Duguid v. Facebook, Inc.
Filing
48
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 24 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
NOAH DUGUID,
Case No. 15-cv-00985-JST
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
9
10
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Re: ECF No. 24
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Before the Court is Defendant Facebook, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
12
13
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 24. Plaintiff Noah Duguid
14
opposes the motion. ECF No. 30. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion
15
to dismiss.
16
I.
BACKGROUND
17
For the purpose of deciding this motion, the Court accepts as true the following allegations
18
from Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1. See Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).
19
Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) operates an online social network. Compl. ¶ 3.
20
As of September 2014, Facebook had 864 million daily active users and 1.35 billion monthly
21
active users. Id. Users often share private information on Facebook. Id. ¶ 4. As an “extra
22
security feature,” a user may activate “login notifications” to alert her via text message when her
23
account is accessed from a new device. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. The notifications state: “Your Facebook
24
account was accessed from [internet browser] at [time]. Log in for more info.” Id. ¶ 5.
25
Login notification text messages are often sent to the cellphones of persons who have not
26
authorized Facebook to contact them on their cellphones, who have requested that the notifications
27
stop, or who do not use Facebook. Id. Such messages may be sent several times a day. Id.
28
Facebook’s online instructions direct users to change their account settings in order to deactivate
1
login notifications, but provide no solution for persons who receive messages even though they
2
have no Facebook account. Id. at 6, Ex. B. When someone replies “off” to Facebook’s text
3
messages, Facebook responds with a message stating, “Facebook texts are now off. Reply on to
4
turn back on.” Id. ¶ 7. Notwithstanding this response, Facebook often continues to send
5
unauthorized text messages. Id.
6
Plaintiff Noah Duguid began receiving Facebook login notifications via text message on or
around January 25, 2014. Id. ¶ 20. The messages were sent from an SMS short code, 326-65
8
(“FBOOK”), which is licensed and operated by Defendant or one of its agents. Id. ¶ 21. Although
9
Duguid never provided his cellphone number to Facebook or authorized Facebook to send him
10
text messages, he received repeated login notification messages. Id. ¶¶ 22-26. Several example
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
messages are reproduced below:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Id. ¶ 22, Ex. D. On or around April 20, 2014, Duguid sent Facebook an email message requesting
25
that the text messages cease. Id. ¶ 27. In response, Facebook sent an automated message directing
26
Duguid to log on to the Facebook website in order to report problematic content. Id. Duguid’s
27
efforts to deactivate the messages by responding “off” and “all off” were also unsuccessful. Id.
28
2
1
¶ 28.
On March 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Facebook, alleging violations of the
2
3
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). He seeks to represent the following two classes:
4
Class 1: All persons within the United States who did not provide
their cellular telephone number to Defendant and who received one
or more text messages, from or on behalf of Defendant to said
person’s cellular telephone, made through the use of any automatic
telephone dialing system within the four years prior to the filing of
the Complaint.
5
6
7
Class 2: All persons within the United States who, after notifying
Defendant that [they] no longer wished to receive text messages and
receiving a confirmation from Defendant to that effect, received one
or more text messages, from or on behalf of Defendant to said
person’s cellular telephone, made through the use of any automatic
telephone dialing system within the four years prior to the filing of
the Complaint.
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Id. ¶ 34.
Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
13
14
12(b)(6), and requests that the Court take judicial notice of certain publicly available webpages.
15
ECF Nos. 24, 24-3. Plaintiff opposes the motion to dismiss. ECF No. 30.
The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331.
16
17
II.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
18
A.
Legal Standard
19
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), “[t]he court may judicially notice a fact that
20
is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s
21
territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose
22
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” The Court may also “consider materials incorporated
23
into the complaint,” where “the complaint necessarily relies upon a document or the contents of
24
the document are alleged in a complaint, the document’s authenticity is not in question and there
25
are no disputed issues as to the document’s relevance.” Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d
26
1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court “must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the
27
court is supplied with the necessary information.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2).
