80,
Repl y Br . at 10.
However , Def endant s argue t hat t he 2AC pl eads i nsuf f i ci ent
f act s t o al l ege both def amatory meani ng and r ef erence t o
Pl ai nt i f f s.
/ /
/ /
8 Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat J udge Cont i i mpl i ci t l y f ound t hat
" t he [ 1AC] as pl ed adequat el y est abl i shed t he capaci t y of t heNot i ce t o be def amatory. " Response Br . at 19. The Cour t r eads nosuch i mpl i ci t r ul i ng i nt o J udge Cont i ' s or der .
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
22/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. Def amat or y Meani ng
Def amatory meani ng deal s wi t h "t he i mpact of communi cat i ons
between ordi nary human bei ngs. " MacLeod v. Tr i bune Pub. Co. , 52
Cal . 2d 536, 550 ( 1959) . The meani ng must be measured "by t he
nat ur al and pr obabl e ef f ect upon t he mi nd of t he aver age reader . "
I d. at 551. I mpl i ed def amatory meani ng may exi st even when t here
i s "r oom f or an i nnocent i nt er pr et at i on. " I d. at 549.
Al t hough t he exi st ence of a def amatory meani ng i s general l y a
quest i on of f act f or t he j ur y, f eder al cour t s may consi der t he
i ssue at t he mot i on t o di smi ss st age. Chur ch of Sci ent ol ogy ofCal . v. Fl ynn, 744 F. 2d 694, 696 ( 9t h Ci r . 1984) ( ci t i ng For sher
v. Bugl i osi , 26 Cal . 3d 792, 803, 806 ( 1980) ) . I t i s i mpr oper f or
a di st r i ct cour t t o di smi ss a compl ai nt f or l ack of def amat or y
meani ng i f "by r easonabl e i mpl i cat i on a def amatory meani ng may be
f ound i n t he communi cat i on. " I d. ( quot i ng For sher , 26 Cal . 3d at
806) .
At t he out set , J udge Cont i expl ai ned i n hi s or der t hat t he
Communi t y Gui del i nes "are i ncorporated i n t he Ter ms of Servi ce by
r ef er ence. " Or der Di smi ssi ng 1AC at 21. Thus, t hi s Cour t
consi der s t he Communi t y Gui del i nes, t o whi ch Pl ai nt i f f s r ef er i n
t he operat i ve compl ai nt . See 2AC ¶ 108. The Communi t y Gui del i nes
cont ai n a bul l et poi nt l i st of "some common- sense rul es t hat wi l l
hel p you st eer cl ear of t r oubl e. " Docket No. 78, Vel t man Dec. ,
Ex. 1, Communi t y Gui del i nes. I n or der , t he bul l et poi nt s di scuss
t he f ol l owi ng t opi cs: "por nogr aphy or sexual l y expl i ci t cont ent , "
"bad st uf f l i ke ani mal abuse, dr ug abuse, under - age dr i nki ng and
smoki ng, or bomb maki ng, " " [ g] r aphi c or gr at ui t ous vi ol ence, "
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
23/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"gr oss- out vi deos . . . i nt ended t o shock or di sgust , " copyr i ght
vi ol at i ons, "hat e speech, " "predat or y behavi or , " and spam. I d.
Def endant s ment i on two rel at ed Cal i f or ni a Super i or Cour t
cases whi ch concl uded t hat no reasonabl e reader woul d f i nd a
def amatory meani ng i n t he Communi t y Gui del i nes. I n Bar t hol omew v.
YouTube, LLC, No. 15- 275833 ( Cal . Super . Ct . 2015) ( Bar t hol omew
I ) , t he cour t di smi ssed a cl ai m f or l i bel per se based on t hese
Communi t y Gui del i nes. Vel t man Dec. Ex. 2. I t r easoned t hat , even
assumi ng t he Communi t y Gui del i nes were not ext r i nsi c evi dence, "a
r easonabl e r eader woul d not i nf er t hat t he Vi deo cont ai ned t hespeci f i c ki nds of i mpr oper cont ent ment i oned i n the ' Communi t y
Gui del i ne Ti ps' subsect i on because t he subsect i on expl i ci t l y
st at es t hat t he cat egor i es l i st ed ar e mer el y exampl es set f or t h. "
I d. at 8 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . Fur t her , t he cour t expl ai ned, i t
i s " r eadi l y appar ent " t hat t he exampl es "do not const i t ut e an
exhausti ve l i st . " I d. Fi nal l y, the l i st i ncl udes spam. I d.
