Twitter, Inc. v. Skootle Corp. et al

Filing 69

Declaration in Support of 68 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint Declaration of Charles T. Graves In Support of Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed byTwitter, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 68 ) (Graves, Charles) (Filed on 11/2/2012)

Exhibit 1

1
2
3
4
5

DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452
CHARLES T. GRAVES, State Bar No. 197923
RIANA S. PFEFFERKORN, State Bar No. 266817
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

6
7

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Twitter, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

8
9
10

TWITTER, INC., a Delaware corporation,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
SKOOTLE CORP., a Tennessee corporation;
JAMES KESTER, an individual; and TROY
FALES, an individual,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 3:12-cv-1721 SI
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
(1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; (2)
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
CONTRACT; (3) FRAUD; AND (4)
UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE BUSINESS
PRACTICES
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) brings this civil action against Skootle Corporation,

19

James Kester, and Troy Fales (collectively, “Defendants”), and for its first amended complaint

20

alleges as follows on personal knowledge as to its own actions and on information and belief as

21

to the actions of others:
I.

22
23

1.

INTRODUCTION

Twitter operates one of the world’s most popular online communications platforms,

24

with over 140 million active users. Twitter’s widespread success comes in large part because

25

Twitter is dedicated to providing a high quality user experience that promotes meaningful

26

interactions between its users. Among other things, Twitter protects its users’ experience by

27

prohibiting a variety of fraudulent and deceptive practices on the Twitter platform, which Twitter

28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

1

refers to collectively as “spam.” Twitter has deployed a host of human and technological

2

measures to detect and combat spam on the Twitter platform.

3

2.

By this action, Twitter seeks to hold Defendants and those who continue to ply the

4

spam trade accountable for the costs of their misconduct, and further safeguard its platform and

5

users from blatantly abusive activities.

6

3.

As described below, Defendants distribute a software tool called “TweetAdder”

7

that is designed to facilitate abuse of the Twitter platform and marketed to dupe consumers into

8

violating Twitter’s user agreement.

9
10
11
12

II.
4.

THE PARTIES

Plaintiff Twitter is a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place

of business in San Francisco, California.
5.

Defendant Skootle Corporation (“Skootle”) is a corporation incorporated in

13

Tennessee, with its principal place of business in the State of Virginia, doing business in the State

14

of California.

15

6.

Defendant James Kester (“Kester”) is an individual who conducts business in the

16

State of California and is domiciled in the State of Virginia. Kester is the principal officer of

17

Defendant Skootle.

18

7.

Defendant Troy Fales (“Fales”) is an individual who conducts business in the State

19

of California and is domiciled in the State of North Carolina. Plaintiff has recently learned that

20

Fales has been, and on information and belief continues to be, an employee of Defendant Skootle,

21

during at least part of the relevant time period.

22

8.

Defendants Skootle, Kester, and Fales shall be referred to collectively in this

23

Complaint as “TweetAdder,” except as otherwise specified.

24

III.

25

9.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332

26

because Plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from each Defendant and because the value of the

27

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants.

28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-2-

1

10.

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because a substantial

2

part of the events giving rise to the claims at issue in this lawsuit occurred in this District.

3

Defendants have repeatedly, knowingly, and improperly targeted wrongful acts at Twitter, which

4

is headquartered in this judicial district, and have caused harm in this judicial district.

5
6

IV.
11.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

Assignment to the San Francisco Division of this Court is appropriate under Civil

7

L.R. 3-2, in that the claims asserted herein arose in San Francisco County, and because Twitter is

8

headquartered in San Francisco County.

9

V.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

10

A.

Twitter’s Service

11

12.

Plaintiff Twitter, Inc.’s eponymous service, Twitter, is an online communications

12

platform that lets users share and receive information in real-time through short messages called

13

“Tweets,” which have a maximum length of 140 characters. Twitter connects its users with the

14

latest information about their interests. The service is free of charge and open to anyone.

15

13.

Users must agree to Twitter’s Terms of Service – as discussed below – in order to

16

create an account. Each user’s account is denominated by a name selected by the user, together

17

with the @ symbol. From that unique account address, the user can then broadcast messages to

18

the service generally. These messages will be delivered to other Twitter users that have chosen to

19

subscribe to their Tweets, or “follow” them. As an example, @whitehouse can transmit messages

20

that are viewable to anyone who navigates to the public profile page of @whitehouse, or anyone

21

who searches for Tweets by @whitehouse. Users who have “followed” @whitehouse will receive

22

Tweets from that account as they are transmitted. Users can also “un-follow” a user to stop

23

receiving the other user’s Tweets.

