# Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 1 of 59 (2023) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aftc%3Ad7a059d8039d929c ## Record - **Collection:** Agency decision - **Document type:** Agency decision ## Text Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 1 of 59 1 The Honorable John H. Chun 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al. Defendants. NOTED ON MOTION CALENDAR: Friday, December 8, 2023 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 2 of 59 1 2 3 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 LEGAL STANDARD..................................................................................................................... 2 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2 I. 5 AMAZON FAILED TO CLEARLY AND CONSPICUOUSLY DISCLOSE PRIME’S MATERIAL TERMS (COUNT II).................................................................... 3 A. 6 The Context Within Which Amazon Displays Prime’s Material Terms Makes It Unlikely Consumers Will Notice Them. ................................................. 5 7 1. Amazon Gives Consumers No Reason to Look for, or Notice, Its Small-Print UPDP Disclosures. .................................................................. 7 8 2. Amazon’s “SPC” Page Hides Prime’s Material Terms Until After Consumers Agree to “Try Prime.” ............................................................ 11 9 10 B. Even Ignoring Context, Amazon’s Disclosures of Material Terms Are Not Clear and Conspicuous. ........................................................................................ 13 C. Amazon Knows, Based on Evidence from Its Own Customers, That Ordinary Shoppers Do Not See Prime’s Material Terms. .................................................... 16 D. Amazon Impermissibly Discloses Prime’s Terms and Conditions After Obtaining Billing Information. ............................................................................. 18 E. Amazon’s Reliance on Distinguishable Contract Law and Auto-Renewal Cases Is Misplaced................................................................................................ 18 11 12 13 14 II. 15 AMAZON FAILED TO OBTAIN CONSUMERS’ EXPRESS INFORMED CONSENT TO AUTOMATICALLY-RENEWING PRIME SUBSCRIPTIONS (COUNTS I, III)................................................................................................................ 22 16 A. 17 18 B. 19 20 21 22 23 III. Amazon Does Not Obtain Consent to Prime’s Material Terms. .......................... 23 1. Amazon Does Not Tell Consumers the Consequences of Clicking Its “Enrollment” Buttons........................................................................... 23 2. Amazon Is Not Permitted to Knowingly Charge Millions of Nonconsensual Prime Members. .............................................................. 28 Amazon Does Not Obtain Informed Consent. ...................................................... 31 AMAZON DID NOT PROVIDE SIMPLE PRIME CANCELLATION MECHANISMS (COUNT IV). ........................................................................................ 31 A. Amazon’s Iliad Cancellation Flow Was Not Simple. ........................................... 32 1. Amazon Forced Consumers to Find an “End Membership” Button That Did Not End Membership................................................................. 32 2. After Entering the Iliad Flow, Consumers Had to Request Cancellation Three Additional Times. ...................................................... 35 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - i Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 3 of 59 1 3. The Iliad Flow Provided Repetitive, Distracting Information and Options to Derail Consumers’ Cancellation Attempts.............................. 35 2 4. Amazon Knew the Iliad Flow Was Not Simple........................................ 36 B. 3 4 IV. 5 THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS HAD THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR DIRECTLY PARTICIPATED IN AMAZON’S VIOLATIONS. ............................. 38 A. 6 7 8 B. 9 10 V. 11 14 15 16 17 VI. The Complaint More Than Adequately Pleads Grandinetti, Lindsay, and Ghani’s Liability for Amazon’s Unlawful Cancellation Flow (Count IV). .......... 38 1. Rule 9(b) Does Not Apply. ....................................................................... 39 2. Under Any Pleading Standard, the FTC Plausibly Alleges Each Individual Defendant Had Authority to Control or Directly Participated in Maintaining the Iliad Flow. .............................................. 40 The Complaint More Than Adequately Pleads Grandinetti’s Liability for Amazon’s Unlawful Enrollment Practices (Counts I-III). .................................... 42 THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANTS’ DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. ........................................................................................................................... 43 A. Defendants’ Vagueness Arguments Fail Because ROSCA and the FTC Act Are Clear and the FTC Has Not Asserted a “Dark Patterns Theory.” .................. 44 B. Defendants Had Fair Notice of What ROSCA and the FTC Act Require. ........... 46 C. The Rule of Lenity Is Inapplicable. ...................................................................... 48 12 13 Amazon Redirected Consumers Who Attempted to Cancel by Phone to the Iliad Flow. ............................................................................................................. 37 DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE FOR CIVIL PENALTIES BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WERE VIOLATING ROSCA. ................................................................ 49 A. Defendants Knew of ROSCA’s Existence. ........................................................... 49 B. The Complaint More Than Plausibly Alleges Defendants’ Actual Knowledge, or “Knowledge Fairly Implied,” of Their ROSCA Violations. ............................ 50 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 52 18 19 20 21 22 23 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - ii Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 4 of 59 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 2 Cases 3 Adams v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2023 WL 4002534 (W.D. Va. June 14, 2023) ................................ 28 4 5 6 Applebaum v. Lyft, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 3d 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ................................................... 24 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................... 2 Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 782 F.2d 381 (2nd Cir. 1986) ................................. 6 Barrer v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 566 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................... 3 BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola, 809 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 2015) ........................................................... 11 7 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................... 2 8 Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC, 30 F.4th 849 (9th Cir. 2022) ...................... 14, 15, 23, 24 9 Bittner v. United States, 598 U.S. 85 (2023) ................................................................................ 49 Butcher v. Knudsen, 38 F.4th 1163 (9th Cir. 2022) ................................................................ 45, 46 10 Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 93 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D.D.C. 2000)........................................... 45 11 Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) ..................................... 40 12 13 Capps v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2023 WL 3030990 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2023) ............... 19 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of New York 447 U.S. 557 (1980) .................................................................................................................. 47 Chabolla v. ClassPass Inc., 2023 WL 4544598 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2023) ......................... 5, 6, 26 14 City of Almaty v. Khrapunov, 956 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2020)......................................................... 2 15 Cole v. U.S. Cap., Inc., 389 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2004) ............................................................ 14, 15 16 17 18 Cooper v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, 553 F. Supp. 3d 83 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) ........................................ 4 Cullinane v. Uber Techs., Inc., 893 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2018)................................................... 15, 24 Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc., 823 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir. 2020) ........................................................ 19 Dumont v. Reily Foods Co., 934 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2019) ............................................................... 3 Dyson, Inc. v. Garry Vacuum, LLC, 2010 WL 11595882 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2010) ................... 39 19 Ekin v. Amazon Servs., LLC, 84 F. Supp. 3d 1172 (W.D. Wash. 2014) ....................................... 28 20 Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 903 F. Supp. 2d 843 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ........................................... 4 21 22 23 FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012).................................................... 46, 47 FTC v. Am. Fin. Benefits Ctr., 2018 WL 11354861 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2018) .......................... 12 FTC v. Am. Fin. Benefits Ctr., 324 F. Supp. 3d 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ................................. 39, 42 FTC v. AMG Servs, Inc., 29 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (D. Nev. 2014) ...................................................... 6 FTC v. Benning, 2010 WL 2605178 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2010)................................................... 40 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - iii Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 5 of 59 1 2 FTC v. Cantkier, 767 F. Supp. 2d 147 (D.D.C. 2011) .................................................................. 39 FTC v. Commerce Planet, Inc., 878 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ....................................... 6 FTC v. Commerce Planet, Inc., 815 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2016) ..................................................... 38 3 FTC v. Cyberspace.com LLC, 453 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................ 4, 14, 17 4 FTC v. Dinamica Financiera LLC, 2010 WL 9488821 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2010) ..................... 40 5 6 7 FTC v. Freecom Commc’ns, Inc., 401 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2005) .............................................. 42 FTC v. Gill, 71 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (C.D. Cal. 1999) ...................................................................... 13 FTC v. Health Formulas, LLC, 2015 WL 2130504 (D. Nev. May 6, 2015) ................................ 31 FTC v. Johnson, 96 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (D. Nev. 2015) ................................................................. 13 FTC v. Loewen, 2013 WL 5816420 (W.D. Wash. Oct., 29, 2013)............................................... 40 8 FTC v. Publishers Clearing House, 104 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 1997) ....................................... 40, 42 9 FTC v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Co., Inc., 389 F. Supp. 3d 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) .................. 42 10 11 12 13 14 FTC v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 317 F.2d 669 (2d Cir. 1963) ............................................................... 6 FTC v. Swish Mktg, 2010 WL 653486 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2010) ................................................ 42 FTC v. World Media Brokers Inc., 2004 WL 432475 (N.D. Ill Mar. 2, 2004)............................. 40 FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., 799 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2015) ............................. 44, 46, 47, 48 Gaker v. Citizens Disability, LLC, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 1777460 (D. Mass. Feb. 6, 2023) ......................................................................... 5, 14 General Electric Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ...................................................... 46 Gershfield v. TeamViewer US, Inc., 2023 WL 334015 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2023) .................... 21, 22 15 Hall v. Time, Inc., 2020 WL 2303088 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020) ................................................ 21 16 Heinz v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2023 WL 4466904 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2023) .................................. 19 17 18 Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 2 Hooper v. Jerry Ins. Agency. LLC, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 3992130 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2023) ............................................................................ 19 In re Grand Jury Matter, 147 F.R.D. 82 (E.D. Pa. 1992)............................................................. 51 19 In re Kraft, Inc., 114 F.T.C. 40 (1991) ......................................................................................... 30 20 In re Ring LLC Privacy Litig., 2021 WL 2621197 (C.D. Cal June 24, 2021) .............................. 25 21 In re Vistaprint Corp. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 2009 WL 2884727 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2009) ......................................................................... 11 22 Karem v. Trump, 960 F.3d 656 (D.C. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 47 23 Kashem v. Barr, 941 F.3d 358 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................. 44 Keebaugh v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., 2022 WL 7610032 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2022) ..................... 5 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - iv Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 6 of 59 1 2 Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 18 Landers v. Quality Comms., Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................... 2 Lee v. Intelius, Inc., 737 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................ 24, 25 3 Lopez v. Dave Inc., 2022 WL 17089824 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2022)..................................... passim 4 Marsh v. Zaazoom Solutions, LLC, 2012 WL 952226 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2012) ....................... 31 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, 2023 WL 6135551 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2023) ................................... 47 Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) ........................................ 6, 14, 23 Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 384 F. Supp. 3d 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)............................................. 4 Oberstein v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., 60 F.4th 505 (9th Cir. 2023) ......................................... passim Okorocha v. Duff, 596 F. App’x 537 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................... 47 Organic Consumers Ass’n v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 284 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................................... 4 Orion Ins. Group v. Wash. State Off. of Minority & Women’s Bus. Enters., 2017 WL 3387344 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2017) ....................................................................... 44 Perkins v. N.Y. Times Co., 2023 WL 3601489 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2023) ................................... 21 Resort Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. FTC, 518 F.2d 962 (9th Cir. 1975) ................................................ 4 Rubio v. Capital One Bank, 613 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................... 4, 16 Rutter v. Apple Inc., 2022 WL 1443336 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2022) ............................................... 21 Sadlock v. Walt Disney Co., 2023 WL 4869245 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2023) ................................... 9 14 Sellers v. JustAnswer LLC, 289 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) .................................. 5, 6, 13 15 Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) ................................................................................. 44 16 Smith v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 2768453 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023) ............................................ 39 17 Snell v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., 424 F. Supp. 3d 892 (E.D. Cal. 2019) ....................... 10 18 19 20 Strow v. B&G Foods, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 3d 1090 (N.D. Ill. 2022) ................................................ 3 Sullivan v. All Web Leads, Inc., 2017 WL 2378079 (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2017) ............................... 14 United States v. Mincoff, 574 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................. 44 United States v. MyLife.com, Inc., 567 F. Supp. 3d 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2021) ........................... 32, 35 United States v. Nat’l Fin. Servs., Inc., 98 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 1996) ............................................ 49 21 United States v. Shill, 740 F.3d 1347 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................... 48 22 United States v. Tech. Commc’ns Indus., Inc., 1986 WL 15489 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 22, 1986) ........ 49 23 United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................... 40 Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................... 39 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - v Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 7 of 59 1 Viveros v. Audible, Inc., No. 23-cv-0925-JLR, 2023 WL 6960281 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 20, 2023) ..................................................................................................... 22 2 Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 953 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2020) ........................................................... 3 3 Walkingeagle v. Google LLC, 2023 WL 3981334 (D. Or. June 12, 2023)....................... 11, 20, 21 4 Washington v. Internet Order, LLC, 2015 WL 918694 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 2, 2015) ................... 30 William H. Morris Co. v. Group W, Inc., 66 F.3d 255 (9th Cir. 1995) ........................................ 30 5 Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc., 944 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................ 15 6 Statutes 7 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1) ................................................................................................................ 3, 49 15 U.S.C. § 8403(1) ........................................................................................................ 3, 4, 18, 19 8 15 U.S.C. § 8403(2) .......................................................................................................... 22, 30, 31 9 15 U.S.C. § 8403(3) ...................................................................................................................... 31 10 11 15 U.S.C. § 8404 ........................................................................................................................... 48 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ....................................................................................................................... 39 12 Other Authorities 13 Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/simple ...................................................... 31 14 Speech of Hon. Zachary T. Space of Ohio, 156 Cong. Rec. E2165-02 (Dec. 15, 2010).............. 31 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - vi Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 8 of 59 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Millions of consumers who visited Amazon to shop instead found themselves enrolled in 3 automatically-renewing Amazon Prime subscriptions without their knowledge or consent. That 4 5 result was the foreseeable—and widely known within Amazon—consequence of Amazon’s failure to tell consumers clicking buttons like “Get Free Two-Day Shipping” would enroll them in a Prime free trial and that the trial would automatically convert to a paying membership. 6 7 When these and other consumers attempted to cancel their Prime subscriptions through the aptly named “Iliad” cancellation flow, Amazon first forced them to locate an “end membership” 8 button that did not end membership. Consumers then had to navigate additional screens that did 9 not allow them to cancel and instead made repeated retention offers. Far from being simple, this 10 process resulted in millions of Prime members continuing to be charged for memberships they 11 12 13 thought they had cancelled. Amazon’s failures to provide clear enrollment processes and simple cancellation mechanisms are apparent from the screenshots attached to and described in the FTC’s Complaint, notwithstanding Amazon’s contextless, false, and misleading descriptions. The 14 Court, however, need not decide that issue at this stage. Rather, Amazon’s motion must fail if it 15 is plausible the FTC is right—i.e., if it is plausible that (1) ordinary consumers did not 16 understand they were enrolling in automatically-renewing Amazon Prime subscriptions while 17 trying to buy products (Counts I-III) and (2) Amazon’s cancellation process was not simple 18 19 20 (Count IV). Although the Court could easily draw that inference from the face of the enrollment and cancellation flows themselves, the Complaint also discusses copious evidence—drawn from Amazon’s own documents and data—supporting these allegations and the Individual Defendants’ liability for them. 21 22 23 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - 1 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 9 of 59 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must “accept as true all well pleaded 3 4 5 facts in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable” to the plaintiff. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). A Complaint survives a motion to dismiss when it “state[s] a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Landers v. Quality Comms., Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 641 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 6 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint is “plausible” when it “allows the court to draw the reasonable 7 inference” of liability. Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Therefore, 8 dismissal is inappropriate unless it “appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts 9 10 in support of its claims which would entitle it to relief.” City of Almaty v. Khrapunov, 956 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). Here, there is no question the FTC’s Complaint meets and, in fact, far surpasses this standard. 11 12 13 14 15 16 ARGUMENT Amazon’s motion fails on all counts. First, the Complaint provides convincing evidence that Amazon did not clearly and conspicuously disclose Prime’s auto-renewal and price—or, in many cases, the fact that consumers were enrolling in Prime at all—prior to obtaining consumers’ billing information and enrolling them in Prime. Second, the facts detailed in the Complaint more than demonstrate Prime enrollees frequently did not consent at all to becoming Prime members or to Prime’s auto-renewal and price, and certainly did not provide express 17 informed consent. Third, the Complaint pleads facts demonstrating Amazon’s cancellation 18 process was not simple. 19 20 21 22 23 The Individual Defendants’ motion fares no better because the Complaint plausibly alleges, at a minimum, that each Individual Defendant had the authority to correct Amazon’s unlawful conduct but declined to do so. Additionally, Defendants’ due process argument fails for the straightforward reason that no Defendant actually asserts the relevant statutes are unconstitutionally vague. Finally, Defendants cannot escape the prospect of civil penalties because the FTC more than plausibly alleges each Defendant knew ROSCA existed and knew, or PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - 2 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 10 of 59 1 had knowledge “fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances” (15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)), 2 that their actions violated ROSCA. 3 I. 4 AMAZON FAILED TO CLEARLY AND CONSPICUOUSLY DISCLOSE PRIME’S MATERIAL TERMS (COUNT II). The Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 8403(1), 5 requires Amazon to “clearly and conspicuously disclose[] all material terms” of Prime before 6 obtaining consumers’ billing information. “Clear” means “reasonably understandable,” and 7 “conspicuous” means “readily noticeable to the consumer.” Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 953 8 9 10 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omitted) (defining “clear and conspicuous” under Fair Credit Reporting Act). A “clear and conspicuous” disclosure, therefore, is one that a “reasonable [consumer] would notice and understand.” Barrer v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 566 F.3d 883, 892 (9th Cir. 2009) (defining “clear and conspicuous” under Truth in Lending Act); 11 see also Mot.1 at 7 (Amazon approvingly citing FTC statement that disclosures are clear and 12 conspicuous if they are “easily noticeable and understood by ‘ordinary consumers’” (emphasis 13 added)). The “reasonable consumer” is not an “erudite reader” inclined to carefully parse a 14 website “like a federal judge reading a statute.” Dumont v. Reily Foods Co., 934 F.3d 35, 40 (1st 15 16 17 18 Cir. 2019); see also Strow v. B&G Foods, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 3d 1090, 1102 (N.D. Ill. 2022) (“Again, consumers are not judges. This Court will not impose on average consumers an obligation to question the labels they see and parse them as lawyers might for ambiguities . . . .” (quotation marks omitted)). Rather, the reasonable consumer is “an ordinary consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances . . . who is not versed in the art of inspecting and judging a 19 20 21 22 23 1 Citations to the “Motion” refer to Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss, filed under seal at Dkt. #85 and in redacted form at Dkt. #84. Citations to the “Individuals’ Motion” refer to Defendants Neil Lindsay, Russell Grandinetti, and Jamil Ghani’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #83). Page number citations refer to the numbering in the footer of each motion, rather than the numbering in the ECF header at the top of the page. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - 3 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 11 of 59 1 2 product.” Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 903 F. Supp. 2d 843, 854 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (cleaned up).2 3 Because ROSCA is a consumer protection statute, “any misleading ambiguity [in 4 defendants’ disclosures] . . . should be resolved in favor of the consumer.” Rubio v. Capital One 5 6 Bank, 613 F.3d 1195, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up) (applying principle to Truth in Lending Act); see also Resort Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. FTC, 518 F.2d 962, 964 (9th Cir. 1975) (“Advertising capable of being interpreted in a misleading way should be construed against the 7 8 advertiser.”). This is particularly true at the motion to dismiss stage: “courts grant motions to dismiss under the reasonable consumer test only in rare situations in which the facts alleged in 9 the complaint compel the conclusion as a matter of law that consumers are not likely to be 10 deceived.” Organic Consumers Ass’n v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 284 F. Supp. 3d 1005, 1014 11 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (quotation marks omitted); see also Cooper v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, 553 F. 12 13 14 Supp. 3d 83, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (inappropriate to dismiss claims about reasonable consumer that do not “border on fantasy” or are not “patently implausible”). The FTC’s Complaint more than plausibly alleges ordinary consumers would not readily notice and understand three material terms of the Prime enrollment transaction: (1) that they are 15 enrolling in Prime, (2) that their Prime membership automatically renews, and (3) Prime’s 16 monthly cost.3 The Complaint easily clears this low bar in several ways. First, although wholly 17 ignored by Amazon, the context in which Amazon enrolls consumers in Prime and “discloses” 18 Prime’s terms—as part of the product-checkout process—makes it unlikely consumers would 19 20 21 22 23 2 Amazon misleadingly cites an Eastern District of New York case for the notion that “ordinary internet users . . . ‘know there are terms and conditions attached when they . . . order merchandise on Amazon . . . because it would be difficult to exist in our technological society without some generalized awareness of the fact.’” Mot. at 7-8 (quoting Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 384 F. Supp. 3d 254, 278 (E.D.N.Y. 2019), aff’d, 815 F. App’x 612 (2d Cir. 2020)). Amazon fails to tell the Court that this quote is from a discussion of what that court thought the law ought to be, not what the law actually is. Nicosia, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 278-79. 3 Amazon does not dispute that these terms are “material” and that ROSCA therefore required Amazon to “clearly and conspicuously disclose[]” them. 15 U.S.C. § 8403(1); see also FTC v. Cyberspace.com LLC, 453 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2006) (information is “material” if it is “important to consumers and, hence, likely to affect their choice of, or conduct regarding, a product” (quotation marks omitted)). PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - 4 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 12 of 59 1 look for, find, and understand the relevance of those terms. Second, Amazon’s disclosures are 2 generally small print, below (sometimes far below) the relevant enrollment button, and 3 overshadowed by the page’s marketing text and graphics. Third, Amazon, based on actual data 4 from studying consumers, drew the same inference it now says is implausible—that many 5 6 consumers did not notice and understand Prime’s disclosures of material terms. Fourth, regardless of whether consumers would see or understand the disclosures, Amazon violated ROSCA by only displaying them after obtaining consumers’ billing information. Finally, the 7 8 9 10 caselaw cited by Amazon does not allow it to escape liability for the reasons detailed below. A. The Context Within Which Amazon Displays Prime’s Material Terms Makes It Unlikely Consumers Will Notice Them. When evaluating the conspicuousness of online disclosures, “the full context of the transaction is critical.” Chabolla v. ClassPass Inc., 2023 WL 4544598, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 11 2023) (emphasis original; quotation marks omitted); see also Gaker v. Citizens Disability, LLC, 12 --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 1777460, at *6 (D. Mass. Feb. 6, 2023) (applying “totality of the 13 circumstances inquiry” to determine whether terms were “clear and conspicuous”). Although 14 some courts “have focused on factors such as font size and graphic layout to determine whether a 15 16 17 user would be on inquiry notice that he was consenting to an agreement,” focusing on these considerations alone can lead to “inconsistent decisions.” Keebaugh v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., 2022 WL 7610032, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2022) (cleaned up) (citing Sellers v. JustAnswer LLC, 289 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 26 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)). Instead, courts properly examine “the full 18 context of the transaction . . . to determin[e] whether a given textual notice is sufficient to put an 19 internet consumer on inquiry notice of contractual terms.” Keebaugh, 2022 WL 7610032, at *6 20 (quoting Sellers, 289 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 26); see also id. (criticizing the parties for only addressing 21 22 the “visual elements” of the webpage to the exclusion of the remaining “context of the transaction”). The Ninth Circuit endorsed this contextual approach in a case heavily relied upon by 23 Amazon. See Oberstein v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., 60 F.4th 505, 516-17 (9th Cir. 2023); see also PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - 5 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 13 of 59 1 Chabolla, 2023 WL 4544598, at *6 (explaining that Ninth Circuit in Oberstein “opted to apply 2 the [contextual] approach, rather than discredit it”). In Oberstein, the Ninth Circuit explained 3 that a user who “contemplates some sort of continuing relationship” with an entity is more likely 4 to “scrutinize the [website] for small text” than a user “merely attempting to start a free trial.” 5 6 Oberstein, 60 F.4th 505 at 516-17 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting and discussing, with approval, Sellers, 289 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 24); see also Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1177 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[C]onsumers cannot be expected to ferret out hyperlinks to terms and 7 8 conditions to which they have no reason to suspect they will be bound . . . .”). Similarly, in FTC Act cases, courts “consider the advertisement in its entirety [rather 9 than] engag[ing] in disputatious dissections. The entire mosaic should be viewed rather than 10 each tile separately.” Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 782 F.2d 381, 385 (2nd Cir. 11 1986) (quoting FTC v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 317 F.2d 669, 674 (2d Cir. 1963)). Therefore, when 12 13 14 considering how the ordinary consumer would interpret a website or other marketing materials, courts consider the overall “net impression” left by the website. See, e.g., FTC v. Commerce Planet, Inc., 878 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2012), aff’d in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 815 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also FTC v. AMG Servs., Inc., 29 F. Supp. 3d 1338, 15 1350-51 (D. Nev. 2014) (“The Loan Note and Disclosure document’s net impression is likely to 16 mislead because of the way the terms are presented . . . , not because Defendants’ counsel can 17 pull out the important terms and rearrange them in large bullet point lists that allow for a clearer 18 understanding of their effects.”), reversed on other grounds, 141 S. Ct. 1341 (2021). 19 20 21 22 Here, the relevant context—primarily, Amazon’s strategy of embedding its Universal Prime Decision Page (“UPDP”) and Single Page Checkout (“SPC”) Prime enrollment pages within the product checkout process—made it unlikely many ordinary consumers would notice Amazon had enrolled them in a Prime free trial or that the Prime free trial automatically converted to a paid membership after 30 days. 23 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - 6 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 14 of 59 1. 1 2 Amazon Gives Consumers No Reason to Look for, or Notice, Its Small-Print UPDP Disclosures. A shopper attempting to purchase items on Amazon typically places those items in their 3 shopping cart, and then proceeds through four screens by clicking a large orange button on each 4 screen to move to the next screen. Compl. ,i,i 34-35, Att. G at 1-5.4 After those four screens, the 5 product purchaser encounters the UPDP (Compl. Att. G at 6), examples of which are shown in 6 Figure 1 (desktop) and Figure 2 (mobile) below: 7 .Show ...... lC[ amaion.com 8 9 Test, we're giving you a 30- day FREE Trial of Prime. Ho minimum ordu thrnhold fo, FREE Two-Day Oellvtry You, Pnmo benefits nc:IUde __.. prime 11 12 IA[£ 13 Save 56.H on your Pml8 elg13191_,,s will fREE ~O•t 09lMry on ltls oro. 14 15 --..- .,.,,.. .. 'f01~ft,1,._t.twmd111tiag••N~Ofl,....l.,.,...-"ll~ andilriotlhorir•n•CNfll')'CMlfCJ. .CIN(\W-••1111Jlf ...... W). . . . . ~ufd Ot1 !le a!!ilf'J.O" ,».r he rt.at YowAl!'lltAil'I Pthe •l'!'l&W1lttp COl!ClnM• WO! ~ 4 . f,ou•noc_..h •COl'lli._ fotSU~moedl , - - , •Hk_.. ....._ yo. l"llltf~I ___..,.,...'four~.....jllll"tJCM .......,llhip..aillfLFfllQAloanl\Kt... ~ R e e , . - ~ . . . . ._..,_ -.,... ~........... ~IIOCMCl 16 17 Mrtf'G~, ,._,.~•wHto,,..•w••--e•M•CltlOan--. ~ - \ M '--cttac. O H6-H:t..,,_.llll'lc.i..lk. Figure 1 (Desktop UPDP; Comp/. A tt. BJ 18 19 20 21 22 23 4 All citations to the "Complaint" refer to the FfC's Amended Complaint, filed under seal at Dkt. #69 and in redacted fo1m at Dkt. #67. PLAINTIFF' S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - 7 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania A venue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 15 of 59 1 2 3 4 ---·- amazon QgescpqHnb, we are giving you a 30-day free trial of Amazon Prime. Save S5.99 with FREE Two-Day Shi pping on this order. prime .____.., Delivery Speed 5 FREE Two-O,y Shipping FREE 6 No minimum order threshold for FREE Two-O,y Shipping 7 Get fREE Two-Day Shopping No thank1- I do not wont FREE Two-Day 8 Shopping By Signing up. you able crtdit urd on hie •ftcryour 3().d.)y free tr-.JL Your Am•zon Prime mtmbenhip continues until can(A Place you, o,oer P~nt .,ethod 0.,,,,,. c::Jffldng 11n 2871 Oomo,tk Add • 9ift card. promotion code. or &y pla,ong ~ order, you l9(ff to A"9t0"\ privaN, Viewl.-i, ., ..,. i..,,,,,...,.. 17 18 19 20 21 ~ ........... (.~ ..... l 12.M,......,._.,,,,.~wia . ,,. ... -~.--.----·· · . " ' ..... &Yllt,;,t - ~ ...,......_ ~ , . _...... 4-on,..t•".hff'"I S:610, - LLC ~~ ill op,on, nc« ..111,t;lr .,.....,, _..,....._ __ ~ . . .• o..QoM.tu.c_ $ 1'S~f~flMf AVf N 'SfAO lf1 \\A. . .1-...i041,ht...S~A-"' 0 16 ,__., ,..,_.........., . . . v.... ..... ,.,. .,.... '"' "'~ -9-" Ocllve,y May 23 2021 , • All _[ 7 8 9 old,t>uytnga Tollt1.od.y $0.00 11 START 1-MOHTH TRIAL 12 13 Figure 6 (Enrollment Page from Walkingeagle v. Google LLC, 2023 WL 3981334 (D. Or. June 12, 2023)) 14 Similarly, in Gershfield v. Team Viewer US, Inc., 2023 WL 334015 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2023), the 15 Ninth Circuit affomed a district comi's finding the disclosures in Figure 7 below clear and 16 conspicuous.13 Again, unlike here, the page is uncluttered, the text is all the same size, and the fact of auto-renewal is bolded immediately above the action button. Amazon's other auto­ 17 renewal cases are similarly distinguishable. See Hall v. Time, Inc. , 2020 WL 2303088, at *1 18 (C.D. Cal. Mar . 13, 2020) (auto-renewal disclosure was "directly above" checkout button and 19 then again above the "submit order" button), ajf'd, 857 Fed. App'x 385 (9th Cir. 2021); Rutter v. 20 Apple Inc. , 2022 WL 1443336, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2022) (dismissing "vague" claim that 21 cancellation policy was not disclosed clearly and conspicuously, while granting leave to amend); 22 Perkins v. NY Times Co. , 2023 WL 3601489, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2023) (auto-renewal 23 13 The Figure 7 screenshot is available on the district cowt docket: Gershfield v. Team Viewer US, Inc., et al. , Case No. 23-cv-0058, Dkt. # 30-3 at 2 (May 11, 2021) . PLAINTIFF' S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - 21 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania A venue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 29 of 59 1 2 disclosure was twice displayed above the checkout button, and once "directly above" the checkout button). 14 3 Product Choice 4 Puce/ month Cluan:ay 5 6 Prk• / ~ USS 49 00 USS ssaoo 1-nv- Bumm Subso-ip«Jon Cot>t,,a period: OS-J.,n-2021 • 04-J.,n-2022 7 Ntt poce USS 588-00 USS0.00 ()'l(,~ lax 8 uss ssaoo lffi/OKe le , YOAJI subscription will automatially l't'nt'W cw:ry 12 9 mon: ur.less )'OU t ·e 'PJ! c • ,a a• lea • 28 days be'ore theerd Continue :o Pa;mert 11 Figure 7 (Enrollment Page from Gershfield v. TeamViewer US, Inc., 2023 WL 334015 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2023)) 12 13 II. 14 AMAZON FAILED TO OBTAIN CONSUMERS' EXPRESS INFORMED CONSENT TO AUTOMATICALLY-RENEWING PRIME SUBSCRIPTIONS (COUNTS I, III). 15 In addition to requiring Amazon to provide clear and conspicuous disclosure of Prime's 16 17 material te1ms, ROSCA required it to "obtain[] a consumer 's express info1med consent" to those tenns.15 15 U.S.C. § 8403(2). Amazon concedes this consent requires at least the same "unambiguous manifestation of assent" required for the fonnation of a contract. Mot. at 14. 18 19 20 21 22 However, while such assent is necessaiy, it is not sufficient to satisfy ROSCA. ROSCA requires not just consent but "express informed consent." Here, the Complaint more than plausibly 14 Recently, anoth er court in this District granted a motion to dismiss state law auto-renewal claims related to Amazon 's Audible service. See Viveros v. Audible, Inc., No. 23-cv-0925-JLR, 2023 WL 696028 1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 20, 2023) . That case too presents distinguishable facts: the disclosures were above the enrollment button, and "[s]everal disclosures [were] reiterated in a box in the upper left" of the enrollment page. Id. at *7. A copy of the relevant enrollment page is at Viveros Dkt. # 1-2 at 21 . 15 23 Amazon concedes that if the FTC has adequately pleaded its ROSCA count for lack of express info1med consent (Count III), it has also adequately pleaded its FTC Act count based on Amazon's unfair enrollment practices (Count I). Mot. at 6 n.3. PLAINTIFF' S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - 22 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania A venue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 30 of 59 1 alleges Amazon fails to obtain express informed consent in two ways: (1) by failing to obtain 2 any consent to enrollment in Prime and its material terms, and (2) by failing to clearly and 3 conspicuous disclose Prime’s material terms, resulting in a lack of informed consent. A. 4 1. 5 8 9 Amazon Does Not Tell Consumers the Consequences of Clicking Its “Enrollment” Buttons. Consumers consent to contract terms by taking “some action, such as clicking a button or 6 7 Amazon Does Not Obtain Consent to Prime’s Material Terms. checking a box, that unambiguously manifest [their] assent to those terms.” Berman, 30 F.4th at 856 (emphasis added).16 However, a user’s button click establishes consent “only if the user is explicitly advised that the act of clicking will constitute assent to the terms and conditions of an agreement.” Id. at 857. Therefore, the fact that a reference to “terms and conditions” appears in 10 “proximity” to, or even “directly above,” an enrollment button is insufficient, standing alone, to 11 establish consent. Id.; see also Nguyen, 763 F.3d at 1178-79 (“[W]here a website makes its 12 terms of use available via a conspicuous hyperlink on every page of the website but otherwise 13 provides no notice to users nor prompts them to take any affirmative action to demonstrate 14 15 16 assent, even close proximity of the hyperlink to relevant buttons users must click on—without more—is insufficient to give rise to constructive notice.”). Based on these principles, the Ninth Circuit in Berman held that consumers who clicked the green “Continue” button in Figure 8 below had not consented to the “Terms & Conditions” referenced immediately above the button. 17 The Court explained that although the website stated, “I understand and agree to the Terms & 18 Conditions,” it “did not indicate to the user what action would constitute assent to those terms 19 and conditions.” Id. at 858. “Likewise,” the Court added, “the text of the button itself gave no 20 indication that it would bind plaintiffs to a set of terms and conditions.” Id. 21 22 16 23 Many of the cases cited herein, including Berman, apply state contract law. Federal courts routinely apply “ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts.” Nguyen, 763 F.3d at 1175 (quotation marks omitted). PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - 23 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 31 of 59 1 2 3 1 C,01 nti1 niue >> 1 4 5 1 I - - - Figure 8 (Enrollment Button in Berman v. Freedom Fin. Netv.•ork, LLC, 30 F.4th 849 (9th Cir. 2022)) 6 Even where websites state that "by clicking" a specific button, the consumer will be 7 8 9 deemed to have agreed to specific te1ms, comis find no consent where the "by clicking" statement is itself inconspicuous. See, e.g., Cullinane, 893 F.3d at 64 (finding consumer did not consent to tenns in paii because of inconspicuous "text used to notify potential users that the creation of an Uber account would bind them to the link te1ms"). The Ninth Circuit, for 11 12 example, expressed "skepticism" that a consumer had consented to the "Offer Details" in the gray box in Figure 9 below, despite the fact that the text immediately above the "YES" button stated: "By clicking 'Yes,' I have read and agreed to the Offer Details to the right." Lee v. 13 Intelius, Inc. , 737 F.3d 1254, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2013).17 The court noted the relevant text, 14 although directly above the "Yes" button, was in "small, light-colored print." Id. at 1260. The 15 Comi also considered the context of the transaction, explaining that, as here, the consumer could 16 reasonably have clicked "Yes" to complete the purchase of the product they had been hying to 17 buy, rather than to agree to a new conh'act. Id.; see also Applebaum v. Lyfl, Inc. , 263 F. Supp. 3d 18 454, 467 (S .D.N.Y. 2017) (refusing to find consent because even though consumer checked box 19 agreeing to hyperlinked tenns, the screen on which consent was pmpo1iedly obtained ''was structured as paii of a process to verify a phone number," creating the inference that "the Tenns 20 of Service related only to the [phone text message] verification"). 21 22 23 17 Figme 9 is taken from the PACER version of the Ninth Circuit's opinion: Lee v. Intelius, Inc. , Case No. 11- 35810, Dkt. # 64- 1 at 17 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2013) . PLAINTIFF' S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS Case No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC - 24 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania A venue NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3320 Case 2:23-cv-00932-JHC Document 125 Filed 11/17/23 Page 32 of 59 1 2 Family Safory Ropon Protect You Farnly Now! I-, t,fftG lW Ml 12!ft1t MIHt It di Co,lltltatt lHf ~ f9tltiltt lad It -utta .t.utttuwt u Otr;t. MM,._, IC(NIK ,cc..-.: ti die~ 0tu I . II 3 ' OfJ(IOflAM CDJ!S ,s I RC\lffll ..2mJ 4 5 • c..t..... _,b.,._caw'W,,_.tln_,.,._,_ ......t..,...,,.....,......... ~..,clic:lr: ..... t1110 tte,Mttri ~ h •!tdt,N~tl~;ru:Nl.!tslbtr,~~ '•""-huuolw acu11.,wr,1ooocu~l1d •!MkfflWS~tefNol11,.ts,.-aoedl h: ch~dR~ ... ,.ea-.smtvtt11.nNChCJ.ot~lU~',UWJ~~""--r.tM-slbf'ytr;ar7 !:!h,.E!: tn1 H1'ed •~ ••• 1ucoa1w:, ck.i"Ql4-c'-cblt ud• lllotltdi ,: t.ht di, arrtllt NCf! ••=Hirillil fee H let-; 11 ,1011:•111 I.,..., Of etlif"lt)-.UCUCI VI tJIHtNr. 1 177..,,4z.,110ait\.i111M: lnt 7 ,,,• • u-ctl. tad connnn f·"•" "ddreu: .,-.;i . . . . N,,1,o;.C:MMM.SlltutaiwtttllH.t ....... ,odltstoflttMO ,.,.....,. . . .n:-. .. llllt lt:O 1.c-,-.\tr1111itr.,w11. . ,-.11 ndCf'M.1.MtcHd~• t1AhMrS1ftfwttptn.M"'1tt.r~ck FR£E SI0OOCutit.tck ,.,..,. •• c1II!!! •~tw lfftf•~"u«irN1n,11u+JWn ..,t¾t-NN.fflhr ; ,,..ul •"-"~'111 1o~.,.hch•~~tke,p continue -.I orlClllld.. If ~ do nae wiJh to continue fw $12.n/-11 phn a.., appoubk tu• aftt t ~ llnt montt\.,...m.r,~el •nrt- ~ \llsltln, v - Account. for o..stomen lft HawlN~ l'uenolt,co, llftd IJMlll pie-. ¥lslt 1M Am.:lzan Prme Shipping lknfflb ~ 10 i "19 •nd Octl..,_,.:fy , Am..:a.lo"I P n 9 • End Your Amazon Prime Membership You can rnd your Pnrnr mtmbersh•P by s~tcnnq tllr End M!-ml>rnhop button on l~pag, 11 1i'1t.. Pud rnffflbtn who hwl.•n'I UW>d tJWir Mf'lf'ftt\ .tr• tt-9,b&e fOf' • full Adw Nfurod of Ille ,u,.,..., - ; p p•nod, V.e'U proc;cu •Ile refund lo thrtt to Nw t,us,ncs, o.,ys_ (MYo, ' :e'.)" '••,m,,..\hp • 12 • Adcfot.onal so.biCrip~on• t,C!d 10 )'OU" mor,lbco,hip _ , 1,eotw ooco you, Primo 13 14 15 • If yQVf Pum,e mtmt)ft')h,, t) ~11ttd wtth J Hn.C:t )OU r«:tf'll'f throucJ, _.not..,... comp•,y (lu