Ther eaf t er , Bar t hol omew amended her compl ai nt t o i ncl ude a
l i bel per quod cl ai m. The Super i or Cour t ' s August 5, 2015 or der
( Bar t hol omew I I ) sust ai ned YouTube' s demur r er , t hi s t i me wi t hout
l eave t o amend, f or sever al r easons. Vel t man Dec. Ex. 3. Fi r st ,
i t st at ed t hat t he not i ce on t he web page r ef er r ed t o YouTube' s
Terms of Ser vi ce, r at her t han i t s Communi t y Gui del i nes. I d. at 2.
As expl ai ned above, t hi s Cour t f i nds t hi s di st i nct i on
unper suasi ve. Second, t he Super i or Cour t expl ai ned t hat al t hough
some cat egor i es on t he l i st coul d be deemed l i bel ous, such as " Sex
and Nudi t y" and "Hat e Speech, " ot her cat egor i es, such as
"Chi l dr en, " "Copyr i ght " and "Pr i vacy, " do not necessar i l y evoke
of f ensi veness. I d. at 2- 3. Ul t i mat el y, t he cour t hel d t hat a
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
24/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r ef erence to t he Communi t y Gui del i nes as a whol e i s not r easonabl y
suscept i bl e t o a def amat or y i nt er pr et at i on. I d. at 3.
Thi s Cour t di sagr ees; i t woul d not be unr easonabl e f or an
average reader t o f i nd def amatory meani ng i n an accusat i on of
vi ol at i on of t he Communi t y Gui del i nes. Of t he ei ght bul l et poi nt s
l i st ed, t he f i r st f our ment i on por nogr aphy, chi l d expl oi t at i on,
ani mal abuse, bomb maki ng, vi ol ence and i nt ent t o shock or
di sgust . The si xth and sevent h bul l et poi nt s ment i on hat e speech,
as wel l as "predat or y behavi or , st al ki ng, t hr eat s, har assment ,
i nt i mi dat i on, i nvadi ng pr i vacy, r eveal i ng ot her peopl e' s per sonali nf or mat i on, and i nci t i ng ot her s t o commi t vi ol ent act s. "
Communi t y Gui del i nes. That t he f i f t h and ei ght h bul l et poi nt s
r ef er t o copyr i ght vi ol at i ons and spam does not r ender t he ot her
si x bul l et poi nt s non- def amat or y. Nor does t he non- exhaust i ve
nat ur e of t he l i st obvi at e any def amat or y meani ng. A f act - f i nder
coul d r easonabl y i nf er def amatory meani ng here. See Fl ynn, 744
F. 2d at 696 ( ci t i ng For sher , 26 Cal . 3d at 806) .
B. Ref er ence t o Pl ai nt i f f s
Pl ai nt i f f s must pl ead t hat t he al l egedl y def amat or y
st at ement s are "of and concer ni ng" t hem. Fl ynn, 744 F. 2d at 697.