24

14.

Separately, Twitter users can also direct their Tweets to other specific users by

25

including other account names, together with the @ symbol, within the text of their Tweet. These

26

types of Tweets are called “@replies” or “@mentions.” These Tweets will be delivered directly to

27

the account-holders that are “@mentioned” within a Tweet, regardless of whether they have

28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-3-

1

specifically subscribed to the accounts. Twitter users may also send private Tweets, called “direct

2

messages,” to other users, which are viewable only by the recipient (and the sender).

3

15.

A Twitter user can mark keywords or topics in a Tweet by including the # symbol,

4

which is colloquially called a “hashtag” on Twitter, before a relevant keyword in the Tweet, with

5

no spaces between the two elements. The combination of the # symbol and the keyword is also

6

referred to colloquially as a “hashtag.” For example, including the hashtag “#california” indicates

7

that a Tweet is about California. Twitter’s algorithms analyze the content of Tweets to determine

8

current popular topics of discussion on Twitter, which are referred to on Twitter as “trending

9

topics.”

10

B.

“Spam” on Twitter

11

16.

Twitter has taken special efforts to make its service beneficial for businesses. As a

12

result, companies of every size now use Twitter to connect with customers, including driving new

13

business, offering discounts and deals, and providing customer service.

14

17.

While many legitimate companies have grown their businesses through Twitter, the

15

service has also become an unwilling host to unscrupulous entities which exhibit a variety of

16

abusive behaviors on Twitter. Such behaviors are referred to as “spam,” a term borrowed from the

17

popular word for unsolicited commercial email messages. Examples of “spam” include posting a

18

Tweet with a harmful link (including links to phishing or malware sites) and abusing the @reply

19

and @mention function to post unwanted messages to a user. Sending such messages is known as

20

“spamming,” and the senders of such messages are called “spammers.”

21

18.

Spam Tweets typically contain advertisements for businesses, products, or services

22

that are often, if not typically, false and misleading. Regardless, recipients do not desire these

23

unsolicited messages and they interfere with recipients’ use and enjoyment of the Twitter service.

24

19.

Spam Tweets are typically sent from Twitter accounts created for the sole purpose

25

of spamming Twitter users. These spam accounts frequently use software programs that automate

26

Twitter functions such as following and un-following users and sending Tweets and @replies to

27

users. Automated spam accounts are colloquially referred to on Twitter as “bots” or “spambots.”

28

These spam software programs typically permit spambots to rapidly follow or un-follow a large
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-4-

1

number of users, to send a high volume of spam Tweets, and to automatically send Tweets or

2

@replies to users who mention certain keywords, hashtags, or trending topics in their Tweets.

3

20.

Twitter has invested a great deal of money and effort to prevent and fight spam.

4

Twitter empowers users to fight spam by letting them block accounts and report them for

5

spamming. Twitter also limits the number of Tweets and direct messages an account can send per

6

day and the number of users an account can follow.

7

21.

Twitter employs a dedicated Trust & Safety team whose sole job is fighting spam

8

on Twitter. Twitter has dramatically expanded this team during the past year in response to spam-

9

based misconduct, including Defendants’ misconduct. Twitter’s Trust & Safety team investigates

10

users’ spam reports and terminates spam accounts. Nevertheless, many spammers – including

11

those using Defendants’ software – generate replacement accounts when one of their spam

12

accounts is terminated and thus can quickly resume their spamming activities.

13

22.

Certain spam software – such as the software offered by Defendants – allows a

14

spammer to create a large number of accounts, making it easier for spammers to shift to new

15

accounts and to use dozens or even hundreds of spam accounts at once.

16

23.