28
3
1
B.
Facebook Webpages
2
First, Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of screen shots of three
3
Facebook webpages: Facebook’s “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities” and two Help Center
4
webpages titled, “How do I verify my account?” and “How do I add or remove credit card info
5
from my account?”. ECF No. 24-3 at 2; Exs. 1-3. Defendant argues that the Court may take
6
judicial notice of these exhibits because they are “currently publicly available on Facebook’s
7
website—the same website upon which Plaintiff repeatedly relies in his complaint,” and “there is
8
no reasonable dispute regarding the information.” ECF No. 24-3 at 3. Furthermore, Defendant
9
argues, the Court may consider these documents pursuant to the incorporation by reference
doctrine because Plaintiff’s Complaint relies on and attaches Facebook webpages, and alleges
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
facts relating to the login notification process and the private information that Facebook users may
12
use login notifications to protect. ECF No. 24-3 at 4-5. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to
13
Defendant’s request for judicial notice, although he does argue that “Facebook’s suppositions are
14
matters outside the pleadings and should not be considered in deciding the motion to dismiss.”
15
ECF No. 30 at 4 n.1.
16
“‘[F]ederal courts considering the issue have expressed skepticism as to whether it is
17
appropriate to take judicial notice of information or documents’ from websites when the sole
18
justification for judicial notice is that the information or documents ‘appear[] on websites that are
19
created and maintained by a party to the litigation.’” Punian v. Gillette Co., No. 14-cv-05028-
20
LHK, 2015 WL 4967535, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015) (quoting Gerritsen v. Warner Bros.
21
Entm’t Inc., No. 14-cv-03305 MMM (CWx), 2015 WL 4069617, at * 10 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30,
22
2015)); see also Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785, 795 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (taking
23
judicial notice of document from defendant’s website that was cited in the complaint, but denying
24
request for judicial notice as to other webpages created by the defendant). The Court finds that the
25
inclusion of Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 on Facebook’s website “is not, standing alone, a sufficient basis
26
for the Court to grant the request” for judicial notice. Punian, 2015 WL 4967535, at *5.
27
Moreover, these documents are not incorporated by reference in Plaintiff’s complaint
28
4
1
because it neither necessarily relies on them nor alleges their contents. See Coto Settlement, 593
2
F.3d at 1038. Defendants correctly state that Plaintiff’s Complaint discusses the login notification
3
process, includes some Facebook Help Center webpages as attachments, and states that users share
4
private information on Facebook. ECF No. 24-3 at 4-5. But the Complaint does not reference or
5
incorporate the account verification process, Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,
6
or the process by which users share credit card details with Facebook. See Fraley, 830 F. Supp. 2d
7
at 795. The Court therefore denies Facebook’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 1, 2,
8
and 3.
C.
9
Media Reports
Second, Facebook requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following media
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
reports: (1) Sharon Profis, Find out if someone’s logging in to your Facebook account, CNET
12
(Dec. 10, 2011, 4:36 AM), http://www.cnet.com/au/how-to/find-out-if-someones-logging-in-to-
13
your-facebook-account/; (2) Alyssa Abkowitz, Wrong Number? Blame Companies’ Recycling,
14
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (Dec. 1, 2011), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204
15
012004577070122687462582; (3) Alison Griswold, Venmo Money, Venmo Problems, SLATE
16
(Feb. 25, 2015, 8:10 PM), http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/safety_net/2015/02/venmo_
17
security_it_s_not_as_strong_as_the_company_wants_you_to_think.html. ECF No. 24-3 at 2, Ex.
18
4-6. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this request.
The Court “may take judicial notice of publications introduced to indicate what was in the
19
20
public realm at the time, not whether the contents of those articles were in fact true.” Von Saher v.
21
Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
22
marks omitted); accord Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 n. 18 (9th Cir.
23
1999) (taking judicial notice “that the market was aware of the information contained in news
24
articles submitted by the defendants”). The Court therefore takes judicial notice of these
25
publications “solely as an indication of what information was in the public realm at the time.”
26
Von Saher, 592 F.3d at 960.
27
///
28
5
1
III.
MOTION TO DISMISS
2
A.
Legal Standard
3
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
4
pleader is entitled to relief” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and
5
the grounds upon which it rests.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
6
544, 555 (2007). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
7
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
8
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility
9
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support
12
a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th
13
Cir. 2008). The Court must “accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe
14
the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d
15
1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
16
B.
Discussion
17
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim
18
for three independent reasons. ECF No. 24 at 1. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not
19
adequately allege that the login notifications were sent by an automatic telephone dialing system
20
as required under the TCPA. Id. at 7-12; see 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). Second, Defendant argues
21
that the login notifications fall within the TCPA’s exception for calls “made for emergency
22
purposes.” ECF No. 24 at 12-15; see 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A). Third, Defendant argues that
23
because the login notifications are non-commercial security messages sent to protect individual
24
consumers’ privacy, they cannot be restricted under the First Amendment. ECF No. 24 at 15-18.1
25
26
27
28
1
In a footnote, Defendant also states that “[i]t is questionable whether Plaintiff has Article III
standing for his TCPA claim” because he “does not allege that he pays incrementally for each text
he receives or that he in fact paid for the alleged login notifications.” ECF No. 24 at 2 n.1.
Defendant indicates that it may seek to bring this standing argument “at a later time.” Id. The
Court does not address the argument in this order.
6
1
To state a claim for a violation of the TCPA, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) the defendant
2
called a cellular telephone number; (2) using an automatic telephone dialing system; (3) without
3
the recipient’s prior express consent.” Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 707 F.3d 1036,
4
1043 (9th Cir. 2012); 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). A text message is a “call” within the meaning of the
5
TCPA. Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 2009). An “automatic
6
telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”) is “equipment which has the capacity – (A) to store or
7
produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and
8
(B) to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). “[T]he clear language of the TCPA ‘mandates
9
that the focus must be on whether the equipment has the capacity to store or produce telephone
numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator.’” Meyer, 707 F.3d at 1043
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
(quoting Satterfield, 569 F.3d at 951) (emphasis in original). “[A] system need not actually store,
12
produce, or call randomly or sequentially generated telephone numbers, it need only have the
13
capacity to do it.” Satterfield, 569 F.3d at 951.
14
Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he text messages sent to Plaintiff’s cellular phone were made with
15
an ATDS as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1),” and that “[t]he ATDS has the capacity to store or
16
produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator.” Compl.
17
¶¶ 29-30. This conclusory allegation that Facebook used an ATDS is not, without more, sufficient
18
to support a claim for relief under the TCPA. Kramer v. Autobytel, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1165,
19
1171 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (the “naked assertion” that messages were sent “using equipment that, upon
20
information and belief, had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using
21
a random or sequential number generator . . . need not be taken as true”); Flores v. Adir Int’l,
22
LLC, No. 15-cv-00076-AB, 2015 WL 4340020, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2015) (“Without more,
23
Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that Defendant used an ATDS is little more than speculation, and
24
cannot support a claim for relief under the TCPA”); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“a
25
plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels
26
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do”
27
(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)).
28
7
1
Because it may be difficult for a plaintiff to identify the specific type of dialing system
2
used without the benefit of discovery, courts have allowed TCPA claims to proceed beyond the
3
pleading stage where a plaintiff’s allegations support the inference that an ATDS was used. For
4
example, in Kramer v. Autobytel, the court found that the complaint, read as a whole, contained
5
“sufficient facts to show that it is plausible” that the defendants used an ATDS where the plaintiff
6
alleged that he received messages from a short code registered to one of the defendants, the
7
messages were advertisements written in an impersonal manner, and the plaintiff had no other
8
reason to be in contact with the defendants. 759 F. Supp. 2d at 1171. Similarly, in Kazemi v.
9
Payless Shoesource, Inc., the court concluded that “plaintiff’s description of the received messages
as being formatted in SMS short code licensed to defendants, scripted in an impersonal manner
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
and sent en masse supports a reasonable inference that the text messages were sent using an
12
ATDS,” and the complaint therefore met federal pleading requirements. No. 09-cv-05142-MHP,
13
2010 WL 963225, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2010); see also Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., Inc., No.
14
12-cv-0576-RSL, 2013 WL 195466, at *3 n.3 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2013) (“Plaintiffs alleging the
15
use of a particular type of equipment under the TCPA are generally required to rely on indirect
16
allegations such as the content of the message, the context in which it was received, and the
17
existence of similar messages, to raise an inference that an automated dialer was utilized. Prior to
18
the initiation of discovery, courts cannot expect more.”); see also Scott Dodson, New Pleading,
19
New Discovery, 109 Mich. L. Rev. 53 (2010) (arguing in favor of “limited presuit or predismissal
20
discovery to counteract the information asymmetry and overscreening caused by Twombly and
21
Iqbal”).
22
Where, however, a “[p]laintiff’s own allegations suggest direct targeting that is
23
inconsistent with the sort of random or sequential number generation required for an ATDS,”
24
courts conclude that the allegations are insufficient to state a claim for relief under the TCPA.
25
Flores, 2015 WL 4340020, at *4. In Flores v. Adir International, for example, the plaintiff alleged
26
that the defendant was a debt collector that sent him a number of text messages for the purpose of
27
collecting on a specific debt, each of which included the same reference number. Id. The text
28
8
1
messages did not include the plaintiff’s name and appeared to follow a generic template, and the
2
plaintiff alleged that he received immediate responses to his “Stop” texts. Id. at *3-4. The court
3
found that while these allegations might support the reasonable inference that the defendant’s
4
equipment was capable of some form of automation, they did not suggest the use of an ATDS as
5
defined in the TCPA. Id. at *4-5. To the contrary, “the content of the message, the context in
6
which it was received, and the existence of similar messages all weigh[ed] against an inference
7
that Defendant used an ATDS,” suggesting instead “that Defendant expressly targeted Plaintiff.”
8
Id. at *5 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Daniels v. Cmty.
9
Lending, Inc., No. 13-cv-488-WQH-JMA, 2014 WL 51275, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2014)
(plaintiffs did not adequately allege the use of an ATDS where the “alleged calls to Plaintiffs do
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
not appear to have been ‘random,’ 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1); instead the calls are alleged to be
12
directed specifically toward Plaintiffs”).
13
Here, as in Flores, Plaintiff’s allegations do not support the inference that the text
14
messages he received were sent using an ATDS. Plaintiff alleges that the login notifications are
15
designed “to alert users when their account is accessed from a new device.” Compl. ¶ 4. The text
16
messages follow the following template: “Your Facebook account was accessed from [internet
17
browser] at [time]. Log in for more info.” Id. ¶¶ 5, 22. Plaintiff has attached to his Complaint a
18
webpage from Facebook’s online Help Center, which explains that users must add their mobile
19
numbers to their accounts in order to receive login notifications by text message. Id. Ex. A.
20
These allegations suggest that Facebook’s login notification text messages are targeted to specific
21
phone numbers and are triggered by attempts to log in to Facebook accounts associated with those
22
phone numbers.2 Although Plaintiff alleges that the operation of this system is “sloppy” because
23
messages are sent to individuals who have never had a Facebook account, have never shared their
24
phone number with Facebook, and/or who have requested deactivation of the login notifications,
25
he does not suggest that Facebook sends text messages en masse to randomly or sequentially
26
27
28
2
In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff acknowledges that “the messages are
automatically sent when the subject Facebook account is accessed from an unknown device.”
ECF No. 30 at 5.
9
1
generated numbers. Id. ¶¶ 5, 8. As in Flores, “it is at least possible that Defendant utilized a
2
system that is capable of storing or generating a random or sequential list of telephone numbers
3
and then dialing them,” 2015 WL 4340020, at *4 (emphasis in original), but nothing in Plaintiff’s
4
Complaint “nudge[s] [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550
5
U.S. at 547.3
In his opposition, Plaintiff suggests that the capacity to produce or store random or
6
7
sequential numbers is not a necessary feature of an ATDS, citing a 2003 order in which the
8
Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) concluded that a predictive dialer constitutes an
9
ATDS. ECF No. 30 at 7-13. The FCC described a predictive dialer as “equipment that dials
numbers and, when certain computer software is attached, also assists telemarketers in predicting
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
when a sales agent will be available to take calls. The hardware, when paired with certain
12
software, has the capacity to store or produce numbers and dial those numbers at random, in
13
sequential order, or from a database of numbers.” In re Rules & Regulations Implementing the
14
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, 14091-93 (2003). Courts in
15
this district have concluded that the reasoning of the FCC’s order is not restricted to predictive
16
dialers. See Nunes v. Twitter, Inc., No. 14-cv-02843-VC, 2014 WL 6708465, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
17
Nov. 26, 2014) (“Although this language is not crystal clear, it appears to encompass any
18
equipment that stores telephone numbers in a database and dials them without human
19
intervention.”); Fields v. Mobile Messengers Am., Inc., No. 12-cv-05160-WHA, 2013 WL
20
6774076, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2013) (concluding that there were genuine disputes of material
21
fact regarding whether messages were sent using an ATDS where plaintiffs alleged that the
22
equipment used functioned similarly to a predictive dialer in that it received numbers from a
23
computer database and dialed those numbers without human intervention).
24
25
26
27
28
3
Plaintiff also alleges that Facebook sends automatic responses to opt-out texts. These responses
are not actionable under the TCPA. See Derby v. AOL, Inc., No. 15-cv-00452-RMW, 2015 WL
3477658, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2015) (“a single message sent in response to plaintiff’s text (or
texts) is not the kind of intrusive, nuisance call that the TCPA prohibits”); In Re Rules &
Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961
¶ 57 at *21 (2015) (describing a ruling in which the FCC “concluded that a one-time text
confirming a consumer’s request to opt out of future calls did not violate the TCPA”).
10
1
But Duguid has not alleged that Facebook uses a predictive dialer, or equipment that
2
functions like a predictive dialer. The Complaint plainly alleges that the text messages were sent
3
using an ATDS that “has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a
4
random or sequential number generator.” Compl. ¶¶ 29-30. As discussed above, the Court
5
concludes that this claim is not plausible, and it will therefore dismiss the TCPA claims for failure
6
to adequately allege that the login notifications were sent using an ATDS.
7
Because the Court dismisses the complaint on this basis, it need not address Facebook’s
8
arguments that the motion should be granted because Plaintiff’s allegations establish that human
9
intervention triggered the login notifications, and because the notifications are sent for emergency
purposes. The Court also does not reach the argument that imposing liability on Facebook for
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
sending the login notifications would violate the First Amendment. See San Francisco Tech., Inc.
12
v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, No. 10-cv-03248-JF NJV, 2011 WL 941096, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16,
13
2011) (“Because it concludes that SF Tech’s claims are subject to dismissal on other bases, the
14
Court need not decide the constitutional issues presented here, at least at the present time.”).
CONCLUSION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice. Plaintiff
may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.
An Initial Case Management Conference is scheduled for June 1, 2016. A Joint Case
Management Conference Statement is due by May 18, 2016. See ECF No. 29.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2016
22
23
24
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
11
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?