A "def amat or y st at ement t hat i s ambi guous as t o i t s t ar get not
onl y must be capabl e of bei ng under st ood t o ref er t o t he
pl ai nt i f f , but al so must be shown act ual l y t o have been so
under st ood by a t hi r d par t y. " SDV/ ACCI , I nc. v. AT&T Cor p. , 522
F. 3d 955, 960 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) .
Her e, Pl ai nt i f f s have not al l eged f acts suf f i ci ent t o sat i sf y
t hese r equi r ement s. Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat Def endant s post ed t he
not i ce i n t he musi c vi deo' s or i gi nal pl ace, 2AC ¶ 104, and t hat
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
25/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t he not i ce r emai ned " l i ve" t her e, i d. ¶ 106. However , i t i s not
cl ear f r om t he compl ai nt who kept t he not i ce " l i ve" or f or how
l ong. Pl ai nt i f f s al so al l ege t hat N. G. B. was credi t ed f or hi s
act i ng per f or mance " [ o] n t he ' LuvYa' vi deo l i nk, " i d. ¶ 96, and
t hat Song f i had "pr omot ed" t he l i nk "aggr essi vel y t hr ough e- mai l
chai ns and soci al net wor k pl at f or ms wher ei n N. G. B. was i dent i f i ed
as bei ng t he st ar of t he ' LuvYa' musi c vi deo al ong wi t h the Rast a
Rock Oper a musi cal gr oup, " i d. at 98. However , i t i s not cl ear
f r om t hese al l egat i ons how a thi r d par t y vi ewer woul d have
connect ed each Pl ai nt i f f t o t he vi deo and t he not i ce or how at hi r d par t y woul d have ar r i ved at t he vi deo' s or i gi nal web page
and t hen associ at ed t he not i ce wi t h each Pl ai nt i f f . Pl ai nt i f f s
shoul d quote or at t ach t he emai l s and Facebook messages t hat
di ssemi nat ed t he l i nk t o t he web page t hat cont ai ned t he not i ce,
as wel l as any r el evant t ext t hat r emai ned on t he web page al ong
wi t h t he not i ce af t er t he vi deo' s r emoval , t hat coul d l i nk each
Pl ai nt i f f t o t he not i ce. See Dar naa LLC v. Googl e, 2015 WL
7753406, at *9- *10 ( N. D. Cal . ) ( gr ant i ng l eave t o amend i n a l i bel
per quod cl ai m wher e pl ai nt i f f di d not al l ege how YouTube not i ce
i dent i f i ed pl ai nt i f f ) .
The Cour t GRANTS Def endant s' mot i on t o di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f s'
l i bel per quod cl ai m, wi t h l eave t o amend.
V.
Cal i f orni a Consumer Legal Remedi es Act ( CLRA)
“The CLRA makes unl awf ul cer t ai n ‘ unf ai r methods of
compet i t i on and unf ai r or decept i ve act s or pr act i ces' used i n t he
sal e of goods or servi ces to a consumer. ” Wi l ens v. TD Waterhouse
Gr p. , I nc. , 120 Cal . App. 4t h 746, 753 ( 2003) ( quot i ng Cal . Ci v.
Code § 1770( a) ) . "By def i ni t i on, t he CLRA does not appl y t o
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
26/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unf ai r or decept i ve pr act i ces t hat occur af t er t he sal e or l ease
has occur r ed. " Moor e v. Appl e, I nc. , 73 F. Supp. 3d 1191, 1201
( N. D. Cal . 2014) ( col l ect i ng cases) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) .
Sect i on 1780( a) pr ovi des, “Any consumer who suf f ers any damage as
a resul t of t he use or empl oyment by any person of a method, act ,
or pr act i ce decl ared t o be unl awf ul by Sect i on 1770 may br i ng an
act i on” under t he CLRA. Thus, t o pur sue a CLRA cl ai m, pl ai nt i f f s
must have been “exposed t o an unl awf ul pr act i ce” and “some ki nd of
damage must r esul t . ” Meyer v. Spr i nt Spect r um L. P. , 45 Cal . 4t h
634, 641 ( 2009) . To st at e a cl ai m under t he CLRA, pl ai nt i f f s must be
"consumer s. " "Consumer " i s def i ned as "an i ndi vi dual who seeks or
acqui r es, by pur chase or l ease, any goods or servi ces f or
per sonal , f ami l y, or househol d pur poses. " Cal . Ci v. Code
§ 1761( d) . "Goods" are " t angi bl e chat t el s bought or l eased f or
use pr i mar i l y f or per sonal , f ami l y, or househol d pur poses. " I d.
§ 1761( a) . The CLRA def i nes "ser vi ces" as "wor k, l abor , and
servi ces f or ot her t han a commer ci al or busi ness use, i ncl udi ng
ser vi ces f ur ni shed i n connect i on wi t h t he sal e or r epai r of
goods. " I d. § 1761( b) .
Pl ai nt i f f s Br ot her t on and N. G. B. al l ege t hat YouTube pr ovi des
consumer ser vi ces, 2AC ¶ 137, and t hat t hey pur chased or l eased
t he ser vi ces by pr ovi di ng consi der at i on i n t he f or m of
"pl ai nt i f f s' consumer t r af f i c on t he YouTube websi t e, " i d. ¶ 139.
Pl ai nt i f f s' al l egat i ons do not suppor t st andi ng f or t hei r CLRA
cl ai m.