Spammers and the makers of spam software, including the Defendants in this

17

action, harm Twitter by negatively affecting Twitter users’ experience, damaging users’ goodwill

18

toward Twitter, and causing Twitter users to terminate their Twitter accounts due to dissatisfaction

19

with the level of spam on Twitter. Spammers and the makers of spam software, including the

20

Defendants in this action, have also forced Twitter to spend money – including substantial

21

amounts during the year leading up to the institution of this action, and in the months since – on

22

costly anti-spam efforts as a proximate and direct result of their misconduct. Twitter would not

23

have incurred these costs if such misconduct did not take place. Such costs include those for

24

implementing technical measures to fight spam on Twitter, and those for expanding a specialized

25

team to detect, monitor, fight, and respond to user complaints and inquiries regarding spam.

26

Specifically, Twitter has incurred costs of at least $75,000 to engage in anti-spam efforts to

27

combat the wrongdoing of TweetAdder. Twitter would not have incurred such costs but-for the

28

misconduct of Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-5-

1

C.

Twitter’s User Agreement

2

24.

In order to create a Twitter account and use Twitter’s service, or otherwise access

3

the service, a would-be Twitter user must first agree to be bound by Twitter’s user agreement,

4

which comprises the Twitter Terms of Service (“Terms”), the Twitter Rules, and Twitter’s Privacy

5

Policy (collectively the “TOS”). The Terms of Service and Rules are attached as Exhibit A and

6

can also be found on Twitter’s website.

7

25.

Twitter users who agree to Twitter’s TOS enjoy a limited, non-assignable license to

8

access and use Twitter’s websites and services, subject to acceptance of and compliance with the

9

TOS. By accessing or using Twitter’s websites and services, a user agrees to be bound by the

10
11

TOS.
26.

Twitter’s TOS expressly prohibit spamming. The Twitter Rules (incorporated into

12

the TOS) include rules against certain activities defined as “Spam and Abuse.” The Rules provide

13

that “user abuse … will result in permanent suspension. Any accounts engaging in the activities

14

specified [as Spam and Abuse] are subject to permanent suspension.” The Rules further provide

15

that engaging in any prohibited activities may result in investigation for abuse, and that Twitter

16

reserves the right to immediately terminate an account without further notice if Twitter determines

17

that an account violates the Rules or the Terms.

18

27.

Activities forbidden as “Spam and Abuse” under the Rules include the creation of

19

serial accounts for disruptive or abusive purposes, or with overlapping uses. The “Spam and

20

Abuse” Rules further forbid the use of the Twitter service for the purpose of spamming users. The

21

Rules provide that Twitter determines what constitutes “spamming,” based on criteria including,

22

but not limited to, the following account behaviors: (a) following a large number of users in a

23

short amount of time; (b) following and un-following people in a short time period, particularly by

24

automated means (a practice known as “churn”); (c) Tweeting misleading links; (d) sending

25

multiple Tweets to hashtags or trending or popular topics that are unrelated to those hashtags or

26

topics; (e) posting the same Tweet across multiple accounts or duplicate Tweets to the same

27

account; (f) sending large numbers of duplicate @reply Tweets or Tweets mentioning particular

28

users; (g) the number of spam complaints filed against the account; (h) creating or purchasing
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-6-

1

accounts in order to gain followers; and (i) using or promoting third-party sites that claim to

2

generate more followers for an account, including “sites promising ‘more followers fast,’ or any

3

other site that offers to automatically add followers to your account.” In addition, the Rules

4

prohibit creating accounts for the purpose of selling such accounts, and they prohibit selling

5

usernames. The Rules provide that an account may be suspended for TOS violations if Twitter

6

detects any of the above activities.

7

28.

For a third-party software application to communicate with the Twitter service, the

8

TOS requires the use of Twitter’s Software Programming Interface (“API”). Through the TOS,

9

Twitter forbids accessing, searching, or attempting to access or search Twitter’s services by any

10

means, automated or otherwise, other than Twitter’s official published interfaces, except by

11

separate, express agreement with Twitter.

12

29.

Each of the Defendants has agreed to the TOS by opening at least one user account

13

on Twitter, and each has knowledge of the terms of the TOS. The Defendants opened at least one

14

user account in order to develop the TweetAdder software to operate on Twitter’s website.

15

D.

TweetAdder’s Abuse of the Twitter Service

16

30.

Defendant TweetAdder operates a website available at http://www.tweetadder.com.

17

It is the creator of a desktop computer program called “TweetAdder” that enables users to

18

automate the process of creating accounts and broadcasting spam Tweets to an enormous number

19

of users. It licenses the TweetAdder software in packages of one, five, ten, or an unlimited

20

number of Twitter accounts.

