Twitter, Inc. v. Skootle Corp. et al
Filing
76
AMENDED COMPLAINT First Amended Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Tortious Interference with Contract; (3) Fraud; and (4) Unfair or Deceptive Business Practices against Troy Fales, James Kester, Skootile Corpp. Filed byTwitter, Inc.. (Graves, Charles) (Filed on 11/19/2012) Modified on 11/27/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF).
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: (650) 493-9300
Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
Email: dkramer@wsgr.com
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 19, 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:
(650) 493-9300
Facsimile:
(650) 565-5100
Email:
dkramer@wsgr.com
tgraves@wsgr.com
rpfefferkorn@wsgr.com
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 19, 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:
(650) 493-9300
Facsimile:
(650) 565-5100
Email:
dkramer@wsgr.com
tgraves@wsgr.com
rpfefferkorn@wsgr.com
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-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?