Pl ai nt i f f s have not al l eged f act s suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t hat
YouTube provi des a ser vi ce under t he CLRA. Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f s
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
27/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
may have ent er ed i nt o a cont r act wi t h YouTube, not al l cont r act s
ar e f or goods or servi ces. See, e. g. , Br ober g v. Guar di an Li f e
I ns. Co. of Am. , 171 Cal . App. 4t h 912, 924- 25 ( 2009) ( concl udi ng
t hat i nsur ance agr eement s are not " servi ces f ur ni shed i n
connect i on wi t h t he sal e or r epai r of goods" because they "ar e
si mpl y agr eement s t o pay i f and when an i dent i f i abl e event
occur s" ) . Nor i s Pl ai nt i f f s' use of t he YouTube websi t e t he use
of a ser vi ce. "Cal i f or ni a l aw i s cl ear t hat sof t war e i s not a
t angi bl e good or servi ce f or t he pur poses of t he CLRA. " I n r e
Sony Gami ng Net works & Cust omer Dat a Sec. Br each Li t i g. , 903 F.Supp. 2d 942, 972 ( S. D. Cal . 2012) ( hol di ng t hat t he comput er
net wor k syst em used t o pr ovi de Pl aySt at i on Net wor k servi ces, whi ch
per mi t t ed access t o var i ous t hi r d par t y ser vi ces, di d not
const i t ut e a "ser vi ce" under t he CLRA) .
Even i f YouTube pr ovi ded a ser vi ce, Pl ai nt i f f s di d not use
YouTube " f or ot her t han a commer ci al or busi ness use. " Cal . Ci v.
Code § 1761( b) . The t hr ust of t he 2AC i s t hat Pl ai nt i f f s upl oaded
t he vi deo and promoted i t f or commerci al pur poses. The 2AC
cont ai ns no f act s suppor t i ng t hat Pl ai nt i f f s upl oaded t he vi deo
f or any ot her pur pose. See, e. g. , Per s. v. Googl e, I nc. , 2007 WL
832941, at *7 ( N. D. Cal . ) ( hol di ng t hat because pl ai nt i f f ' s st at ed
pur pose f or usi ng a comput er pr ogr amwas commer ci al and pol i t i cal ,
pl ai nt i f f was not a consumer and di d not have st andi ng under t he
CLRA) .
Fur t her , t he f act s al l eged do not suppor t t hat Pl ai nt i f f s
ent er ed i nt o t he r el at i onshi p wi t h YouTube "by pur chase or l ease. "
Cal . Ci v. Code § 1761( d) . The "mor e gener al i zed not i on t hat t he
phr ase ' pur chase' or ' l ease' cont empl at es any l ess t han t angi bl e
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
28/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
f or m of payment - - f i nds no suppor t under t he speci f i c st at ut or y
l anguage of t he CLRA. " Cl ar i dge v. RockYou, I nc. , 785 F. Supp. 2d
855, 864 ( N. D. Cal . 2011) ; see al so I n r e Zynga Pr i vacy Li t i g. ,
2011 WL 7479170, at *1- *2 ( N. D. Cal . ) ( gr ant i ng mot i on t o di smi ss
a CLRA cl ai m wher e t he pl ai nt i f f s "al l eged t hat t hey r ecei ved
Facebook' s ser vi ces ' f r ee of char ge' " ) . Pr ovi di ng consumer
t r af f i c f or YouTube, Pl ai nt i f f s ' al l eged consi der at i on, i s
cer t ai nl y a l ess than t angi bl e f or m of payment . See, e. g. , Yunker
v. Pandor a Medi a, I nc. , 2013 WL 1282980, at *12 ( N. D. Cal . )
( concl udi ng t hat pl ai nt i f f l acked st andi ng because t he per sonal l yi dent i f i abl e i nf or mat i on t hat Pandor a gat her ed when pl ai nt i f f
r egi st er ed f or Pandor a was a " l ess t han t angi bl e f or m of
payment ") . So i s upl oadi ng t he vi deo. Pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o
al l ege f act s suf f i ci ent t o suppor t CLRA st andi ng.
The 2AC' s CLRA al l egat i ons ar e i nsuf f i ci ent i n ot her ways,
t oo. The CLRA cl ai m cont ai ns al l egat i ons of f r aud. See, e. g. ,
2AC ¶ 149- 50 ( al l egi ng t hat f al se vi ew count s decei ve consumer s,
t her eby r epr esent i ng t hat vi deos have char act er i st i cs t hat t hey do
not have) . The f r aud- based port i on does not meet t he st andards of
Rul e 9( b) enunci at ed above.
