Vargas et al v. Facebook, Inc.
Filing
105
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/20/2021. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2021)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
ROSEMARIE VARGAS, et al.,
4
Case No. 19-cv-05081-WHO
Plaintiffs,
5
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
v.
6
FACEBOOK, INC.,
7
Re: Dkt. No. 92
Defendant.
8
9
In an Order dated January 21, 2021, I dismissed plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
with leave to amend, requiring plaintiffs to add specific facts regarding the searches they
12
performed looking for housing on defendant Facebook, Inc.’s platform in order to attempt to plead
13
a plausible injury in support of their standing. January 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 86. I directed them
14
to state facts regarding matters within their knowledge about their use of Facebook to search for
15
housing, specifically what type of housing they searched for, during what time frames, and what
16
results were returned. Id. at 10-11.
On March 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). Dkt. No. 89.
17
18
While plaintiffs have added additional details regarding the searches they performed, those
19
additional details do not plausibly demonstrate that they were injured by any housing advertiser’s
20
possible use of Facebook’s now-discontinued targeting criteria that could be used to direct paid
21
ads at specific categories of persons.1 And even if plaintiffs had been able to allege facts plausibly
22
supporting a harm to any of them sufficient to confer standing, the claims plaintiffs’ assert are
23
barred by the Communications Decency Act. The TAC is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs note that Facebook was sued over the use of the targeting criteria tools by “the National
Fair Housing Alliance and others, which resulted in a settlement in which Facebook purportedly
vowed to revise its housing advertising practices to comply with the FHA by the end of 2019.”
TAC ¶ 3; see also id. ¶ 52 n.5 (“Based on settlement agreements Facebook has entered into with
various fair housing organizations, Facebook has publicly claimed it no longer illegally targets
housing ads and it no longer allows housing advertisers to use its Ad Platform to target ads based
on protected classes.”).
1
BACKGROUND
1
The TAC reasserts claims under the federal Fair Housing Act2 and analogous California3
2
3
and New York4 laws challenging Facebook, Inc.’s former practice of allowing advertisers to self-
4
select target audiences for their paid housing advertisements (“Targeted Ads” or “Ads”),
5
theoretically excluding protected classes of consumers from seeing those advertisers’ particular
6
housing ads.
I dismissed plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), following the analyses of
7
8
two other Northern District of California cases that dismissed challenges to Facebook’s Targeted
9
Ad tools under other anti-discrimination laws for lack of standing. I held that plaintiffs’ standing
10
allegations were deficient because:
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
There are, in short, no facts showing that any of the plaintiffs were
plausibly injured personally by the ad-targeting tools that advertisers
purportedly used to possibly target housing ads in areas that plaintiffs
possibly searched that plausibly resulted in plaintiffs not receiving ads
for housing based on the aspects of their protected classifications that
they otherwise would have been in a position to pursue
12
13
14
January 2021 Order at 9. I directed that plaintiffs plead:
15
[T]he facts within their exclusive knowledge, explaining what they
actually did with respect to their use of Facebook to look for housing,
how they know their white compatriot saw different ads, and facts
regarding their then-current intent and ability to secure housing had
they been shown a full range of ads through Facebook. Those facts –
which are wholly absent from the SAC – are necessary to raise a
plausible inference that Vargas or the other plaintiffs were injured in
fact by the potential use of [] Facebook’s discriminatory tools by
housing advertisers.
16
17
18
19
20
Id. at 10-11. I did not reach Facebook’s other arguments that the SAC should be dismissed with
21
prejudice and granted leave to amend.
22
The TAC adds some facts regarding each plaintiff’s use of Facebook during identified
23
times to search for housing based on identified criteria. See TAC ¶¶ 79-152. Their allegations
24
25
26
27
28
2
FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604 et seq.
3
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Govt. Code § 12940 et seq. and
California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
4
New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296.
2
1
regarding Facebook’s Ad Platform’s design and tools allowing advertisers to target specific
2
groups for their paid Ads remained largely the same as in the SAC. See also January 2021 Order
3
at 2-3.
Facebook’s motion to dismiss argues that (i) plaintiffs lack standing because they fail to
4
5
allege facts about their use of Facebook to search for housing ads sufficient to plausibly allege
6
injury in fact, (ii) Facebook’s publishing conduct is protected and immune under Section 230 of
7
the Communications Decency Act (CDA, 47 U.S.C. § 230), and (iii) plaintiffs fail to state their
8
claims under the FHA, California, and New York laws.
LEGAL STANDARD
9
A motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) tests whether the court has
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims alleged in the complaint. A Rule 12(b)(1) motion
12
may be either facial, where the inquiry is limited to the allegations in the complaint, or factual,
13
where the court may look beyond the complaint to consider extrinsic evidence. Wolfe v.
14
Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, Facebook brings a facial attack on the
15
sufficiency of the allegations in the SAC. See Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035,
16
1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (in a facial attack under Rule 12(b)(1), “the challenger asserts that the
17
allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.”).
18
A district court, “resolves a facial attack as it would a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6):
19
Accepting the plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s
20
favor, the court determines whether the allegations are sufficient as a legal matter to invoke the
21
court’s jurisdiction.” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). As with a Rule
22
12(b)(6) motion, however, a court is not required “to accept as true allegations that are merely
23
conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec.
24
Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).
DISCUSSION
25
26
27
28
I.
STANDING
In the TAC, each plaintiff adds details about the types (costs, size, location and other
“criteria”) of housing searches they conducted using Facebook, the timeframes when they used
3
1
Facebook to conduct those searches, and states that they did not receive any housing ads that
2
matched their criteria.5 They generally allege that if they had received Ads for housing that
3
matched their criteria, they would have pursued those housing opportunities. TAC ¶¶ 79-152.
4
Facebook contends that these more detailed allegations are still not sufficient to confer
5
standing because they do not plausibly allege that any plaintiff was in fact injured by Facebook’s
6
advertisers’ use of the now-defunct Ad targeting tools. I agree. As Facebook notes, plaintiffs do
7
not attempt to allege that housing was generally available in their desired markets – much less that
8
housing Ads satisfying those criteria were being placed in Facebook – under the criteria that any
9
of the plaintiffs were using during the times they were using Facebook to search for housing.6
10
That is fatal to plaintiffs’ standing.7
Only one plaintiff even attempts to make a showing that she received different results from
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
the Facebook searches she (a disabled female of Hispanic descent who is a single parent with
13
minor children) than her friend (a Caucasian) received. Specifically, Vargas alleges that:
14
On or about February or March 2019, Plaintiff Vargas was with a
Caucasian friend, Chet Marcello. Plaintiff Vargas and [] Marcello sat
side-by-side and conducted a search for housing through Facebook’s
Marketplace, both using the same search criteria Plaintiff Vargas had
been using. [] Marcello received more ads for housing in locations
that were preferable to Plaintiff Vargas. Plaintiff Vargas did not
receive the ads that [] Marcello received.
15
16
17
18
TAC ¶ 95.
Unlike in other places in the TAC, this paragraph about Vargas and her friend’s searches
19
20
does not distinguish between consumer-placed ads (that plaintiffs admit did not utilize the
21
“targeted criteria” plaintiffs claim are discriminatory) and paid Ads covered by the claims in this
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
The legal standard and discussion of standing cases from my January 2021 Order is incorporated
herein.
See, e.g., TAC ¶ 85 (Vargas searched for “a three-bedroom apartment located in lower
Manhattan in the rental price range of $1,7000.00 per month”); ¶ 107 (plaintiff Skipper searched
for “a two-to-three bedroom single family home or apartment unit in Yonkers or Westchester
County in the monthly rental range of $1,000 to $2,000.”).
6
As I noted in the January 2021 Order, the facts of this case are wholly unlike the “testing” cases
plaintiffs rely on under the FHA where the facts demonstrated the housing sought by the plaintiffs
was available and that the tester received false information. See January 2021 Order at 7-8
(discussing Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982)).
4
7
1
case. Nor does plaintiff identify any specific ads that Marcello received that met plaintiff’s criteria
2
and that plaintiff would have pursued. She simply declares that Marcello received unspecific ads
3
in “preferable” locations. She does not indicate those ads, even if paid ads, met her other criteria
4
(cost, size, etc.) to plausibly allege that she was harmed by being denied access to those other,
5
unidentified ads. That is insufficient.
6
Plaintiffs contend, as they did on the prior round to dismiss, that I should not follow the
7
standing analyses of the Hon. Beth L. Freeman in Bradley v. T-Mobile US, Inc., 17-CV-07232-
8
BLF, 2020 WL 1233924 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020) and the Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley in
9
Opiotennione v. Facebook, Inc., 19-CV-07185-JSC, 2020 WL 5877667, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2,
2020. Both of those cases challenged Facebook’s Targeting Ads program, and both were
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
dismissed for lack of standing given plaintiffs’ failure to plead plausible facts to support that they
12
were harmed under other anti-discriminatory laws by advertiser’s use of the Targeted Ad tools.
13
Plaintiffs repeat their unsupported argument that I should not follow the analyses in those cases
14
because standing under the FHA is broader than under Title VII and the statutory schemes
15
considered by Judges Freeman and Corley. Oppo. at 10-11. I addressed and rejected this
16
argument in the January 2021 Order at 7-9 (discussing and distinguishing Bank of Am. Corp. v.
17
City of Miami, Fla., 137 S. Ct. 1296, 1304 (2017), Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363,
18
373–74 (1982),Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 110-111 (1979), and
19
Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 209-212 (1972)) and will not revisit it again.8
In sum, what the plaintiffs have alleged is that they each used Facebook to search for
20
21
housing based on identified criteria and that no results were returned that met their criteria. They
22
assume (but plead no facts to support) that no results were returned because unidentified
23
advertisers theoretically used Facebook’s Targeting Ad tools to exclude them based on their
24
25
26
27
28
8
A recent decision from the District of Maryland further supports my conclusion. In
Opiotennione v. Bozzuto Mgt. Co., CV 20-1956 PJM, 2021 WL 3055614 (D. Md. July 20, 2021),
the plaintiffs sued the underlying advertisers who allegedly used Facebook to place Targeted Ads
in a discriminatory fashion in violation of local antidiscrimination and consumer protection laws.
Despite plaintiffs alleging they were denied access to ads placed for specifically identified housing
complexes in their area – something plaintiffs here do not even attempt to allege – the court
dismissed for lack of standing. Id. at *3-4 (distinguishing Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455
U.S. 363, 373–74 (1982)).
5
1
protected class statuses from seeing paid Ads for housing that they assume (again ,with no facts
2
alleged in support) were available and would have otherwise met their criteria. Plaintiffs’ claim
3
that Facebook denied them access to unidentified Ads is the sort of generalized grievance that is
4
insufficient to support standing. See, e.g., Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2003)
5
(“The Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to recognize a generalized grievance against
6
allegedly illegal government conduct as sufficient to confer standing” and when “a government
7
actor discriminates on the basis of race, the resulting injury ‘accords a basis for standing only to
8
those persons who are personally denied equal treatment.’” (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S.
9
737, 755 (1984)).9
Having failed to plead facts supporting a plausible injury in fact sufficient to confer
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
standing on any plaintiff, the TAC is DISMISSED with prejudice.
12
II.
CDA
If plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to plausibly state an injury from Facebook’s
13
14
discontinued provision of Targeting Ad tools for paid advertisers, their claims would still be
15
barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Section 230 of the CDA “immunizes providers of interactive computer services against
16
17
liability arising from content created by third parties.” Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando
18
Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC (“Roommates”), 521 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
19
Section 230(c)(1) explains that, “providers or user of an interactive computer service shall not be
20
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content
21
provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). Under the CDA, “[i]mmunity from liability exists for ‘(1) a
22
provider or user of an interactive computer service (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state
23
law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information
24
25
26
27
28
9
For similar reasons, plaintiffs have failed to plausibly plead injury and thus standing to pursue
their claims under the California and New York laws alleged. See Oppo. at 11-12 (admitting that
under the California laws “Plaintiffs must establish standing by alleging facts showing that they
‘actually suffer[ed] the discriminatory conduct’ being challenged and possess a ‘concrete and
actual interest that is not merely hypothetical or conjectural’ []” and under “the NYSHRL,
Plaintiffs must establish that they have been ‘aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice,’
N.Y. Exec. Law § 297, which ‘requires a threshold showing that a person has been adversely
affected by the activities of defendants.’” (citations omitted)).
6
1
content provider,’” and when “a plaintiff cannot allege enough facts to overcome Section 230
2
immunity, a plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed.” Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Group, Inc., 934
3
F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2761 (2020) (quoting Kimzey v. Yelp!
4
Inc., 836 F.3d 1263, 1268-71 (9th Cir. 2016)).
Relying on Roommates, plaintiffs contend that Facebook’s conduct here – creating,
5
6
promoting use of, and profiting from paid advertisers’ use of the Targeting Ad tools – removes
7
any immunity that Facebook would otherwise have under the CDA. In Roommates, the Ninth
8
Circuit explained that “the CDA does not grant immunity for inducing third parties to express
9
illegal preferences,” and found that “Roommate’s own acts—posting the questionnaire and
requiring answers to it—are entirely its doing and thus section 230 of the CDA does not apply to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
them. Roommate is entitled to no immunity.” Roommates, 521 F.3d at 1165.
Roommates is materially distinguishable from this case based on plaintiffs’ allegations in
12
13
the TAC that the now-defunct Ad Targeting process was made available by Facebook for optional
14
use by advertisers placing a host of different types of paid-advertisements.10 Unlike in Roommates
15
where use of the discriminatory criteria was mandated, here use of the tools was neither mandated
16
nor inherently discriminatory given the design of the tools for use by a wide variety of advertisers.
In Dyroff, the Ninth Circuit concluded that tools created by the website creator – there,
17
18
“recommendations and notifications” the website sent to users based on the user’s inquiries that
19
ultimately connected a drug dealer and a drug purchaser – did not turn the defendant who
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
See, e.g., TAC ¶¶ 45, 46, 50, 52, 55, incorporating by reference multiple descriptions of how
Facebook’s Ad Platform and the tools at issue work, including:
https://www.facebook.com/about/ads
https://www.facebook.com/business/success/categories/real-estate
https://www.facebook.com/business/ads
Facebook also requests, and plaintiffs’ object, to my taking notice of the following: (i) Facebook’s
“Discriminatory Practices” subpage of its “Advertising Policies” webpage; (ii) Facebook’s
“Advertising Policies” webpage; (iii) screenshots of the Facebook Marketplace; (iv) screenshots of
Facebook’s user sign-up screens that existed at the time the New York Plaintiffs registered for
Facebook; (v) Facebook’s past terms of service that existed at the time the New York Plaintiffs
registered for Facebook; (vi) Facebook’s terms of service effective as of February 4, 2009; and
(vii) Facebook’s present terms of service. Dkt. Nos. 95, 97, 99. The request for judicial notice is
DENIED. I do not rely on these documents or the information in this Order.
7
1
controlled the website into a content creator unshielded by CDA immunity. The panel confirmed
2
that the tools were “meant to facilitate the communication and content of others. They are not
3
content in and of themselves.” Dyroff, 934 F.3d 1093, 1098 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S.
4
Ct. 2761 (2020); see also Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2003)
5
(where website “questionnaire facilitated the expression of information by individual users”
6
including proposing sexually suggestive phrases that could facilitate the development of libelous
7
profiles, but left “selection of the content [] exclusively to the user,” and defendant was not
8
“responsible, even in part, for associating certain multiple choice responses with a set of physical
9
characteristics, a group of essay answers, and a photograph,” website operator was not information
content provider falling outside Section 230’s immunity); Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
2d 1193, 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (no liability based on Google’s use of “Keyword Tool,” that
12
employs “an algorithm to suggest specific keywords to advertisers”).
Here, the Ad Tools are neutral. It is the users “that ultimately determine what content to
13
14
post, such that the tool merely provides ‘a framework that could be utilized for proper or improper
15
purposes, . . . .’” Roommates, 521 F.3d at 1172 (analyzing Carafano). Therefore, even if the
16
plaintiffs could allege facts supporting a plausible injury, their claims are barred by Section 230.11
17
CONCLUSION
18
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ TAC is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated: August 20, 2021
21
22
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
Having found two bases for dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs’ TAC, I need not reach
defendant’s other arguments for dismissal for failure to plead required elements of the claims
under the FHA and state laws.
8
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?