21

31.

In the months leading up to the filing of the instant action and in the months since,

22

Twitter has received scores of complaints about myriad spam accounts that use the TweetAdder

23

software. Some Twitter users employing the software to create accounts and send spam have been

24

misled by TweetAdder into believing that use of the software for such purposes was permissible.

25

32.

TweetAdder promotes its software on its website as offering the following features,

26

the use of which by a Twitter user would constitute a breach by the user of the TOS: (a) multiple

27

account management; (b) automated following and un-following of other users; and (c) automated

28

generation of Tweets, re-Tweets and @replies.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-7-

1

33.

Plaintiff has recently learned that Defendant Fales is the primary designer of the

2

TweetAdder software. Defendant Fales deliberately designed the TweetAdder software to violate

3

the TOS.

4

34.

Nothing on the TweetAdder website informs prospective licensees that the intended

5

use of the software to send spam violates Twitter’s Terms of Service. Rather, the website is

6

designed to create the impression that the software is created for permissible and appropriate use

7

with Twitter’s service. The TweetAdder website claims that licensees can “get more followers,

8

instantly.” It also advertises that licensees can “[u]se our program on an unlimited number of

9

Twitter profiles with TweetAdder Platinum!” TweetAdder also advertises that its software

10

“[w]orks your [T]witter profile or profiles like a human being.” These statements and others like

11

them deceive users into believing that using the TweetAdder software will conform to Twitter’s

12

TOS and/or avoid having their accounts suspended for TOS violations.

13
14
15

35.

These features and representations, among others, induce Twitter users who license

TweetAdder to violate the TOS, and deceive consumers through deceptive advertising.
36.

TweetAdder advertises that the TweetAdder software does not use Twitter’s API to

16

access Twitter’s websites and services. It developed and uses automated scripts through which the

17

TweetAdder software accesses Twitter’s websites and services without Twitter’s authorization.

18

37.

By connecting the TweetAdder software to Twitter’s websites and services through

19

unauthorized means rather than through Twitter’s API, TweetAdder violates the Twitter TOS and

20

induces violations thereof by the users of its software.

21

38.

TweetAdder has benefited financially from its behavior while at the same time

22

harming Twitter and its users. TweetAdder purposefully directed its intentional activities toward

23

California, thereby causing harm TweetAdder knew was likely to be suffered by Twitter in

24

California.

25

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

26

Breach of Contract

27
28

39.

Plaintiff Twitter realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in all the

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-8-

1

40.

All Twitter users, including the Defendants, are parties to the TOS and are bound to

2

the TOS through their actions. The TOS is a valid, enforceable contract through which Twitter

3

provided Defendants with a limited license to use the Twitter websites and services. By entering

4

into this contract, Defendants, and each of them, purposefully availed themselves of the privilege

5

of conducting business in California.

6
7
8

41.

Twitter has performed all of its obligations under the TOS that were not excused by

the Defendants’ actions.
42.

As set forth in the paragraphs above, the Defendants exceeded the scope of,

9

materially breached, and continue to materially breach the terms of the TOS by engaging in

10

specific acts which constitute spam and related abuses, including: (1) connecting to Twitter’s

11

websites and services through unauthorized means rather than through Twitter’s API; (2) inducing

12

the creation of serial Twitter accounts for disruptive or abusive purposes, or with overlapping

13

uses; (3) using software to interfere with and disrupt the access of other users; (4) using software

14

which scripts the creation of content in such a manner as to interfere with or create an undue

15

burden on Twitter’s services; and (5) using software to induce spamming conduct including, but

16

not limited to, (a) following a large number of users in a short amount of time; (b) following and

17

un-following people in a short time period by automated means; (c) Tweeting misleading links;

18

(d) sending multiple Tweets to hashtags or trending or popular topics that are unrelated to those

19

hashtags or topics; (e) posting duplicate Tweets to the same account; (f) sending large numbers of

20

duplicate @reply Tweets or Tweets mentioning particular users; (g) having a number of spam

21

complaints filed against the accounts; and (h) using or promoting third party sites that claim to

22

generate more followers for an account.

23

43.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ ongoing material breaches of the

24

TOS, Twitter has been harmed and is entitled to monetary damages against each of them in an

25

amount to be determined at trial, but exceeding the minimum unlimited jurisdiction of this Court,

26

exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs.

27

///

28

///
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-9-

1

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Tortious Interference with Contract

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

44.

Plaintiff Twitter realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in all the

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
45.

All users of the Defendants’ software (the “TweetAdder Users”) are parties to

Twitter’s TOS, which is a valid and enforceable contract.
46.

Twitter has performed all of its obligations under the TOS that were not excused by

the actions of the TweetAdder Users. The TweetAdder software includes features that, when used
on Twitter’s service, breach Twitter’s TOS, as more fully set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
47.

By designing, creating, and marketing the TweetAdder software for use on Twitter

12

as more fully described in the preceding paragraphs, each Defendant was and is aware of the TOS

13

contract between Twitter and the TweetAdder Users. Notwithstanding that knowledge, the

14

Defendants induced and continue to induce Twitter users to breach their contracts with Twitter.

15

48.

Defendants have intentionally and maliciously interfered with Twitter’s contracts

16

with the TweetAdder Users by committing the following wrongful acts, among others: (a)

17

knowingly including features in their respective software offerings that enable users to breach

18

Twitter’s TOS, and promoting, marketing, and/or advertising those features in order to induce

19

such users to breach Twitter’s TOS; and (b) knowingly inducing, encouraging, and allowing the

20

TweetAdder Users to send unsolicited commercial messages to Twitter users through the

21

TweetAdder software, all without Twitter’s authorization.

22

49.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ intentional and malicious

23

interference with Twitter’s contracts, Twitter has been and continues to be harmed and is entitled

24

to both injunctive relief and monetary damages against each of them in an amount to be

25

determined at trial, but exceeding the minimum unlimited jurisdiction of this Court, exclusive of

26

attorneys’ fees and costs.

27
28

50.

The Defendants’ ongoing acts of tortious interference constitute transgressions of a

continuing nature for which Twitter has no adequate remedy at law. Unless the Defendants are
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-10-

1

each enjoined from further acts of tortious interference, Twitter will suffer irreparable injury to its

2

business goodwill.

3

51.

The Defendants’ actions of inducement and interference – as shown through their

4

deceptive marketing tactics and their deliberate creation of software designed to facilitate breach

5

of the TOS and annoy Twitter users with unsolicited spam – were intentionally undertaken to

6

injure Twitter and/or undertaken with willful and conscious disregard of Twitter’s rights, and

7

constitute clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, and malice. For these reasons,

8

Twitter is entitled to an award of punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount sufficient

9

to deter each of them from future misconduct.

10

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11

Fraud

12
13
14

52.

Plaintiff Twitter re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in all the

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
53.

Through the acts of creating one or more Twitter accounts and/or by creating

15

software that accesses Twitter’s service, Defendants have agreed to be bound by the TOS. In

16

agreeing to be bound by the TOS, Defendants misrepresented to Twitter that they would comply

17

with the TOS. Defendants made those false promises having no intention of performing them.

18

54.

Twitter justifiably relied on Defendants’ representations and granted access to the

19

Twitter service. When Defendants made these representations, each of them knew them to be

20

false and made these representations with the intention to defraud Twitter and to induce Twitter to

21

act in reliance on these representations in the manner alleged.

22

55.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, Twitter has

23

suffered losses including, but not limited to, (1) loss of business relationships; (2) loss of

24

prospective business relationships; (3) loss of goodwill; and (4) expenditures of money, server

25

space, personnel, and other resources that Twitter would not have been forced to expend but for

26

Defendants’ fraudulent conduct. Twitter therefore is entitled to monetary damages against each of

27

the Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, including a constructive trust over each of

28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-11-

1

the Defendants’ ill-gotten gains, but exceeding the minimum unlimited jurisdiction of this Court,

2

exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs.

3

56.

Defendants’ intentional conduct of making misrepresentations and concealing

4

material facts known to them, with the intention of depriving Twitter of property or legal rights or

5

otherwise causing injury, was fraudulent and despicable conduct that subjected Twitter to an

6

unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Twitter’s rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary

7

and punitive damages.

8

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

9

Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Practices Under California Business &
Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

10
11
12
13

57.

Plaintiff Twitter realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in all the

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
58.

The acts and conduct of each Defendant as alleged above in this Complaint

14

constitute unlawful and/or fraudulent business acts or practices as defined by California Business

15

and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (“Section 17200”).

16

59.

Each of the Defendants’ conduct is fraudulent under Section 17200 because

17

reasonable consumers have been and will continue to be confused and deceived by Defendants’

18

business and advertising practices. Specifically, Defendants deceive the public by causing Twitter

19

users to believe that their use of the TweetAdder software will not violate Twitter’s Terms of

20

Service and will not cause Twitter to suspend their accounts for violations of those Terms of

21

Service. The Twitter Trust & Safety Team has responded to dozens of appeals from suspended

22

users that signed up for the TweetAdder software.

23

60.

Each of the Defendants’ conduct is unlawful under Section 17200 because, as

24

described in detail in the paragraphs above, Defendants have engaged in the independently

25

unlawful wrongs of breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and fraud, to Twitter’s

26

detriment.

27

61.

28

Defendants’ unlawful and fraudulent business acts or practices have caused and

continue to cause irreparable harm to Twitter. Unless such practices are enjoined, Defendants will
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-12-

1

each cause further irreparable and incalculable injury, whereby Twitter has no adequate remedy at

2

law, as a direct and proximate result of their unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of

3

Section 17200. Thus, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 17203,

4

Twitter is entitled to an order of this Court enjoining Defendants, and each of them, from

5

continuing to engage in unlawful and/or fraudulent business acts or practices as defined in Section

6

17200.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

7
8

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Twitter prays for the following relief:

9

A.

For injunctive relief, as follows:

10

1.

As against each of Defendants Skootle, Kester, and Fales, a preliminary

11

injunction and a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining such Defendants, and all persons

12

or entities acting in concert with them, during the pendency of this action and thereafter

13

perpetually from:

14
15

(a) Creating or soliciting the creation of Twitter accounts for purposes that violate
Twitter’s Terms of Service (including the Twitter Rules);

16

(b) Accessing, searching, or attempting to access or search Twitter’s website, computer

17

systems, and services in order to engage in specific acts that violate Twitter’s Terms of Service

18

(including the Twitter Rules);

19

(c) Creating, developing, manufacturing, adapting, modifying, making available,

20

trafficking in, using, disclosing, selling, licensing, distributing (with or without monetary

21

charge), updating, providing customer support for, or offering for use, sale, license, or

22

distribution (with or without monetary charge), any software or technology designed for use in

23

connection with Twitter’s service, the use of which would violate Twitter’s Terms of Service

24

(including the Twitter Rules) (including but not limited to TweetAdder, TweetAdder Platinum,

25

TweetAdder 2009, TweetAdder 2010, and TweetAdder 3.0);

26

(d) Transmitting, assisting with the transmission of, or procuring or inducing the

27

transmission of unsolicited commercial messages to users on Twitter’s service, including but not

28

limited to Tweets, @replies, and direct messages, to Twitter users;
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-13-

1

(e) Engaging in false representations or false advertising that would misleadingly suggest

2

to a reasonable consumer that a software or other technology conforms to Twitter’s Terms of

3

Service (including the Twitter Rules) and/or will not result in a Twitter user’s account being

4

suspended; and

5
6
7

(f) Engaging in any activity that violates, or induces others to violate, Twitter’s Terms of
Use, Rules, or Privacy Policy.
B.

An award to Twitter of damages, assessed jointly and severally, including but not

8

limited to, compensatory, statutory, punitive, and exemplary damages, restitution, and

9

disgorgement of profits, as permitted by law and in such amounts to be proved at trial. Such

10
11
12

damages shall be no less than $75,000.
C.

An award to Twitter of reasonable costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to

the extent permitted by law.

13

D.

For pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law.

14

E.

For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

15
16

Dated: November 2, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

17
18

25

/s Charles T. Graves
David H. Kramer
Charles T. Graves
Riana S. Pfefferkorn
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

26

Attorneys for Plaintiff Twitter, Inc.

19
20
21
22
23
24

27
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-14-

1
2

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable in this action.

3
4

Dated: November 2, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

5
6

13

/s Charles T. Graves
David H. Kramer
Charles T. Graves
Riana S. Pfefferkorn
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

14

Attorneys for Plaintiff Twitter, Inc.

7
8
9
10
11
12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TWITTER, INC.
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

-15-