I n addi t i on, Pl ai nt i f f s cannot base a CLRA cl ai m on an
al l egedl y unconsci onabl e cont r act cl ause. See i d. ¶¶ 154- 55
( al l egi ng t hat t he f ol l owi ng cl ause i s unconsci onabl e: "YouTube
r eserves t he r i ght t o di scont i nue any aspect of t he Ser vi ce at any
t i me. ") . The Di st r i ct of Col umbi a cour t r ul ed t hat t he
"di scont i nue ser vi ce" pr ovi si on of t he cont r act i s not
unconsci onabl e, Di st r i ct of Col umbi a Opi ni on at 13, and J udge
Cont i r easoned t hat t hi s cl ause suppor t ed di smi ssi ng Pl ai nt i f f s'
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
29/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
br each of cont r act cl ai m. Fur t her , appl yi ng Cal i f or ni a l aw, i t i s
not pl ausi bl e t hat t hi s cont r act t er m i s unconsci onabl e because no
al l egat i ons suppor t t hat t he t er m i s " so one- si ded as t o ' shock
t he consci ence. ' " Pi nnacl e Museum Tower Ass' n v. Pi nnacl e Mar ket
Dev. ( US) , LLC, 55 Cal . 4t h 223, 246 ( 2012) ( quot i ng 24 Hour
Fi t ness, I nc. v. Super . Ct . , 66 Cal . App. 4t h 1199, 1213 ( 1998) ) .
For al l t hese r easons, t he Cour t GRANTS Def endant s' mot i on t o
di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f s' CLRA cl ai m. Because Pl ai nt i f f s cannot al l ege
f act s whi ch woul d est abl i sh t hei r st andi ng, di smi ssal i s wi t hout
l eave t o amend.
VI . Tor t i ous I nter f er ence wi t h Busi ness Rel at i onshi ps
J udge Cont i out l i ned t he el ement s f or a t or t i ous i nter f er ence
cl ai m. Or der Di smi ssi ng 1AC at 18. Pl ai nt i f f s st i l l f ai l t o
al l ege any wr ongf ul conduct ot her t han t he f act of i nt er f er ence
i t sel f , al t hough t hey may be abl e t o r emedy t hi s shor t comi ng.
Thus, t he Cour t GRANTS Def endant s' mot i on t o di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f s'
t or t i ous i nt er f er ence cl ai m, wi t h l eave t o amend. Pl ai nt i f f s may
move f or war d on t hi s cl ai m i f t hey successf ul l y al l ege one of t he
r emai ni ng causes of act i on.
CONCLUSI ON
The Cour t GRANTS Def endant s' mot i on t o di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f s'
Car t wr i ght Act cl ai m, Pl ai nt i f f s' f r audul ent conceal ment cl ai m,
Pl ai nt i f f s ' l i bel per quod cl ai m and Pl ai nt i f f s ' t or t i ous
i nt er f er ence wi t h busi ness r el at i onshi ps cl ai m, wi t h l eave t o
amend; Pl ai nt i f f s' CLRA cl ai m i s di smi ssed wi t hout l eave t o amend.
Wi t hi n f our t een days of t he dat e of t hi s or der , Pl ai nt i f f s
may f i l e an amended compl ai nt t o r emedy t he def i ci enci es
i dent i f i ed above. They may not add f ur t her cl ai ms. I f Pl ai nt i f f s
8/18/2019 Song Fi v. Google - antitrust opinion (robot views).pdf
30/30
U n i t e
d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o
r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
f i l e an amended compl ai nt , Def endant s shal l r espond t o i t wi t hi n
f our t een days af t er i t i s f i l ed. I f Def endant s f i l e a mot i on t o
di smi ss, Pl ai nt i f f s shal l r espond t o t he mot i on wi t hi n f our t een
days af t er i t i s f i l ed. Def endant s' r epl y, i f necessar y, shal l be
due seven days ther eaf t er . Any mot i on t o di smi ss wi l l be deci ded
on the paper s.
I T I S SO ORDERED.
Dat ed: Apr i l 4, 2016CLAUDI A WI LKEN
Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge