Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 14

1 William Most (State Bar No. 279100)

2

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MOST 637 Kerlerec St.

3 New Orleans, LA 70116

4

Phone: 504-509-5023 Email: williammost@gmail.com

5

6

Jason R. Flanders (State Bar No. 238007) Sarah M.K. Hoffman (State Bar No. 308568)

7 AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP

8

828 San Pablo Ave., Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706

9 Phone: 916-202-3018

10

Email: jrf@atalawgroup.com Email: smkh@atalawgroup.com

11

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

16 SUZANNE-JULIETTE MOBLEY, KAREN

17

SAVAGE, VICTOR ONUOHA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

18

19

Plaintiffs,

20 vs.

21 FACEBOOK, INC., and DOES 1-9999,

22

23

Defendants.

24

Case No.
COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION, JURY DEMAND (Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.)
Date: Time: Dept.: Judge: Trial Date: Action Filed: November 3, 2016

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave.
Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706
916-202-3018

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Suzanne-Juliette Mobley, Karen Savage, and Victor Onuoha (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this Complaint against Defendants as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil action for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, penalties, and monetary damages under the Fair Housing Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.) to redress discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, and national origin. 2. Defendant Facebook is a social-networking site that boasts more than one billion users worldwide, making it the largest online social network in the world. As alleged more fully below, Facebook has operated and is operating an advertising platform (“Ad Platform”) that publishes, and causes to be published, discriminatory and illegal housing and employment advertisements. By clicking on a button labeled “Exclude People,” ad buyers—here Doe Defendants 1-9,999—can prevent their ads from being displayed to users matching characteristics such as “African American (US),” “Asian American (US),” or “Immigrant.” 3. This lawsuit does not seek to end Facebook’s Ad Platform, nor even to get rid of the "Exclude People" mechanism. There are legal, desirable uses for such functionalities. Plaintiffs seek to end only the illegal, proscribed uses of these functions. 4. Defendants’ conduct should be declared unlawful and enjoined, and appropriate penalties and monetary damages should be awarded. II. THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Karen Savage is a resident of New York City, New York. She is a reporter and is in the process of getting a degree in journalism from the City University of New York. She is a Facebook user and a single, divorced mother of four children. In the past year, she has undergone a search for housing and a search for employment, and in the course of doing so has looked at Facebook advertisements. 6. Plaintiff Victor Onuoha is a resident of Gretna, Louisiana. He is an African-American mental health counselor. In the past year he has undergone a search for housing and a search for employment, and in the course of doing so has looked at Facebook advertisements.
1
Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999

Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave.
Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706
916-202-3018

7. Plaintiff Suzanne-Juliette Mobley is a resident of New Orleans, Orleans. She is AfricanAmerican and a Community Engagement Manager. She is a divorced mother of one child. In the past year, she has undergone a search for housing and a search for employment, and in the course of doing so has looked at Facebook advertisements.
8. Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) is an American corporation, headquartered at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California, 94025, incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, with California registered agent for service of process of Corporation Service Company— d/b/a CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service, 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N, Sacramento, California, 95833. Facebook owns and operates an online social networking website that allows its users to communicate with each other through the sharing of text, photograph, and video. Part of Facebook’s website is an Ad Platform that allows users to pay money to have Facebook display advertisements to other users.
9. Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999 are entities that have used Facebook’s Ad Platform to illegally discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin, with advertisements for employment or housing. III. JURISDICTIONAND VENUE
10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, and 3613(a), this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of Plaintiffs and the Class that arise under the Fair Housing Act, and Civil Rights Act of 1964.
11. Further, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this putative nationwide class action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), because the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which some members of the Class are citizens of states different than Defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). Therefore, both elements of diversity jurisdiction under CAFA are present, and this Court has jurisdiction.
12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Facebook because Facebook owns and operates a business that is headquartered in California, and because it conducts substantial business throughout California.
13. Venue properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), as Facebook is headquartered in this district.
14. Venue is also proper in this district pursuant to Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which governs the agreement between Plaintiffs and Facebook and which states in
2
Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999

Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 4 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave.
Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706
916-202-3018

pertinent part that Plaintiffs “will resolve any claim, cause of action or dispute (claim) . . . relating to . . . Facebook exclusively in a state or federal court located in Santa Clara County.” IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND
A. Fair Housing Act 15. The Fair Housing Act, 42. U.S.C. 3601 et seq., declares that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States.” 16. To this end, among other prohibitions, the Fair Housing Act provides that “it shall be unlawful . . . (c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, . . . familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.” 17. The Fair Housing Act is a “broad remedial statute” that courts “generously construe.” City of Edmonds v. Wash. St. Bldg. Code Council, 18 F.3d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 1994).
B. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
18. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that: a. “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). b. “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(b). c. “Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or
3
Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999

Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 5 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave.
Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706
916-202-3018

national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m); and, d. “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, labor organization, employment agency, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs, to print or publish or cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency, or relating to admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training by such a joint labor-management committee, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, except that such a notice or advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on religion, sex, or national origin when religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(b). V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Facebook’s Advertising Platform 19. Facebook generates the majority of its revenue through the sale of advertising to organizations and individuals. In the second quarter of 2016 alone, Facebook generated $6.239 billion in advertising revenue. 20. As set out in more detail below, Facebook’s advertising platform allows advertisers to target and exclude specific Facebook users to see their advertisements. This targeting and exclusion is based on Facebook users’ “affinity” groups, which Facebook uses to identify a person’s ethnic, gender and other affinities based on their Facebook activity. A user’s affinity may be determined by their Facebook profile and interactions with organizations and other users on Facebook. 21. Based on a user’s affinity groups, Facebook builds a profile of that user that is then used to determine, among other things, the advertisements the user is exposed to. 22. Facebook describes “affinity” as: “a relationship like a marriage, as a natural liking, and as a similarity of characteristics. We are using the term “Multicultural Affinity” to describe the quality of people who are interested in and likely to respond well to multicultural content. What we are referring to in these affinity groups is not their genetic makeup, but their affinity to the cultures they are interested in. The Facebook multicultural targeting solution is based on affinity, not ethnicity. This
4
Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999

Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 6 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave.
Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706
916-202-3018

provides advertisers with an opportunity to serve highly relevant ad content to affinity-based

audiences.”

23. Affinity groups act as a proxy for characteristics such as a user’s race, gender, family

status and national origin. Many of them are specifically classified as “demographics” and track

traditionally protected groupings (e.g., “African American (US)” and “Asian American (US).”)

B. Facebook’s Advertising Platform Enables Illegal Discrimination

24. Facebook’s Ad Platform (found at https://www.facebook.com/business) allows for illegal

discrimination in two steps.

25. First, Facebook’s Ad Platform

allows ad buyers to target their ads to specific

users seeking employment or housing. (See

Figure 1.) Targeting can be done by

“demographic,” “interest,” or “behavior.” For

example, the Ad Platform allows targeting of an

ad to the demographic “Renters”, or to users who

have expressed an interest in or like pages related

to “Buying a House,” “Job interview,” or “Job

hunting.”

26. Second, it allows ad buyers to click a button labeled “Exclude People” to prevent the ad being shown to certain sets of users, (see Figure 1) including users protected by the Fair Housing Act and

Figure 1. This screenshot shows options from the Facebook Ad Platform’s dropdown menus, allowing illegal discrimination. (Source: ProPublica.)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (see Figure 2). As Facebook’s Advertiser Help Center explains,1 the platform “offers advanced features like the ability to exclude certain characteristics from

your target audience.”

27. Among the “characteristics” that can be excluded are “African American (US),” “Asian

American (US),” and four categories of “Hispanic (US).” The platform also allows exclusion or

targeting based on familial status, by excluding demographics: “Divorced,” “Parents (All),” and

“Expectant parents.” It also allows exclusion based on sex by allowing exclusion of “Moms.” It allows

exclusion based on religion by excluding users who are part of the interest categories of “Christian,”

1 https://www.facebook.com/business/help/182371508761821

5
Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999

Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 7 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave.
Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706
916-202-3018

“Muslim,” or “Sunni Islam.” And it allows exclusion based on national origin by allowing exclusion

based on “Expat (All),” which is defined by Facebook as “People whose original country of residence

is different from the current country/countries selected above.”

28. There is no option in Facebook’s platform to exclude the “demographic” of White or

Caucasian Americans from the target audience.

29. Table 1, below, is a non-exclusive list of the characteristics on Facebook’s ad platform

that can be targeted to tailor an advertisement for housing and employment.

Table 1:

Characteristics That Can Be Targeted So Ads to be Tailored to Housing and Employment 2

Housing

Employment

Renters

Job seeking

First time homebuyer

Currently seeking employment

Likely to move

Job interview

apartment finder

Job hunting

New mover

Looking for a New Job

$8,000 Home Buyer Tax Credit Unemployed Looking for work

30. Table 2 is a non-exclusive list of the characteristics that can be excluded under the platform, allowing discrimination against members of protected categories.

2 Categories Facebook identifies as “Demographic” are unitalicized. Categories Facebook identifies as “Interests” and “Behaviors” are italicized.
6
Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999

Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 8 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave.
Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706
916-202-3018

Table 2:

Characteristics That Can Be Excluded, Allowing Discrimination Against the Protected Categories of Race, Color, Religion, Sex, Familial Status, and National Origin

Race/Color
African American (US) Asian American (US)

Sex Working Women
Moms

Familial Status
Family-based Households New parents

Hispanic (US - All)
Hispanic (US Bilingual) Hispanic (US English dominant) Hispanic (US Spanish dominant) African-American hair African-American Conservatives African-American Conservatives Indigenous peoples

Big-city moms
Corporate moms
Fit moms
Green moms
Moms of grade school kids Moms of high school kids Moms of preschool kids New Moms

Housemate-based Households Civil Union
Divorced
Domestic Partnership Engaged
Married
Single
Widowed

Religion Christian

National Origin Expats (All)3

Christianity Catholicism

Non-resident Indian and person of Indian origin Immigrant

Mainline

Expats (Mexico)4

Protestant

Jewish culture Expats (Pakistan)

Jews for Judaism Islam

Expats (Philippines) Expats (Indonesia)

Sunni Islam Expats (India)

Shia Islam Expats (Ghana)

Hinduism

Expats (Japan)

Being Latino Being Indian

Soccer moms
Stay-at-home moms

Parents

Buddhism

Expectant parents Shinto

Expats (Dominican Republic) Expats (Senegal)

31. The content Facebook users see on their Facebook newsfeed is individualized based on
their user profile, including any affinity group Facebook has labeled them with. Any user that is
excluded from an advertisement based on one of the above affinity groups will not see the excluded
advertisement on their Facebook page.
32. There is no mechanism to prevent ad buyers from purchasing ads related to
employment/housing and then excluding based on these illegal characteristics. For example, 3 “Expats (All)” has the description: “People whose original country of residence is different from the current country/countries selected above.” 4 “Expats (Mexico)” has the description: “People from Mexico living abroad.” All the other “Expats” follow this formula.
7
Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999

Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 9 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave.
Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706
916-202-3018

journalists Julia Angwin and Terry Parris Jr. of ProPublic purchased an advertisement targeted to Facebook members who were house hunting and excluded anyone with an African-American, AsianAmerican or Hispanic “affinity.” The advertisement was approved by Facebook fifteen minutes after they placed the order.
33. Facebook has publically committed to removing “an ad from our platform if the government agency responsible for enforcing discrimination laws tells us that the ad reflects illegal discrimination.” But no user can tell whether they are subject to illegal discrimination, because the discrimination occurs with the ads they do not see. As a result, the problem will not be remedied unless Facebook is forced to take additional action.
34. This lawsuit does not seek to end Facebook’s Ad Platform, nor even to get rid of the "Exclude People" mechanism. There are legal, desirable uses for such functionalities. Plaintiffs seek only to end the illegal, proscribed uses of these functions.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 35. Plaintiffs bring this nationwide class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, individually and on behalf of all members of the following Class:
All natural person Facebook users located within the United States who have not seen an employment- or housing-related advertisement on Facebook within the last two years because the ad’s buyer used the Ad Platform’s “Exclude People” functionality to exclude the class member based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.
36. Not included in the Class are the following individuals and/or entities: Facebook and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, current or former employees, and any entity in which Facebook has a controlling interest; all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out; any and all federal, state or local governments, including but not limited to their departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsels and/or subdivisions; and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members.
37. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the definition of the proposed Class before the Court determines whether certification is appropriate.
8
Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999

Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 10 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave.
Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706
916-202-3018

38. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are more than 156 million Facebook account holders in the United States. The number of separate individuals who are members of a protected class and used Facebook within two years before the filing of this action is likely in the millions, and is identifiable and ascertainable based on Facebook’s records.
39. There are questions of law or fact common to the Class. These questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Whether Facebook has caused to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling or employment that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, family status, or national origin.
b. Whether Doe Defendants have caused to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling or employment that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, family status, or national origin.
c. The amount of statutory damages that should be levied against Facebook and Doe Defendants;
d. Whether injunctive and/or declaratory relief against Facebook and Doe Defendants should be awarded;
e. Whether Facebook and Doe Defendants’ conduct was unlawful; and
f. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to restitution.
40. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class in that Plaintiffs and the Class used Facebook. Each of the Class Members was shown ads on Facebook that depended on the choices the ad buyers made through the Ad Platform, including whether the ad buyer chose to use the “Exclude People” button. Facebook and Doe Defendants further used or endeavored to use the contents of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ profile information and Facebook activity to generate ad preferences for Plaintiffs and identify Plaintiffs with particular affiliate groups. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to declaratory relief, penalties, statutory damages, restitution, and injunctive relief as a result of the conduct complained of herein. Moreover, upon information and belief, the
9
Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999

Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 11 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave.
Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706
916-202-3018

conduct complained of herein is systemic. Thus, the representative Plaintiffs, like all other Class Members, face substantial risk of the same injury in the future. The factual basis of Facebook and Doe Defendants’ conduct is common to all Class Members, and represents a common thread of conduct resulting in injury to all members of the Class.
41. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs’ interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class Members. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have retained competent counsel experienced in federal and civil rights litigation. Plaintiffs’ counsel will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) and 23(g) are satisfied.
42. Plaintiffs assert that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), questions of law or fact common to the Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.
43. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Arguably no Class Member could afford to seek legal redress individually for the claims alleged herein. Therefore, absent a class action, the Class Members will continue to suffer losses and Defendants’ misconduct will proceed without remedy.
44. Even if Class Members themselves could afford such individual litigation, the court system could not. Given the complex legal and factual issues involved, and considering that the Class could number in the tens of millions or greater, individualized litigation would significantly increase the delay and expense to all parties and to the Court. Individualized litigation would also create the potential for inconsistent or contradictory rulings. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties, allows claims to be heard which may otherwise go unheard because of the relative expense of bringing individual lawsuits, and provides the benefits of adjudication, economies of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
45. The prosecution of individual actions by Class members would establish inconsistent standards of conduct for Defendants.
10
Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999

Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 12 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave.
Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706
916-202-3018

46. Defendants have acted in ways generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final and injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with regard to members of the Class as a whole.
47. The names and addresses of the Plaintiff putative class members are available from Facebook. To the extent required by law, notice will be provided to the prospective class members via first class mail and/or by use of techniques in a form of notice that has been used customarily in collective actions, subject to court approval.
48. Defendants’ conduct as described above is unlawful, is capable of repetition, and will continue unless restrained and enjoined by the Court. The problem has been brought to Facebook’s attention by the press, and they have shown no indication of intent to change the functionality of the Ad Platform.
49. In the event that Class Members are not eligible for class certification under the federal rules, they request class certification under California law.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT ONE
(Violations of the Fair Housing Act) 50. This claim incorporates all of the above. 51. Plaintiffs and Class Members are members of groups protected by the Fair Housing Act. 52. Through its Ad Platform’s “Exclude People” function, Defendant Facebook has made, printed, published, and caused to be published, advertisements with respect to sale or rental of dwellings that indicate preference and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, and national origin. 53. Through the Ad Platform, ad buyer Doe Defendants have made, printed, published, and caused to be published, advertisements with respect to sale or rental of dwellings that indicate preference and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, and national origin. 54. Through the functioning of and publication upon Facebook’s Ad Platform, these discriminatory advertisements have been withheld from Plaintiffs and Class Members based on discriminatory selections under “Exclude People” by Doe Defendants. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class
11
Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999

Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 13 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave.
Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706
916-202-3018

Members were harmed by not having the same opportunities for housing as Facebook users who were not discriminated against.
COUNT TWO (Violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) 55. This claim incorporates all of the above. 56. Plaintiffs and Class Members are members of groups protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 57. Through its Ad Platform’s “Exclude People” function, Defendant Facebook has made, printed, published, and caused to be published, advertisements with respect to employment that indicate preference and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. 58. Through the Ad Platform, ad buyer Doe Defendants have made, printed, published, and caused to be published, advertisements with respect to employment that indicate preference and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. 59. Through the functioning of, and publication upon, Facebook’s Ad Platform, these discriminatory advertisements have been withheld from Plaintiffs and Class Members based on discriminatory selections under “Exclude People” by Doe Defendants. 60. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class Members were harmed by not having the same opportunities for employment as Facebook users who were not discriminated against.
JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class they seek to represent, demand a jury on any issue so triable of right by a jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Class Members, request judgment be entered against Defendants and that the Court grant the following: 1. An order determining that this action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that Plaintiffs are proper class representatives, that Plaintiffs’ attorneys be appointed Class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that Class notice be promptly issued (or under California law in the alternative);
12
Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999

Case 3:16-cv-06440 Document 1 Filed 11/03/16 Page 14 of 14

1

2.

2 action;

3

3.

4

4.

5

5.

6

6.

7

7.

8

8.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave.
Ste. 115B Albany, CA 94706
916-202-3018

Judgment against Defendants for Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ asserted causes of Appropriate declaratory relief against Defendants; Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants; An award of statutory damages to Plaintiffs and Class Members; An award of civil penalties against Defendants; An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and Any and all relief to which Plaintiffs and the Class may be entitled.
Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MOST /s/ William Most__________ William Most (State Bar No. 279100) Counsel for Plaintiffs Suzanne-Juliette Mobley, Karen Savage, and Victor Onuoha AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP /s/ Jason R. Flanders_______ Jason R. Flanders (State Bar No. 238007) Counsel for Plaintiffs Suzanne-Juliette Mobley, Karen Savage, and Victor Onuoha
13
Class Action Complaint Against Facebook and Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999

 
 Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 58

1

Jahan C. Sagafi (State Bar No. 224887) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

2

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111

3

Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

4 Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

5

Adam T. Klein (admitted pro hac vice) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

6

685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017

7

Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

8 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com

9

Jason R. Flanders (State Bar No. 238007) Sarah M.K. Hoffman (State Bar No. 308568)

10

AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP 828 San Pablo Ave., Ste. 115B

11

Albany, CA 94706 Phone: (916) 202-3018

12

Email: jrf@atalawgroup.com Email: smkh@atalawgroup.com

P. David Lopez (admitted pro hac vice) Peter Romer-Friedman (admitted pro hac vice) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW Second Floor West Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 847-4400 Facsimile: (646) 952-9114 E-mail: pdl@outtengolden.com E-mail: prf@outtengolden.com
William Most (State Bar No. 279100) LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MOST 201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 114, # 101 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: (504) 509-5023 Email: williammost@gmail.com

13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16 SUZANNE-JULIETTE MOBLEY, DANIEL
17 ADRIAN MANRIQUEZ, and VICTOR ONUOHA, on behalf of themselves and all
18 others similarly situated,

19

Plaintiffs,

20

vs.

21 FACEBOOK, INC.,

22

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 58

1

Individual and Representative Plaintiffs Suzanne-Juliette Mobley, Daniel Adrian

2 Manriquez, and Victor Onuoha (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

3 situated, allege, upon personal knowledge as to themselves and upon information and belief as to

4 other matters, as follows:

5

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

6

1. This is a class action brought by Plaintiffs against Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”)

7 alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), the

8 Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §3601, et seq., the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C.

9 §1691, et seq. (“ECOA”), the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S. C. §§ 1981 & 1982 (“Section

10 1981” and “Section 1982”), as well as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov.

11 Code § 12900, et seq. (“FEHA”), the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

12 § 17200, et seq. (“UCL”), and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civil Code § 51(b).

13

2. With more than 191,000,000 users in the United States and over a billion users

14 worldwide, Facebook is one of the most popular web sites in the world for individuals to obtain

15 information of all kinds. Facebook is also one of the most popular tools for businesses to recruit

16 applicants for employment, housing, and credit opportunities (the “Relevant Opportunities”), and

17 for individuals to seek and pursue the Relevant Opportunities.

18

3. Facebook provides tools to businesses (“Businesses”) to allow them to target

19 particular individuals and groups of individuals based on information about Facebook users that

20 Facebook collects, analyzes, and categorizes. The tools that Facebook provides Businesses enable

21 and encourage discrimination by excluding African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans—but

22 not white Americans—from receiving advertisements for the Relevant Opportunities.

23

4. By designing and providing those tools to Businesses, Facebook has engaged in a

24 pattern or practice of providing racially discriminatory marketing, recruitment, sourcing,

- 1 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 3 of 58

1 advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of employers, housing

2 providers, and creditors in violation of federal and state civil rights laws.

3

5. In 1866, Congress enacted Sections 1981 and 1982 to ensure that all persons would

4 have an equal right to make and enforce contracts and purchase and sell real property. 42 U.S.C.

5 §§ 1981, 1982.

6

6. In 1964, due to the intransigence of ongoing systemic discrimination caused by

7 individual bad actors and societal forces, Congress enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to ban

8 employment discrimination based on race, national origin, and other protected classes, and in 1968

9 Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act to ban housing

10 discrimination based on race, national origin, and other protected classes. Through these laws,

11 Congress mandated that employers and employment agencies cannot engage in discriminatory

12 marketing, hiring, or recruitment services and that employers, employment agencies, salespeople,

13 and corporations cannot publish discriminatory employment or housing advertisements.

14

7. Likewise, in 1974, Congress enacted the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to ban

15 discrimination in credit transactions, and the federal government has interpreted ECOA to ban

16 discriminatory marketing services and the discriminatory publication of credit opportunities,

17 including advertising that would discourage a person from applying for credit.

18

8. For decades, federal courts and enforcement agencies have understood that Title VII,

19 the FHA, and ECOA provide a cause of action against entities engaged in discriminatory

20 advertising, marketing, or recruitment, not only when the content of the relevant material expresses

21 bias for or against a particular group, but also when certain people or communities are targeted to

22 receive the relevant materials or are excluded from receiving the relevant materials, regardless of

23 the content of the materials.

24

9. More generally, these federal civil rights laws, as well as Section 1981 and Section

- 2 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 4 of 58

1 1982, ban discrimination in the process by which companies recruit, hire, source, and/or procure

2 applicants for employment, housing, and credit opportunities.

3

10. In 1959, the California Legislature enacted the Fair Employment and Housing Act,

4 which has long barred discriminatory marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding,

5 information, and/or hiring services in which companies seek applicants for economic opportunities.

6

11. Before the development of the modern internet, if a Business wanted to recruit

7 workers, sell or rent housing, or offer credit opportunities, the company would likely hire a

8 marketing firm to determine the content of advertisements to send to prospective applicants; decide

9 the audience to be targeted by the advertisements; identify which publications to place the

10 advertisements; contact and negotiate with newspapers, magazines, television stations, and delivery

11 people to place the advertisements; and pay for the advertisements. The marketing firm could help

12 the Business to determine how placing advertisements in different types of publications or media or

13 delivering mail or flyers to the homes of residents in certain areas would reach a desired population

14 of individuals, who would respond to the advertisements by applying for employment, housing, or

15 credit opportunities. In some cases, marketing firms would—in contravention of federal and state

16 civil rights laws—offer tools for Businesses to target advertising to white Americans and/or exclude

17 African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans, and marketing firms would execute such

18 discriminatory targeting strategies on behalf of those Businesses.

19

12. In the modern day, when Businesses want to recruit applicants for employment,

20 housing, and credit opportunities, Facebook performs the necessary functions to create the

21 advertisement; collect, develop and provide databases of information on Facebook users to

22 Businesses so that such Businesses can discriminate between various populations in their

23 recruitment, marketing and/or or advertising campaigns; develop the recruitment, marketing and/or

24 advertising strategy to determine which people will and will not receive the advertisements; and

- 3 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 5 of 58

1 deliver the advertisements to those people.

2

13. Facebook in part or in whole creates, develops, collects, analyzes, categorizes,

3 channels, and delivers the marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information,

4 and/or hiring services that employers, housing providers, and creditors use to identify, communicate

5 with, recruit, advertise for, seek, hire, and/or attract applicants for employment, housing, and credit

6 opportunities. By creating, developing, channeling, collecting, analyzing, categorizing, and

7 executing these marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring

8 services, Facebook has violated the federal and state civil rights laws set forth herein by

9 encouraging, enabling, and performing discriminatory marketing, recruitment, sourcing,

10 advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for Businesses that seek applicants for

11 employment, housing, and credit opportunities.

12

14. At the heart of Facebook’s powerful marketing platform are tools for advertisers to

13 exclude or include Facebook users who will view an advertisement, and those tools facially

14 discriminate based on various protected classes, including race and national origin, or discriminate

15 based on other characteristics that have an unjustified adverse impact based on race or national

16 origin, including the zip code a person lives in or characteristics that are similar to a company’s

17 existing customers.

18

15. In short, Facebook is not a passive player in the commercial market in which

19 Businesses seek employment, housing and credit opportunities. Instead, Facebook’s platform and

20 tools are a central aspect of Businesses’ ability to selectively market, recruit, source, advertise, and

21 brand employment, housing, and credit opportunities in a discriminatory manner. While Facebook

22 believes that it is desirable to limit which Facebook users will see an advertisement based on the

23 race, national origin, and/or location of the Facebook user, federal and state law prohibit racial and

24 national origin discrimination in affording employment, housing, and credit opportunities. Rather

- 4 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 6 of 58

1 than promoting nondiscrimination and integration—the twin aims of federal and state civil rights

2 laws—discriminatory marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or

3 hiring services perpetuate segregation, discrimination, and division in America.

4

16. While it is well-settled that redlining (the exclusion of whole communities from

5 economic opportunities, such as mortgage lending or housing purchases) constitutes unlawful

6 discrimination, Facebook’s discriminatory marketing platform enables employers, housing

7 providers, and creditors to draw a red line around a predominantly African American, Latino, or

8 Asian American community and exclude the residents in that community from receiving

9 advertisements about employment, housing, and credit opportunities.

10

17. Until Facebook ceases its discriminatory marketing, recruitment, sourcing,

11 advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services, people of color who seek employment,

12 housing, and credit opportunities will continue to be denied economic opportunities and all

13 communities will be denied the benefits of living in a more equal, united, and integrated society.

14

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15

18. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Plaintiffs

16 assert federal claims under Title VII, the FHA, ECOA, Section 1981, and Section 1982; under 28

17 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) as Plaintiffs seek to secure equitable and other relief under federal civil rights

18 laws; under 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A) as Plaintiffs seek appropriate relief regarding a

19 discriminatory housing practice under the Fair Housing Act; under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), as

20 Plaintiffs seek relief under Title VII; and under 15 U.S.C. § 1691e(f), as Plaintiffs seek relief under

21 ECOA.

22

19. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under the

23 California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the

24 Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as Plaintiffs’ FEHA, UCL,

- 5 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 7 of 58

1 and Unruh Act claims are so related to their federal claims in this action such that they form part of

2 the same case or controversy.

3

20. The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over all of the claims in this action

4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), as the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5

5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, and it is a class action in which members of the plaintiff

6 Class are citizens of different states than Facebook.

7

21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Facebook. There is general jurisdiction

8 over Facebook, as Facebook’s corporate headquarters are located in this District in Menlo Park,

9 California, Facebook conducts substantial business throughout this District and in the State of

10 California, and Facebook employs thousands of workers in the State. Facebook has consented to

11 this Court asserting personal jurisdiction over Facebook, as Facebook’s Statement of Rights and

12 Responsibilities requires its users to resolve any disputes in the Northern District of California or a

13 state court located in San Mateo County and requires its users to “submit to the personal jurisdiction 14 of such courts for the purpose of litigating all such claims.”1

15

22. Declaratory and injunctive relief is sought and authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and

16 2202.

17

23. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), as the sole Defendant

18 resides in this District, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as a substantial part of the events or

19 omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District, where Facebook conducts its

20 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services and

21 other activities. Venue is also proper because Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities

22 requires its users to resolve any disputes in the Northern District of California or a state court

23 located in San Mateo County. The same Statement of Rights and Responsibilities provides that

24 1 See https://www.facebook.com/terms.php. - 6 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 8 of 58

1 “The laws of the State of California will govern this Statement, as well as any claim that might arise

2 between you and us, without regard to conflict of law provisions.”

3

24. Pursuant to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EOEC”) work-

4 sharing agreement with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), the

5 charges of discrimination of Manriquez and Onuoha are considered dually filed with the DFEH. By

6 notice dated February 7, 2017, the DFEH dismissed Onuoha’s cases and issued a Notice of Right to

7 Sue, and by notice dated February 7, 2017, the EEOC issued Notice of Right to Sue to Onuoha.

8 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Onuoha’s charge of discrimination,

9 DFEH right to sue letter, and EEOC right to sue letter.

10

THE PARTIES

11

25. Plaintiff Suzanne-Juliette Mobley is an African-American resident of New Orleans,

12 Orleans, and lives in a predominantly African-American community. More than 70 percent of the

13 residents of the zip code in which Mobley resides are African American. Mobley is a Community

14 Engagement Manager, a mother, and a regular Facebook user. Throughout the past year, Mobley

15 has sought and/or has been interested in obtaining housing, employment, and credit opportunities,

16 and in doing so has reviewed advertisements that various Businesses and Facebook selected for

17 Mobley to receive.

18

26. Plaintiff Daniel Adrian Manriquez is a Latino resident of Phoenix, Arizona, and lives

19 in a predominantly Latino community. More than 53 percent of the residents of the zip code in

20 which Manriquez resides are Latino and more than 13 percent are African American. Manriquez is

21 a regular Facebook user. Throughout the past year, Manriquez has sought and/or has been

22 interested in obtaining housing, employment, and credit opportunities, and in doing so has reviewed

23 advertisements that various Businesses and Facebook selected for Manriquez to receive.

24

27. Plaintiff Victor Onuoha is an African American resident of Gretna, Louisiana, and

- 7 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 9 of 58

1 lives in a predominantly non-white community. More than 38 percent of the residents of the zip

2 code in which Onuoha resides are African American and more than 15 percent are Latino. Onuoha

3 is a regular Facebook user. Throughout the past year, Onuoha has sought and/or has been interested

4 in obtaining housing, employment, and credit opportunities, and in doing so has reviewed

5 advertisements that various Businesses and Facebook selected for Onuoha to receive.

6

28. Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) is a publicly traded corporation,

7 headquartered at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California, 94025, incorporated under the laws of

8 the State of Delaware. Facebook owns and operates an online social networking web site that

9 allows its billion-plus daily users to communicate with each other through the sharing of text,

10 photograph, and video. Part of Facebook’s web site is an Ad Platform that allows Businesses and

11 people to pay money to have Facebook provide marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising,

12 branding, information, and/or hiring services for such Businesses, including displaying

13 advertisements for employment, housing, and credit opportunities. In 2015, Facebook earned 95

14 percent of its $17.93 billion in revenues from third parties who advertised on Facebook.

15

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

16

29. According to Facebook’s 2015 Annual Report, “Facebook is a mobile application

17 and website that enables people to connect, share, discover, and communicate with each other on

18 mobile devices and personal computers.” Facebook “had 1.04 billion daily active users (DAUs) on 19 average in December 2015.” Id.2 “There are a number of different ways to engage with people on

20 Facebook, the most important of which is News Feed which displays an algorithmically-ranked

21 series of stories and advertisements individualized for each person.” Id.

22

30. According to Facebook’s 2015 Annual Report, Facebook “generate[s] substantially

23 all of [its] revenue from selling advertising placements to marketers. [Its] ads let marketers reach

24 2 See https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/annual_reports/2015-AnnualReport.pdf (Facebook, Inc. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2015).

- 8 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 10 of 58

1 people based on a variety of factors including age, gender, location, interests, and behaviors.

2 Marketers purchase ads that can appear in multiple places including on Facebook, Instagram, and

3 third-party applications and websites.”

4

31. In advertising its marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding,

5 information, and/or hiring services to Businesses, including employers, housing providers, and

6 creditors, Facebook emphasizes how its services can be used to identify or target people who fall 7 into various demographics groups:3

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

32. In describing “How to target Facebook Ads” in order to “[r]efine your advertising to

20 reach the people who matter most to your business,” Facebook states that the advertiser should

21 “[c]hoose the right audience” to “target specific groups[.]” It encourages advertisers to use

22 “[l]ocation targeting” that “allows you to reach customers in key locations by country,

23 state/province, city and zip code” based on Facebook users’ “stated location on their Timeline” and

24 3 See https://www.facebook.com/business/products/ads/ad-targeting (in the “facebook business” section: “Choose your audience: Connect with the people who will love your business.”).

- 9 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 11 of 58

1 “their IP (Internet Protocol) address.” In addition, Facebook encourages advertisers to “refine your

2 ad’s target audience based on content people have shared about themselves in their Facebook 3 profiles, such as age, gender, relationship status, education and type of work they do.”4

4

33. In describing how its “detailed targeting” function works—the primary Core

5 Audience function for manually targeting particular groups of people—Facebook gives advertisers

6 step-by-step instructions on how to click on the various drop-down menus to “include” certain types

7 of people and “exclude” other types of people. The categories that can be used to exclude or

8 include Facebook users in the final audience who will receive advertisements include

9 “Demographics,” “Interests,” and “Behaviors,” and these categories have a number of sub-

10 categories that can be selected to target with precision which individuals will receive

11 advertisements.

12

34. When Businesses use Facebook’s suggested drop-down forms to select which

13 Facebook users will receive their advertisements, Facebook encourages those Businesses to “Show 14 your ads to the right people in the right places.” Facebook Ads Manager, Create an Ad.5 Similarly,

15 Facebook’s web page that gives a description of how to target Facebook users through

16 advertisements states in its title “Easier, More Effective Ways to Reach the Right People on 17 Facebook.”6 And a similar web page describes “Targeting tips to reach the right people,” and 18 displays a picture of two women who appear to be white.7

19

35. As Facebook recently explained in demonstrating how Businesses can use the

20 4 See https://www.facebook.com/business/a/online-sales/ad-targeting-details/ (in the “facebook
21 business” section: “How to target Facebook Ads: Refine your advertising to reach the people who
matter most to your business.”) 22 5 See https://www.facebook.com/business/help/132037906870538 (in the “facebook business”
section, describing the “Facebook Ads Manager” and the “Create an Ad” application). 23 6 See https://www.facebook.com/business/news/Core-Audiences (in the “facebook business”
section: “Easier, More Effective Ways to Reach the Right People on Facebook”). 24 7 See https://www.facebook.com/business/a/facebook-ads-targeting-tips (in the “facebook business”
section: “Targeting tips to reach the right people”).

- 10 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 12 of 58

1 Primary Core Audience function to manually target certain groups of Facebook users, by using its

2 numerous drop-down menus, an advertiser creates its “final audience.” As Facebook explained, the

3 final audience could meet the following criteria:

4

 People in the United States

 Who are between the ages of 15-35

5

 And are also men

 They must also use either an iPhone 6 OR an iPhone 6 Plus

6

 They must also be interested in action games to be in my audience

 However, if they meet all of the above but have a 2G network connection, then

7

they’ll be excluded from my audience.8

8

36. While some of these characteristics that are “include[d]” or “exclude[d]” may seem

9 innocuous, numerous protected characteristics that involve or relate to race, national origin,

10 ethnicity, sex, national origin, religion, and age, can be used to select which Facebook users will

11 have the opportunity to view the advertisement and which Facebook users will not be afforded the

12 same opportunity.

13

37. Through its “Demographics” category and “Ethnic Affinity” sub-category, Facebook

14 encourages, enables, and assists advertisers to include or exclude who will view the advertisements

15 based on the race or perceived race of the Facebook user. The “Demographics-Ethnic Affinity”

16 choices are the following:

17

 African American (US)

18

 Asian American (US)  Hispanic (US – All)

19

 Hispanic (US – Bilingual)

 Hispanic (US – English dominant)

20

 Hispanic (US – Spanish Dominant)

21 Facebook Ads Manager, Create an Ad.9

22 8 See Digital Marketer, Facebook Flex Targeting: Now You Can Have Your Cake AND-OR Eat It
23 Too (Nov. 13, 2015), http://www.digitalmarketer.com/facebook-flex-targeting/ (describing
Facebook’s demonstration of its targeting to identify a “final audience”). 24 9 See https://www.facebook.com/business/help/132037906870538 (in the “facebook business”
section, describing the “Facebook Ads Manager” and the “Create an Ad” application).

- 11 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 13 of 58

1

38. Unlike the African American, Asian American, and Hispanic “Demographics”

2 groups that can be used by Businesses to exclude Facebook users in these demographic groups from

3 receiving Facebook advertisements, Facebook does not have a white “Demographics” group that

4 can be used to similarly exclude white Facebook users or Facebook users who have an affinity for

5 whites.

6

39. Based on a user’s online activity, Facebook automatically designates its users as

7 having a particular racial or Demographics-Ethnic Identity, which, in turn, is used to exclude or

8 include the person in marketing or recruiting from advertisers.

9

40. Based on a user’s online activity, Facebook automatically designates its users in a

10 particular Expat subcategory/national origin, which, in turn, is used to exclude or include the person

11 in marketing or recruiting from advertisers.

12

41. In order to assist Businesses in identifying individuals who would may be seeking

13 employment, housing, and credit opportunities, Facebook creates profiles of its users—based on

14 their Internet activity—so that Facebook can assist advertisers who want to target their

15 advertisements to Facebook users who may be interested in employment, housing, or credit

16 opportunities. For example, by selecting drop-down choices provided by Facebook (as well as

17 categorizes that can be searched for in a search engine), Businesses can use Facebook’s services to

18 target their advertisements to individuals who fall into the following categories of people who have

19 expressed an interest in or have liked Facebook pages related to housing, employment, or credit:

20

EMPLOYMENT

HOUSING

CREDIT

21

Job

Job hunting

Housing Affordable housing

Credit cards Credit (finance)

22

Job fair

Apartment

Credit history

Finding a New Job

Multi-family residential Line of credit

23

Looking for a New Job Renting

Creditor

Employment

Rent-to-own

24

Employment website Likely to move

Car finance Title loan

- 12 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 14 of 58

1

EMPLOYMENT

HOUSING

CREDIT

2

Employment agency

New mover

Student loan

Employment contract Mortgage loans

Student Loan

3

Support

Turnover (employment) Mortgage modification Private student loan

4

Involuntary termination Second mortgage

Student loan default

of employment

in U.S.

5

Dismissal (employment) Flexible mortgage

Student Loans

6

Permanent employment Subprime mortgage

Company Student debt

7

Application for

Recent homebuyer

Employment

8

Temporary Work

Recent mortgage borrower

9

Jobless

Unemployed

10

Being unemployed

Unemployed Looking

11

for work

Unemployment

12

extension

13

42. In addition to encouraging, enabling, and assisting advertisers to exclude or include

14 Facebook users from receiving advertisements based on their racial demographic backgrounds and

15 their interests in employment, housing, and credit opportunities, Facebook encourages and assists

16 Businesses in excluding and including individuals who live in particular locations, such as

17 individuals who live in a specific zip code, as well as individuals who were “recently in this

18 location” or were “traveling in this location.”

19

43. When an advertiser heeds Facebook’s encouragement to exclude or include people

20 who live in certain zip codes, Facebook’s mapping tool draws a bright red line around the zip code

21 that is being excluded (and whose residents will not receive the advertisement) and a blue line

22 around the zip code that is being included (and whose residents will receive the advertisement).

23 Thus, Businesses who are marketing to and recruiting applicants for employment, housing, and

24 credit opportunities can literally redline an entire zip code or group of zip codes.

- 13 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 15 of 58

1

44. By encouraging Businesses to exclude and include people who live in particular

2 locations, especially zip codes, and by giving them the tools and services to do so with precision,

3 Facebook encourages, enables and assists Businesses to place advertisements that often will

4 disproportionately reach people of a particular racial or ethnic background or national origin and

5 will not reach other people from different racial or ethnic backgrounds or national origin.

6

45. As Facebook is aware, metropolitan areas throughout the United States are highly

7 segregated based on race, such that marketing to or recruiting applicants for employment, housing,

8 or credit opportunities based on the zip code in which the potential applicants reside can be

9 expected to exclude or include certain communities based on race or national origin, and has the

10 effect of excluding African American, Latino, and other non-white communities.

11

46. Similar to Facebook’s detailed targeting tool that excludes Facebook users based on

12 location, Facebook encourages Businesses to limit the geographic scope of their advertisements by

13 a mileage radius around a single location. For example, by allowing advertisers to select a 1 mile

14 radius drop-down button, Facebook encourages, enables, and assists Businesses to send an

15 advertisement only to people within one mile in any direction of a particular place. In highly

16 segregated areas, limiting the geographic scope of an advertisement to a one-mile radius will

17 disproportionately reach people of a particular racial or ethnic background or national origin and

18 will not reach other people from different racial or ethnic backgrounds or national origin.

19

47. All of the information that Facebook provides to Businesses that enables those

20 Businesses to determine who will and who will not receive their advertisements is created or

21 developed in whole or in part by Facebook, including information on Facebook users’

22 Demographics, Ethnic Affinity, Interests, and Location.

23

48. In addition to encouraging, enabling, and assisting advertisers to employ features

24 that expressly target individuals based on race, national origin, and their geographic location,

- 14 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 16 of 58

1 Facebook encourages, enables, and assists Businesses to target advertisements to only their existing

2 customers (i.e., “Custom Audiences”) and to target advertisements to individuals who are similar to

3 their existing customers (i.e., “Lookalike Audiences”). As Facebook explains, “A Lookalike

4 Audience is a way to reach new people who are likely to be interested in your business because 5 they’re similar to people who already are.”10 Facebook uses “traits” such as “location, age, gender

6 and interests” to determine which Facebook users are similar to an advertiser’s existing 7 customers.11 Facebook, not the advertiser, determines which customers are similar and will, thus,

8 be targeted to receive an advertisement in a Lookalike Audience. After the advertiser uploads its 9 list of existing customers, Facebook will “hash [its] data, upload it and create [the] audience[.]”12

10

49. In describing “Targeting tips to reach the right people,” Facebook states that it

11 “recommend[s] creating your ads through Ads Manager, using the Facebook pixel, and maintaining

12 a list of your current customers to set yourself up for ads targeting success.” To do this effectively,

13 Facebook recommends that the Business (1) “Understand your target audience,” especially “Who

14 they are based on demographics,” (2) “Be specific about who you want to reach,” because “[w]hen

15 you narrow your targeting you can focus on reaching the people who matter most to your business,”

16 including by targeting Custom Audiences, and (3) “Reach interested and engaged audiences,” by

17 “find[ing] more people on Facebook who share traits – like location, age, gender, and interests – 18 with your customers[.]”13

19

50. On Facebook’s web site, Facebook describes for users “How does Facebook decide

20 which ads to show me,” and states that “[t]o decide which ads to show you, we use . . . information

21 10 See https://www.facebook.com/business/help/164749007013531 (in the “facebook business”
section: “Introduction to Lookalike Audiences”). 22 11 See https://www.facebook.com/business/a/facebook-ads-targeting-tips (in the “facebook
business” section: “Targeting tips to reach the right people”). 23 12 See https://www.facebook.com/business/help/170456843145568 (in the “facebook business”
section: “How do I create a Custom Audience from my customer file?”). 24 13 See https://www.facebook.com/business/a/facebook-ads-targeting-tips (in the “facebook
business” section: “Targeting tips to reach the right people”).

- 15 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 17 of 58

1 about you from your Facebook account (ex: your age, your gender, your location, the devices you 2 use to access Facebook).”14

3

51. When Facebook places an advertisement on a customer’s personal Facebook page,

4 Facebook gives the customer an opportunity to see why the customer has been selected to see that

5 particular advertisement. Under the so-called “Why am I seeing this” function, Facebook tells

6 customers, for example, that they are seeing the advertisement because the Business wants to reach

7 people who may be similar to their customers, people who are part of an audience called Ethnic

8 affinity-African American (US), or people who are in specific location or area.

9

52. As the Washington Post recently explained: “When combined with the information

10 you’ve already given Facebook, through your profile and your clicks, you end up with what is

11 arguably the most complete consumer profile on earth: a snapshot not only of your Facebook

12 activity, but your behaviors elsewhere in the online (and offline!) worlds.” Those data points

13 include: “Location,” “Age,” “Gender,” “Language,” “Education level,” “Ethnic affinity,” “Income

14 and net worth,” “Home ownership and type,” “users who have new jobs,” “Employer,” “Industry,” 15 and “Job title.”15

16

53. Facebook has emerged as one of the largest venues for employers, housing

17 providers, and credit providers to seek applicants for employment, housing, and credit

18 opportunities. For example, most individuals who seek employment opportunities use Facebook to

19 look for work, the vast majority of job seekers have Facebook profiles, and large numbers of

20 employers, housing providers, and credit providers use Facebook to recruit, hire, market, advertise,

21 and brand themselves to individuals who are seeking employment, housing, and credit

22 14 See https://www.facebook.com/help/562973647153813?helpref=related (in the Facebook “help center” section: “How does Facebook decide which ads to show me and how can I control the ads I
23 see?”). 15 Caitlin Dewey, 98 personal data points that Facebook uses to target ads to you, Wash. Post
24 (Aug. 19, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/08/19/98-personaldata-points-that-facebook-uses-to-target-ads-to-you/?utm_term=.e8c925794fe0.

- 16 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 18 of 58

1 opportunities. For example, a 2015 survey reported that 92 percent of employment recruiters user 2 social media to recruit applicants for employment.16 In addition, a 2016 study by the Society for

3 Human Resource Management found that 66 percent of employers who recruit via social media 4 employ Facebook to recruit applicants for employment.17 Notably, the ability to recruit passive job

5 candidates is the top reason that employers use social media to recruit applicants for employment. 6 And some employers even use social media as their primary source of recruiting.18

7

54. Employers, housing providers, and credit providers not only sponsor advertisements

8 on Facebook users’ news feeds to seek applicants for specific employment, housing, or credit

9 opportunities, but they also use Facebook as a main source of showcasing their brands to potential 10 applicants.19 Enhancing a company’s brand increases the likelihood that a person will apply for

11 employment, housing, or credit opportunities with that company in the future.

12

55. Upon information and belief, Facebook has engaged in a pattern or practice of

13 providing marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring

14 services for and on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for employment, housing, and credit

15 opportunities via Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook

16 customers will receive such marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information,

17 and/or hiring advertisements for employment, housing, and credit opportunities based expressly on

18 race or national origin of the Facebook user and based on facially neutral characteristics of the

19 Facebook user that have a disparate impact on African American, Latino, Asian American and other

20 16 AdWeek, Survey: 92% of Recruiters Use Social Media to Find High-Quality Candidates (Sept.
21 22, 2015), http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/survey-96-of-recruiters-use-social-media-to-find-
high-quality-candidates/627040. 22 17 SHRM Survey Findings: Using Social Media for Talent Acquisition—Recruitment and
Screening (Jan. 7, 2016), at 9, https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-
23 surveys/Documents/SHRM-Social-Media-Recruiting-Screening-2015.pdf. 18 Id. at 7, 11.
24 19 See, e.g., Link Humans, How Social Media is Used for Recruiting in 2013 (Study),
http://linkhumans.com/blog/social-recruiting-2013.

- 17 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 19 of 58

1 non-white persons, including the location of the Facebook user and the user’s similarity to the

2 company’s existing customers (“pattern or practice”).

3

56. Upon information and belief, Facebook’s pattern or practice facially discriminates

4 against African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white Facebook users whom

5 Facebook has identified as African Americans, Latinos, or Asian Americans, or having an affinity

6 for or an association with such groups, and its pattern or practice has as an unjustified disparate

7 impact on African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals.

8

57. Upon information and belief, by providing marketing, recruitment, sourcing,

9 advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses that seek

10 applicants for employment, housing, and credit opportunities via Facebook based on a racial or

11 ethnic group that Facebook knows or believes the user has an affinity for, an association with, is a

12 member of, or otherwise likes, Facebook is engaging in disparate treatment, race- or national

13 origin-based stereotyping, and/or associational discrimination based on race or national origin, and

14 Facebook is engaging in practices that have an unjustified disparate impact on African American,

15 Latinos, Asian American, and other non-white individuals.

16

58. Upon information and belief, for a substantial period of time Plaintiffs and members

17 of the proposed Class have not received (or have not regularly received) Facebook advertisements

18 for employment, housing and/or credit opportunities from Facebook and Businesses that use

19 Facebook’s marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring to

20 seek applicants for such employment, housing and/or credit opportunities, including advertisements

21 that were provided to similarly situated white individuals and/or individuals who lived or were

22 present in predominantly white zip codes. As a result, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed

23 Class have been denied employment, housing, and credit opportunities by Facebook and such

24 Businesses.

- 18 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 20 of 58

1

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

2

59. Class definition. Plaintiffs Mobley, Manriquez, and Onuoha bring each claim set

3 forth herein pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3), on behalf of

4 the following persons:

5

All African American, Latino, and Asian American Facebook users located within

the United States who were interested in receiving or pursuing employment,

6

housing, and credit opportunities, and due to Facebook’s marketing, recruitment,

sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services that facially

7

discriminate based on race or national origin or have a disparate impact based on

race or national origin, were excluded from receiving marketing, recruitment,

8

sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements for

housing, employment, or credit opportunities at any time from the earliest date

9

actionable under the limitations period applicable to the given claim, until the date of

judgment in this action.

10

The limitations period for each claim is set forth below, within the allegations for each claim.

11

60. Not included in the Class are the following individuals and/or entities: Facebook’s

12

officers and directors and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their

13

staffs and immediate family members.

14

61. Numerosity. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

15

The exact size of the class is not known. Upon information and belief, the class consists of millions

16

of Facebook users, and those users are geographically dispersed throughout the United States.

17

62. According to Facebook, there are nearly 26 million Facebook users whom Facebook

18

identifies as “African American (US)” or having an affinity as African American; more than 8

19

million Facebook users whom Facebook identifies as “Asian American (US)” or having an affinity

20

as Asian American; more than 32 million Facebook users whom Facebook identifies as “Hispanic

21

(US – All)” or having an affinity as Hispanic.

22

63. Commonality. There are numerous questions of law or fact that are common to the

23

class members. Upon information and belief, the class members were subjected to and injured by

24

Facebook’s same pattern, practice, or policy of providing marketing, recruitment, sourcing,

- 19 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 21 of 58

1 advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses that seek

2 applicants for employment, housing, and credit opportunities via Facebook and that employ

3 Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing,

4 recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements for

5 employment, housing, and credit opportunities based expressly on race or national origin of the

6 Facebook user or based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate

7 impact on African American, Latino, Asian American, and other non-white persons, including the

8 location of the Facebook user and the user’s similarity to the company’s existing customers. The

9 questions of law or fact that are common to the class members include:

10

(a) Did Facebook on a nationwide basis provide marketing, recruitment, sourcing,

11

advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services to employers, housing

12

providers, and credit providers that limit which Facebook users will receive

13

advertisements based on their race, national origin, or location.

14

(b) Did Plaintiffs and other members or the proposed Class receive fewer Facebook

15

advertisements for employment, housing, and/or credit opportunities because of their

16

race or national origin, perceived race or national origin, or location.

17

(c) Whether Facebook’s pattern or practice constitutes unlawful disparate treatment

18

against African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white

19

individuals in the marketing or recruitment of applicants for employment, housing,

20

and credit opportunities in violation of Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, the Equal

21

Credit Opportunity Act, Section 1981, Section 1982, the California Fair

22

Employment and Housing Act, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

23

(d) Whether Facebook’s pattern or practice constitutes publishing a notice or

24

advertisement relating to employment, housing, or credit that indicates a preference

- 20 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 22 of 58

1

or discrimination based on race or national origin in violation of Title VII, the Fair

2

Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the California Fair Employment

3

and Housing Act.

4

(e) Whether Facebook’s pattern or practice constitutes unlawful disparate impact

5

discrimination against African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-

6

white individuals in the marketing or recruitment of applicants for employment,

7

housing, and credit opportunities in violation of Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, the

8

Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Section 1982, and the California Fair Employment

9

and Housing Act.

10

(f) The types of injunctive and/or declaratory relief that should be ordered with respect

11

to Facebook’s past and ongoing pattern or practice.

12

(g) The types and amounts of damages that should be awarded to Plaintiffs and the

13

members of the Proposed Class.

14

64. Typicality. The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the

15 Plaintiff class they seek to represent. The claims of the Named Plaintiffs arise from the same

16 pattern or practice and rely upon the same legal theories that the challenged pattern or practice

17 violates a variety of federal and state civil rights statutes.

18

65. Adequacy. The Named Plaintiffs will adequately represent the members of the

19 Class, do not have any conflicts with the other class members, and are represented by experienced

20 counsel who have substantial experience in employment discrimination, fair housing, and credit

21 discrimination class action litigation and who will vigorously prosecute the action on behalf of the

22 class.

23

66. Predominance. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class

24 predominate over questions affecting individual class members, and a class action is superior to

- 21 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 23 of 58

1 other available methods for the fair and efficient resolution of this controversy.

2

67. Superiority. By resolving the common issues described above in a single class

3 proceeding, each member of the proposed class will receive a determination of whether Facebook

4 engaged in a pattern, practice, or policy of providing marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising,

5 branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants

6 for employment, housing, and credit opportunities via Facebook and that employ Facebook’s

7 targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing, recruitment,

8 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements for employment,

9 housing, and credit opportunities based expressly on race or national origin of the Facebook user

10 and based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate impact on

11 African American, Latino, Asian American, and other non-white persons, including the location of

12 the Facebook user and the user’s similarity to the company’s existing customers, and whether that

13 pattern, practice, or policy violated federal and/or state law. Members of the class do not have a

14 significant interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions. Other than this

15 action, no litigation concerning Facebook’s pattern or practice has been commenced by any

16 member of the class.

17

68. Manageability. Concentration of the litigation in this forum is desirable, as this

18 action challenges a company-wide practice, it will benefit the class members to have all of the class

19 members’ claims adjudicated in a single proceeding, and Facebook’s Statement of Rights and

20 Responsibilities requires all Facebook users to file suit in this District. This class action can be

21 managed without undue difficulty.

22

23

24

- 22 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 24 of 58

1

COUNTS

2

FIRST COUNT:

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.

3

(Unfair Competition Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law)

4

69. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the allegations contained in the foregoing

5 paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

6

70. Unfair practices prohibited by the UCL include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent

7 business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

8

71. Facebook committed unlawful and unfair business practices, including but not

9 limited to discriminating against Plaintiffs and Class Members because of their race or national

10 origin in violation of the FEHA’s employment discrimination and housing accommodations

11 provisions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injury in fact.

12

72. Facebook’s conduct alleged herein occurred during the four years preceding the

13 filing of this complaint.

14

73. Facebook unfairly obtained profits as a direct and proximate result of its unlawful

15 conduct alleged herein. Plaintiffs and Class Members are therefore entitled to disgorgement by

16 Facebook of those profits.

17

74. Facebook committed the unlawful actions herein despicably, maliciously,

18 fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiffs and Class

19 Members, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the

20 rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members. Plaintiffs and Class Members are therefore entitled to

21 recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof.

22

75. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to declaratory relief declaring that

23 Facebook’s pattern or practice of providing marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding,

24 information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for

- 23 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 25 of 58

1 employment and housing opportunities via Facebook and that employ Facebook’s targeting tools to

2 exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising,

3 branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements for employment and housing opportunities

4 based expressly on the race or national origin (or perceived race or national origin) of the Facebook

5 user and based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate impact

6 on African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals, including the

7 location of the Facebook user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and the user’s similarity to the

8 company’s existing customers is unlawful and appropriate injunctive relief.

9

76. The limitations period for Plaintiffs’ California UCL claims is four years. Cal. Bus.

10 & Prof. Code § 17208.

11

SECOND COUNT:

Cal. Civil Code § 51(b)

12

California Unruh Civil Rights Act

(Employment, Housing and Credit Discrimination; Intentional Discrimination)

13

77. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the allegations contained in the foregoing

14

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

15

78. The California Unruh Civil Rights Act provides in part: “All persons within the

16

jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their . . . race . . .[]or national origin .

17

. . are entitled to the full and equal . . . advantages, . . . , privileges, or services in all business

18

establishments of every kind whatsoever.” Cal. Civil Code § 51(b).

19

79. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

20

marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

21

on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for employment, housing, and credit opportunities via

22

Facebook and that employ Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will

23

receive such marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring

24

advertisements for employment, housing, and credit opportunities based expressly on race or

- 24 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 26 of 58

1 national origin of the Facebook user, Facebook has intentionally discriminated against African

2 Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals based on race or national

3 origin in violation the Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on race or

4 national origin in the advantages, privileges, or services of all business establishments.

5

80. Furthermore, Facebook’s pattern or practice of providing marketing, recruitment,

6 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses

7 that market and recruit applicants for employment, housing, and credit opportunities via Facebook

8 and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers based on a racial or

9 ethnic group that Facebook knows or believes the user has an affinity for, is a member of, or

10 otherwise likes constitutes disparate treatment, race- or national origin-based stereotyping, and

11 associational discrimination based on race or national origin, in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights

12 Act.

13

81. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

14 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to receive the same advantages,

15 privileges, and services related to employment, housing, and credit opportunities that Facebook

16 provided to similarly situated white potential applicants for such opportunities, and accordingly

17 suffered economic and non-economic harm.

18

82. The limitations period for Plaintiffs’ California Unruh Civil Rights Act claims is

19 three years.

20

THIRD COUNT:

Gov. Code § 12940(d), (k), & (i), and §12955(a), (c), (k), (g), (j)

21

Cal. Fair Employment and Housing Act

(Employment and Housing Discrimination)

22

A. FEHA Liability for an Employment Agency or for Aiding and Abetting

23

Employers

24

83. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the allegations contained in the foregoing

- 25 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 27 of 58

1 paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

2

84. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

3 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

4 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for employment, housing, and credit opportunities via

5 Facebook and that employ Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will

6 receive such marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring

7 advertisements for employment, housing, and credit opportunities based expressly on the race or

8 national origin (or perceived race or national origin) of the Facebook user and based on facially

9 neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate impact on African Americans,

10 Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals, including the location of the Facebook

11 user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and the user’s similarity to the company’s existing

12 customers, Facebook, an employment agency and a person who has aided and abetted employers,

13 has violated the California FEHA, Gov. Code §12940(d), (k), & (i), and §12955(a), (c), (k), (g), (j).

14

85. The California FEHA provides that “It is an unlawful employment practice . . . For

15 an employer [or] employment agency . . . to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent

16 discrimination and harassment from occurring.” Gov. Code § 12940(k).

17

86. Facebook is an “employment agency” under FEHA, as Facebook is “any person

18 [who] undertak[es] for compensation to procure employees or opportunities to work,” Gov. Code

19 § 12926(e), and “‘person’ includes one or more . . . corporations.” Gov. Code § 12925(d). Upon

20 information and belief, Facebook regularly receives compensation from employers to place

21 advertisements for employers—and provide related marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising,

22 branding, information, and/or hiring services to and on behalf of employers—in order to recruit

23 applicants for employment and encourage them to apply for employment with such employers.

24

87. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

- 26 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 28 of 58

1 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

2 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for employment via Facebook and that use Facebook’s

3 targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing, recruitment,

4 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements for employment based

5 expressly on the race or national origin (or perceived race or national origin) of the Facebook user

6 and based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate impact on

7 African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals, including the

8 location of the Facebook user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and the user’s similarity to the

9 company’s existing customers, Facebook, an employment agency, has failed to take all reasonable

10 steps necessary to prevent discrimination against Plaintiffs.

11

88. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs were subjected to discrimination, including

12 the receipt of discriminatory publications from and the denial of employment opportunities by

13 employers, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice; Facebook failed to take all reasonable steps to

14 prevent discrimination by affirmatively providing employers with marketing and recruitment

15 services that exclude applicants based on race or national origin or perceived race or national origin,

16 or based on facially neutral characteristics that have a disparate impact on African Americans,

17 Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals; and Facebook’s failure to take such

18 reasonable steps caused Plaintiffs to suffer injury, as Plaintiffs were denied employment

19 opportunities that were extended to similarly situated white persons.

20

89. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

21 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to receive and respond to

22 employment advertisements that Facebook provided to similarly situated white potential applicants,

23 and accordingly suffered economic and non-economic harm.

24

90. The FEHA provides that “It is an unlawful employment practice . . . [f]or any

- 27 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 29 of 58

1 employer or employment agency to print or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated any

2 publication . . . that expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination

3 as to race [or] national origin . . . or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or

4 discrimination,” Gov. Code § 12940(d), and that “race” or “national origin” “includes a perception

5 that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who

6 has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.” Gov. Code § 12926(o).

7

91. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

8 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

9 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for employment via Facebook and that use Facebook’s

10 targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing, recruitment,

11 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements for employment based

12 expressly on the race or national origin (or perceived race or national origin) of the Facebook user

13 and based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate impact on

14 African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals, including the

15 location of the Facebook user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and the user’s similarity to the

16 company’s existing customers, Facebook, an employment agency, has printed or published or

17 caused to be published any publication that expresses directly or indirectly a limitation,

18 specification, or discrimination as to race or national origin, or to intend to make such a limitation,

19 specification, or discrimination, and has thereby harmed African American, Latino, Asian American

20 and other non-white individuals who are denied employment opportunities. Gov. Code § 12940(d).

21

92. Furthermore, Facebook’s pattern or practice of providing marketing, recruitment,

22 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses

23 that seek applicants for employment via Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to

24 exclude which Facebook customers based on a racial or ethnic group that Facebook knows or

- 28 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 30 of 58

1 believes the user has an affinity for, is a member of, or otherwise likes constitutes disparate

2 treatment, race- or national origin-based stereotyping, and associational discrimination based on

3 race or national origin, and unlawful disparate impact discrimination against African American,

4 Latino, Asian American and other non-white individuals in violation of Gov. Code § 12940(d).

5

93. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

6 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to receive and respond to

7 employment advertisements that Facebook provided to similarly situated white potential applicants,

8 and accordingly suffered economic and non-economic harm.

9

94. The California FEHA provides that “It is an unlawful employment practice . . . [f]or

10 any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under this

11 part, or to attempt to do so.” Gov. Code § 12940(i).

12

95. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

13 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

14 on behalf of employers that seek applicants for employment via Facebook and that use Facebook’s

15 targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing, recruitment,

16 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements for employment based

17 expressly on the race or national origin (or perceived race or national origin) of the Facebook user

18 and based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate impact on

19 African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals, including the

20 location of the Facebook user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and the user’s similarity to the

21 company’s existing customers, Facebook, a “person,” has aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or

22 coerced employers into engaging in acts that are forbidden by Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940(a), (d), and

23 (k).

24

96. Upon information and belief, by engaging in the same pattern or practice, Facebook

- 29 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 31 of 58

1 substantially assisted, solicited, encouraged, and/or coerced employers to engage in discriminatory

2 recruiting and hiring that violates Gov. Code § 12940(a)’s prohibition on employers “because of

3 race [or] national origin” “refus[ing] to hire or employ the person,” Gov. Code § 12940(a);

4 Facebook knew that such employers were violating their duties under § 12940(a) to recruit and hire

5 in a non-discriminatory manner; and, as described above, Facebook’s own conduct violated the

6 FEHA with respect to potential applicants for employment.

7

97. Upon information and belief, by engaging in the same pattern or practice, Facebook

8 substantially assisted, solicited, encouraged, and/or coerced employers to engage in discriminatory

9 advertising in which the employers “print[ed] or circulate[d] or cause[d] to be printed or circulated

10 any publication, . . . that expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or

11 discrimination as to race [or] national origin . . . or any intent to make any such limitation,

12 specification, or discrimination,” in violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(d); Facebook knew that

13 such employers were violating their duties under § 12940(d) to print, circulate, and cause to print or

14 circulate publications that are not discriminatory; and, as described above, Facebook’s own conduct

15 violated the FEHA with respect to potential applicants for employment.

16

98. Upon information and belief, by engaging in the same pattern or practice, Facebook

17 substantially assisted, solicited, encouraged, and/or coerced employers to “fail to take all reasonable

18 steps necessary to prevent discrimination [] from occurring,” in violation of Cal. Gov. Code

19 § 12940(k); Facebook knew that such employers were violating their duties under § 12940(k) to not

20 take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination from occurring; and, as described above,

21 Facebook’s own conduct violated the FEHA with respect to potential applicants for employment.

22

99. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s aiding and abetting employers in

23 violating Gov. Code §§ 12940(a), (d) and (k), Plaintiffs and members of the putative class have

24 been denied the opportunity to receive and respond to employment advertisements that Facebook

- 30 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 32 of 58

1 provided to similarly situated white potential applicants, and accordingly suffered economic and

2 non-economic harm.

3

B. Liability for Violations of FEHA’s Housing Provisions

4

100. Under the California FEHA, “It shall be unlawful . . . For the owner of any housing

5 accommodation to discriminate against or harass any person because of the race [or] national origin

6 . . . of that person.” Gov. Code § 12955(a). Under the FEHA’s housing accommodations

7 provisions, “‘discrimination’ includes refusal to sell, rent, or lease housing accommodations;

8 includes refusal to negotiate for the sale, rental, or lease of housing accommodations; includes

9 representation that a housing accommodation is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when

10 that housing accommodation is in fact so available; includes any other denial or withholding of

11 housing accommodations; . . . includes the provision of segregated or separated housing

12 accommodations[.]” Gov. Code § 12927(c)(1). The term “‘Owner’ includes the agent, broker, or

13 salesperson of the housing accommodations. Gov. Code. § 12927(d).

14

101. The FEHA also makes it unlawful “To otherwise make unavailable or deny a

15 dwelling based on discrimination because of race [or] national origin[.]” Gov. Code § 12955(k).

16

102. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

17 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

18 on behalf of Businesses that market and recruit applicants for housing accommodations via

19 Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will

20 receive such marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring

21 advertisements for housing accommodations based expressly on the race or national origin (or

22 perceived race or national origin) of the Facebook user and based on facially neutral characteristics

23 of the Facebook user that have a disparate impact on African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans,

24 and other non-white individuals, including the location of the Facebook user (as specific as the

- 31 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 33 of 58

1 person’s zip code) and the user’s similarity to the Businesses’ existing customers, Facebook, an

2 agent or salesperson of housing accommodations, has refused to sell, rent, or lease housing

3 accommodations, has represented that housing accommodations are not available for inspection,

4 sale or rental when they are, in fact, so available, has otherwise denied or withheld housing

5 accommodations, and has provided segregated or housing accommodations in violation of

6 § 12927(c)(1), and has otherwise made unavailable or denied a dwelling because of race or national

7 origin in violation of § 12955(k).

8

103. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

9 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to receive and respond to housing

10 accommodations advertisements that Facebook provided to similarly situated white potential

11 applicants, and accordingly suffered economic and non-economic harm.

12

104. Under the California FEHA, “It shall be unlawful . . . For any person or other

13 organization or entity whose business involves real estate-related transactions to discriminate

14 against any person in making available a transaction, or in the terms and conditions of a transaction,

15 because of race [or] national origin[.]” Gov. Code § 12955(i).

16

105. Facebook is a person “whose business involves real estate-related transactions,”

17 Gov. Code § 12955(i), as Facebook is routinely involved in marketing or advertising loans for

18 “purchasing, constructing, improving, repairing, or maintaining” dwellings and/or marketing or

19 advertising real estate property. Gov. Code § 12927(h)(1).

20

106. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

21 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

22 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for housing loans via Facebook and that employ

23 Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing,

24 recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements for housing

- 32 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 34 of 58

1 loans based expressly on race or national origin (or perceived race or national origin) of the

2 Facebook user, Facebook has intentionally discriminated against African Americans, Latinos, Asian

3 Americans, and other non-white individuals in violation of Gov. Code § 12955(i), by

4 “discriminat[ing] against any person in making available a [real estate-related] transaction[.]” Gov.

5 Code § 12955(i).

6

107. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

7 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

8 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for housing loans via Facebook and that use

9 Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing,

10 recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements for housing

11 loans based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate impact on

12 African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals, including the

13 location of the Facebook user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and the user’s similarity to the

14 company’s existing customers, Facebook, has engaged in disparate impact discrimination in

15 violation of Gov. Code § 12955(i), by “discriminat[ing] against any person in making available a

16 [real estate-related] transaction[.]” Gov. Code § 12955(i).

17

108. Upon information and belief, Facebook could have adopted a less discriminatory

18 alternative practice to target potential applicants for housing loans, such as limiting any geographic

19 targeting to the relevant housing market and/or prohibiting the providers of housing loans from

20 targeting their advertisements to specific zip codes.

21

109. Furthermore, Facebook’s pattern or practice of providing marketing, recruitment,

22 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses

23 that seek applicants for housing loans via Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to

24 exclude which Facebook customers based on a racial or ethnic group that Facebook knows or

- 33 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 35 of 58

1 believes the user has an affinity for, is a member of, or otherwise likes constitutes disparate

2 treatment, race- or national origin-based stereotyping, and associational discrimination based on

3 race or national origin, and unlawful disparate impact discrimination against African American,

4 Latino, Asian American and other non-white individuals in violation of Gov. Code § 12955(i).

5

110. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

6 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to receive and respond to housing

7 loan opportunities and information that Facebook provided to similarly situated white potential

8 applicants, and accordingly suffered economic and non-economic harm.

9

111. Under the California FEHA, “It shall be unlawful . . . To deny a person access to, or

10 membership or participation in, a multiple listing service, real estate brokerage organization, or

11 other service because of race [or] national origin[.]” Gov. Code § 12955(j).

12

112. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

13 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

14 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for housing accommodations via Facebook and that use

15 Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing,

16 recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements for housing

17 accommodations based expressly on the race or national origin (or perceived race or national

18 origin) of the Facebook user and based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that

19 have a disparate impact on African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white

20 individuals, including the location of the Facebook user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and

21 the user’s similarity to the company’s existing customers, Facebook has denied “access to . . . . or

22 participation in” an “other service because of race [or] national origin” in violation of Gov. Code

23 § 12955(j).

24

113. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

- 34 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 36 of 58

1 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to receive and respond to housing

2 opportunities and information that Facebook provided to similarly situated white potential

3 applicants, and accordingly suffered economic and non-economic harm.

4

114. Under the California FEHA, “It shall be unlawful . . . For any person to aid, abet,

5 incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts or practices declared unlawful in this section,

6 or to attempt to do so.” Gov. Code § 12955(g).

7

115. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

8 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

9 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for housing accommodations and/or housing loans via

10 Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will

11 receive such marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring

12 advertisements for housing accommodations and/or housing loans based expressly on the race or

13 national origin (or perceived race or national origin) of the Facebook user and based on facially

14 neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate impact on African Americans,

15 Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals, including the location of the Facebook

16 user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and the user’s similarity to the Businesses’ existing

17 customers, Facebook, a “person,” has aided, abetting, incited, compelled and/or coerced other

18 Businesses and persons in doing acts or practices that are unlawful under Gov. Code §12955(a), (c),

19 (i), (j), (k).

20

116. Upon information and belief, by engaging in the same pattern or practice, Facebook

21 substantially assisted, solicited, encouraged, and/or coerced other Businesses and persons to make,

22 print, or publish or cause to be made, printed, or published notices, statements, and/or

23 advertisements with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that indicate a

24 preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race or national origin or an intention to make

- 35 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 37 of 58

1 such a preference, limitation, or discrimination in violation of Gov. Code § 12955(c); Facebook

2 knew that such Businesses or persons were violating their duties under § 12955(c); and, as

3 described above, Facebook’s own conduct violated the FEHA with respect to potential applicants

4 for housing opportunities.

5

117. Upon information and belief, by engaging in the same pattern or practice, Facebook

6 substantially assisted, solicited, encouraged, and/or coerced other Businesses, persons, and other

7 owners of housing to “discriminate against . . . any person because of the race [or] national origin . .

8 . of that person” in violation of Gov. Code § 12955(a) and “make unavailable or deny a dwelling

9 based on discrimination because of race [or] national origin” in violation of Gov. Code. § 12955(a);

10 Facebook knew that such Businesses or persons were violating their duties under §12955(a) and

11 (k); and, as described above, Facebook’s own conduct violated the FEHA with respect to potential

12 applicants for housing opportunities.

13

118. Upon information and belief, by engaging in the same pattern or practice, Facebook

14 substantially assisted, solicited, encouraged, and/or coerced other Businesses and persons to

15 “discriminate against any person in making available a transaction, or in the terms and conditions of

16 a [real estate-related] transaction, because of race [or] national origin” in violation of Gov. Code

17 § 12955(i); Facebook knew that such Businesses or persons were violating their duties under

18 § 12955(i); and, as described above, Facebook’s own conduct violated the FEHA with respect to

19 potential applicants for housing opportunities, including real estate-related transactions; and, as

20 described above, Facebook’s own conduct violated the FEHA with respect to potential applicants

21 for housing opportunities.

22

119. Upon information and belief, by engaging in the same pattern or practice, Facebook

23 substantially assisted, solicited, encouraged, and/or coerced other Businesses and persons to “deny

24 a person access to, or membership or participation in” a “service because of race [or] national origin

- 36 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 38 of 58

1 in violation of Gov. Code § 12955(j); Facebook knew that such Businesses or persons were

2 violating their duties under § 12955(j); and, as described above, Facebook’s own conduct violated

3 the FEHA with respect to potential applicants for housing opportunities; and, as described above,

4 Facebook’s own conduct violated the FEHA with respect to potential applicants for housing

5 opportunities.

6

120. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s aiding and abetting other

7 Businesses, persons, and owners of housing accommodations in violating Gov. Code § 12955(a),

8 (c), (i), (j), and (k), Plaintiffs and members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to

9 receive and respond to housing, real-estate related, and housing loan advertisements that Facebook

10 provided to similarly situated white potential applicants, and accordingly suffered economic and

11 non-economic harm.

12

121. The limitations period for Plaintiffs’ FEHA employment discrimination claims is

13 one year prior to the date of the Complaint, and the limitations period for Plintiffs’ FEHA

14 employment discrimination claims is two years prior to the date of the filing of the Complaint.

15 Gov. Code. § 12960(d); Gov. Code. § 12989.1.

16

FOURTH COUNT:

Section 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a)

17

Discrimination in Contracts Relating to Employment, Housing, and Credit

(Disparate Treatment)

18

122. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the allegations contained in the foregoing

19

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

20

123. Section 1981 provides that “All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States

21

shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be

22

parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security

23

of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment,

24

pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).

- 37 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 39 of 58

1

124. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

2 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

3 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for employment, housing, and credit opportunities via

4 Facebook and that employ Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will

5 receive such marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring

6 advertisements for employment, housing, and credit opportunities based expressly on race of the

7 Facebook user, Facebook has intentionally discriminated against African Americans, Latinos, Asian

8 Americans, and other non-white individuals based on race in in violation of Section 1981’s

9 prohibition on denying non-white citizens an equal right “to make and enforce contracts.” 42 U.S.C.

10 § 1981(a).

11

125. Furthermore, Facebook’s pattern or practice of providing marketing, recruitment,

12 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses

13 that seek applicants for employment, housing, and credit opportunities via Facebook and that use

14 Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers based on a racial or ethnic group

15 that Facebook knows or believes the user has an affinity for, is a member of, or otherwise likes

16 constitutes disparate treatment, race-based stereotyping, and associational discrimination based on

17 race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).

18

126. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

19 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to make and enforce contracts

20 relating to employment, housing, and credit that Facebook provided to similarly situated white

21 potential applicants for employment, housing and credit, and accordingly suffered economic and

22 non-economic harm.

23

127. The limitations period for Plaintiffs’ Section 1981 claims is two years.

24

- 38 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 40 of 58

1

FIFTH COUNT:

Section 1982, 42 U.S.C. § 1982

2

Discrimination in Housing

(Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact)

3

128. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the allegations contained in the foregoing

4

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

5

129. Section 1982 provides that “All citizens of the United States shall have the same

6

right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease,

7

sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.” 42 U.S.C. § 1982.

8

130. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

9

marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

10

on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for the rental, purchase or sale of housing via Facebook

11

and that employ Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such

12

marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements

13

for housing opportunities based expressly on race of the Facebook user, Facebook has intentionally

14

discriminated against African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and other non-white

15

individuals based on race in in violation of Section 1982’s prohibition on denying non-white

16

citizens “the same right . . . to purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real . . . property.” 42 U.S.C.

17

§ 1982.

18

131. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

19

marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

20

on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for the rental, purchase, or sale of housing via

21

Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will

22

receive such marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring

23

advertisements for housing based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a

24

disparate impact on African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white

- 39 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 41 of 58

1 individuals, including the location of the Facebook user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and

2 the user’s similarity to the company’s existing customers, Facebook, has engaged in disparate

3 impact discrimination in violation of Section 1982’s prohibition on denying non-white citizens “the

4 same right . . . to purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real . . . property.” 42 U.S.C. § 1982.

5

132. Furthermore, Facebook’s pattern or practice of providing marketing, recruitment,

6 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses

7 that seek applicants for housing via Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude

8 which Facebook customers based on a racial or ethnic group that Facebook knows or believes the

9 user has an affinity for, is a member of, or otherwise likes constitutes disparate treatment, race-

10 based stereotyping, and associational discrimination based on race, and unlawful disparate impact

11 discrimination against African American, Latino, Asian American and other non-white individuals

12 in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982.

13

133. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

14 members of the putative class have been denied the right to purchase, lease, sell, hold, or convey

15 real property that Facebook provided to similarly situated white potential applicants for housing

16 opportunities, and accordingly suffered economic and non-economic harm.

17

134. The limitations period for Plaintiffs’ Section 1982 claims is two years.

18

SIXTH COUNT:

Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)

19

(Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact)

20

135. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the allegations contained in the foregoing

21 paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

22

136. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act provides that “It shall be unlawful for any creditor

23 to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction . . . on the

24 basis of race [or] national origin[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a).

- 40 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 42 of 58

1

137. Facebook is a “creditor” under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as Facebook

2 “regularly arranges for the extension, renewal, or continuation of credit,” 15 U.S.C. § 1691a(e), and

3 “[t]he term ‘person’ means . . . a corporation[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 1691a(f). “[T]he term creditor []

4 includes a person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly refers applicants or prospective

5 applicants to creditors[.]” 12 C.F.R. § 1002.2(l).

6

138. It is a violation of § 1691(a) for a creditor to “make any oral or written statement,

7 advertising or otherwise, to applicants or prospective applicants that would discourage on a

8 prohibited basis a reasonable person from making or pursuing an application.” 12 C.F.R.

9 § 1002.4(b).

10

139. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

11 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

12 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for credit transactions via Facebook and that employ

13 Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing,

14 recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements for credit

15 transactions based expressly on race or national origin of the Facebook user, Facebook has

16 intentionally discriminated against African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-

17 white individuals in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a) by “discriminat[ing] against any applicant

18 with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction . . . on the basis of race [or] national origin[.]” 15

19 U.S.C. § 1691(a).

20

140. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

21 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

22 on behalf of Businesses that market and recruit applicants for credit transactions via Facebook and

23 that use Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such

24 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements

- 41 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 43 of 58

1 for credit transactions based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a

2 disparate impact on African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white

3 individuals, including the location of the Facebook user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and

4 the user’s similarity to the Businesses’ existing customers, Facebook, has engaged in disparate

5 impact discrimination in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a) by “discriminat[ing] against any applicant

6 with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction . . . on the basis of race [or] national origin[.]” 15

7 U.S.C. § 1691(a).

8

141. Upon information and belief, Facebook could have adopted a less discriminatory

9 alternative practice to target potential applicants for credit transactions, such as limiting any

10 geographic targeting to the relevant credit market and/or prohibiting creditors from targeting their

11 advertisements to specific zip codes.

12

142. Furthermore, Facebook’s pattern or practice of providing marketing, recruitment,

13 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses

14 that seek applicants for credit opportunities via Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to

15 exclude which Facebook customers based on a racial or ethnic group that Facebook knows or

16 believes the user has an affinity for, is a member of, or otherwise likes constitutes disparate

17 treatment, race- or national origin-based stereotyping, and associational discrimination based on

18 race or national origin, and unlawful disparate impact discrimination against African American,

19 Lation, Asian American and other non-white individuals in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a).

20

143. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

21 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to receive and respond to credit

22 transaction opportunities that Facebook provided to similarly situated white potential applicants,

23 and accordingly suffered economic and non-economic harm.

24

144. The limitations period for Plaintiffs’ ECOA claims is five years prior to the

- 42 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 44 of 58

1 Complaint. 15 U.S.C. § 1691e(f).

2

SEVENTH COUNT:

Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), (c), (d) & § 3605

3

(Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact)

4

145. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the allegations contained in the foregoing

5 paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

6

146. The Fair Housing Act provides that “it shall be unlawful” “[t]o refuse to sell or rent

7 after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise

8 make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race [or] national origin[.]” 42

9 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

10

147. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

11 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

12 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for the sale or rental or dwellings via Facebook and

13 that employ Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such

14 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements

15 for housing opportunities based expressly on race or national origin of the Facebook user, Facebook

16 has intentionally discriminated against African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other

17 non-white individuals by refusing to negotiate for the sale or rental of a dwelling or by otherwise

18 making unavailable or denying a dwelling to persons because of race or national origin. 42 U.S.C.

19 § 3604(a).

20

148. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

21 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

22 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for the sale or rental of dwellings via Facebook and

23 that use Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such

24 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements

- 43 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 45 of 58

1 for housing opportunities based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a

2 disparate impact on African Americans, Lations, Asian Americans, and other non-white

3 individuals, including the location of the Facebook user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and

4 the user’s similarity to the company’s existing customers, Facebook, has engaged in disparate

5 impact discrimination in violation of Section 3604(a)’s prohibition on refusing to negotiate for the

6 sale or rental of a dwelling or by otherwise making unavailable or denying a dwelling to persons

7 because of race or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

8

149. Facebook’s pattern or practice of expressly excluding non-white individuals from

9 receiving housing advertisements and excluding Facebook users from receiving housing

10 advertisements based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate

11 impact on African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals

12 “[d]iscourag[es] any person from inspecting, purchasing or renting a dwelling because of race [or]

13 national origin . . . or because of the race [or] national origin of persons in a community,

14 neighborhood or development, 24 C.F.R. § 100.70(c)(1), and involves “[e]mploying codes or other

15 devices to segregate or reject applicants, purchasers or renters, refusing to take or to show listings

16 of dwellings in certain areas because of race [or] national origin,” 24 C.F.R. § 100.70(d)(2),

17 practices that violate 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

18

150. Upon information and belief, Facebook could have adopted a less discriminatory

19 alternative practice to target potential applicants to purchase or rent a dwelling, such as limiting any

20 geographic targeting to the relevant housing market and/or prohibiting housing providers from

21 targeting housing advertisements to specific zip codes.

22

151. Furthermore, Facebook’s pattern or practice of providing marketing, recruitment,

23 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses

24 that seek applicants for housing via Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude

- 44 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 46 of 58

1 which Facebook customers based on a racial or ethnic group that Facebook knows or believes the

2 user has an affinity for, is a member of, or otherwise likes constitutes disparate treatment, race- or

3 national origin-based stereotyping, and associational discrimination based on race or national

4 origin, and unlawful disparate impact discrimination against African American, Latino, Asian

5 American, and other non-white individuals in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

6

152. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

7 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to receive and respond to housing

8 opportunities that Facebook provided to similarly situated white potential applicants, and

9 accordingly suffered economic and non-economic harm.

10

153. The Fair Housing Act provides that “it shall be unlawful” “[t]o make, print, or

11 publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with

12 respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination

13 based on race [or] national origin, . . . or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or

14 discrimination.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).

15

154. Facebook is a “person” that is subject to the provisions of the Fair Housing Act, as a

16 “‘Person’ includes one or more . . . corporations[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3602(d).

17

155. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

18 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

19 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for sale and rental dwellings via Facebook and that use

20 Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing and

21 recruitment advertisements for sale and rental dwellings based expressly on the race or national

22 origin of the Facebook user and based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that

23 have a disparate impact on African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white

24 individuals, including the location of the Facebook user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and

- 45 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 47 of 58

1 the user’s similarity to the company’s existing customers, Facebook has made, printed, published,

2 or caused to be published notices, statements, and/or advertisements that indicate a preference,

3 limitation, and/or discrimination based on race or national origin or an intention to make such

4 preference, limitation, or discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).

5

156. Under HUD’s regulations, the prohibitions of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) “apply to all

6 written or oral notices or statements by a person engaged in the sale or rental of a dwelling,” and

7 “include any applications, flyers, brochures, deeds, signs, banners, posters, billboards or any

8 documents used with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.” 24 C.F.R. § 100.75(b).

9

157. “Discriminatory notices, statements, and advertisements, include . . . Selecting media

10 or locations for advertising the sale or rental of dwellings which deny particular segments of the

11 housing market information about housing opportunities because of race [or] national origin[.]” 24

12 C.F.R. § 100.75(c)(3). Facebook’s pattern or practice of expressly excluding non-white individuals

13 from receiving housing advertisements and excluding Facebook users from receiving housing

14 advertisements based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate

15 impact on African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals involves

16 “selecting locations for advertising the sale or rental of dwellings that denies” these “segments of

17 the housing market information about housing opportunities because of race [or] national origin[.]”

18 Id. In addition, the same pattern or practice involves “[r]efusing to publish advertising for the sale

19 or rental of dwellings . . . because of race [or] national origin,” another practice that violates 42

20 U.S.C. § 3604(c). 24 C.F.R. § 100.75(c)(4).

21

158. Furthermore, Facebook’s pattern or practice of providing marketing, recruitment,

22 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses

23 that seek applicants for housing via Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude

24 which Facebook customers based on a racial or ethnic group that Facebook knows or believes the

- 46 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 48 of 58

1 user has an affinity for, is a member of, or otherwise likes constitutes disparate treatment, race- or

2 national origin-based stereotyping, and associational discrimination based on race or national

3 origin, and unlawful disparate impact discrimination against African American, Latino, Asian

4 American, and other non-white individuals in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).

5

159. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

6 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to receive and respond to housing

7 advertisements that Facebook provided to similarly situated white potential applicants, and

8 accordingly suffered economic and non-economic harm.

9

160. The Fair Housing Act provides that “it shall be unlawful” “[t]o represent to any

10 person because of race [or] national origin . . . that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale,

11 or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(d).

12

161. Section 3604(d) makes it unlawful “to provide inaccurate . . . information about the

13 availability of dwellings for sale or rental,” 24 C.F.R. § 100.80(a), and prohibits the “[l]imiting

14 information, by word or conduct, regarding suitably priced dwellings available for inspection, sale

15 or rental, because of race [or] national origin.” 24 C.F.R. § 100.80(b)(4).

16

162. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

17 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

18 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for the sale or rental or dwellings via Facebook and

19 that employ Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such

20 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements

21 for housing opportunities based expressly on race or national origin of the Facebook user, Facebook

22 has intentionally discriminated against African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other

23 non-white individuals in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(d) by limiting information by words and

24 conduct regarding suitably priced dwellings for sale or rental because of race or national origin. 24

- 47 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 49 of 58

1 C.F.R. § 100.80(b)(4).

2

163. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

3 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

4 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for the sale or rental of dwellings via Facebook and

5 that use Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such

6 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services

7 advertisements for housing opportunities based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook

8 user that have a disparate impact on African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-

9 white individuals, including the location of the Facebook user (as specific as the person’s zip code)

10 and the user’s similarity to the company’s existing customers, Facebook, has engaged in disparate

11 impact discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(d) by limiting information by words and

12 conduct regarding suitably priced dwellings for sale or rental because of race national origin. 24

13 C.F.R. § 100.80(b)(4).

14

164. Upon information and belief, Facebook could have adopted a less discriminatory

15 alternative practice to target potential applicants to purchase or rent a dwelling, such as limiting any

16 geographic targeting to the relevant housing market and/or prohibiting housing providers from

17 targeting housing advertisements to specific zip codes.

18

165. Furthermore, Facebook’s pattern or practice of providing marketing, recruitment,

19 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses

20 that seek applicants for housing via Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude

21 which Facebook customers based on a racial or ethnic group that Facebook knows or believes the

22 user has an affinity for, is a member of, or otherwise likes constitutes disparate treatment, race- or

23 national origin-based stereotyping, and associational discrimination based on race or national

24 origin, and unlawful disparate impact discrimination against African American, Latino, Asian

- 48 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 50 of 58

1 American and other non-white individuals in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(d).

2

166. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

3 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to receive and respond to housing

4 opportunities that Facebook provided to similarly situated white potential applicants, and

5 accordingly suffered economic and non-economic harm.

6

167. The Fair Housing Act provides that “It shall be unlawful for any person or other

7 entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions to

8 discriminate against any person in making available such a transaction[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3605(s).

9

168. Facebook is also a person “whose business includes engaging in residential real

10 estate-related transactions,” 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a), as Facebook is routinely involved in marketing or

11 advertising loans for “purchasing, constructing, improving, repairing, or maintaining” dwellings

12 and/or marketing or advertising residential real property. 42 U.S.C. § 3605(b).

13

169. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

14 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

15 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for residential housing loans via Facebook and that

16 employ Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such

17 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services

18 advertisements for residential housing loans based expressly on race or national origin of the

19 Facebook user, Facebook has intentionally discriminated against African Americans, Latinos, Asian

20 Americans and other non-white individuals in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a) by “discriminat[ing]

21 against any person in making available” “residential real estate-related transactions[.]” 42 U.S.C.

22 § 3605(a).

23

170. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

24 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

- 49 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 51 of 58

1 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for residential housing loans via Facebook and that use

2 Facebook’s targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing,

3 recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services advertisements for

4 residential housing loans based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a

5 disparate impact on African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white

6 individuals, including the location of the Facebook user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and

7 the user’s similarity to the company’s existing customers, Facebook, has engaged in disparate

8 impact discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a) by “discriminat[ing] against any person in

9 making available” “residential real estate-related transactions[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a).

10

171. Facebook’s pattern or practice of expressly excluding non-white individuals from

11 receiving residential housing loans and excluding Facebook users from receiving residential

12 housing loans based on facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate

13 impact on African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals violates

14 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a), because such pattern or practice constitutes “[f]ailing or refusing to provide to

15 any person information regarding the availability of loans or other financial assistance, application

16 requirements, procedures or standards for the review and approval of loans or financial assistance,

17 or providing information which is inaccurate or different from that provided others, because of race

18 [or] national origin,” 24 C.F.R. § 100.120(b)(1), and constitutes the “failing to provide . . . the

19 receipt of loans or other financial assistance in a manner that . . . discriminates in their availability

20 because of race [or] national origin[.]” 24 C.F.R. § 100.120(b)(2).

21

172. Upon information and belief, Facebook could have adopted a less discriminatory

22 alternative practice to target potential applicants for residential housing loans, such as limiting any

23 geographic targeting to the relevant housing market and/or prohibiting the providers of residential

24 housing loans from targeting their advertisements to specific zip codes.

- 50 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 52 of 58

1

173. Furthermore, Facebook’s pattern or practice of providing marketing, recruitment,

2 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses

3 that seek applicants for residential housing loans via Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting

4 tools to exclude which Facebook customers based on a racial or ethnic group that Facebook knows

5 or believes the user has an affinity for, is a member of, or otherwise likes constitutes disparate

6 treatment, race- or national origin-based stereotyping, and associational discrimination based on

7 race or national origin, and unlawful disparate impact discrimination against African American,

8 Latino, Asian American, and other non-white individuals in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a).

9

174. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

10 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to receive and respond to

11 residential housing loan opportunities and information that Facebook provided to similarly situated

12 white potential applicants, and accordingly suffered economic and non-economic harm.

13

175. The limitations period for Plaintiffs’ FHA claims is two years prior to the Complaint.

14 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1).

15

EIGHTH COUNT:

Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(b) & § 2000e-3(b)

16

(Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact)

17

176. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the allegations contained in the foregoing

18 paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

19

177. Title VII provides that “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an

20 employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against,

21 any individual because of his race [or] national origin . . . or to classify or refer for employment any

22 individual on the basis of his race [or] national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(b).

23

178. As described above, Facebook is an employment agency within the meaning of Title

24 VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(c), as it regularly receives compensation from employers to place

- 51 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 53 of 58

1 advertisements—and provide related marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding,

2 information, and/or hiring services—for employers to recruit applicants for employment and

3 encourage them to apply for employment with such employers.

4

179. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

5 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

6 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for employment via Facebook and that use Facebook’s

7 targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing and recruitment

8 advertisements for employment based expressly on the race or national origin of the Facebook user,

9 Facebook, an employment agency, has intentionally discriminated against African Americans,

10 Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white Americans by failing or refusing to refer for

11 employment, otherwise discriminating against and classifying or referring for employment such

12 individuals based on their race or national origin.

13

180. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

14 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

15 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for employment via Facebook and that use Facebook’s

16 targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing, recruitment,

17 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements for employment based on

18 facially neutral characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate impact on African

19 Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals, including the location of

20 the Facebook user (as specific as the person’s zip code) and the user’s similarity to the company’s

21 existing customers, Facebook, has engaged in disparate impact discrimination resulting in the

22 failure or refusal to refer for employment, otherwise discriminate, and classify or refer for

23 employment African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals based

24 on their race or national origin.

- 52 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 54 of 58

1

181. Upon information and belief, Facebook could have adopted alternative employment

2 practices to target potential applicants or employees for employers, such as limiting any geographic

3 targeting to the relevant labor market and/or prohibiting employers from targeting employment

4 advertisements to specific zip codes.

5

182. Furthermore, Facebook’s pattern or practice of providing marketing, recruitment,

6 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses

7 that seek applicants for employment via Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to

8 exclude which Facebook customers based on a racial or ethnic group that Facebook knows or

9 believes the user has an affinity for, is a member of, or otherwise likes constitutes disparate

10 treatment, race- or national origin-based stereotyping, and associational discrimination based on

11 race or national origin, and unlawful disparate impact discrimination against African American,

12 Latino, Asian American and other non-white individuals in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(b).

13

183. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

14 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to receive and respond to

15 employment advertisements that Facebook provided to similarly situated white potential applicants,

16 and accordingly suffered economic and non-economic harm.

17

184. Title VII provides that “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an

18 employer” or an “employment agency, . . . to print or publish or cause to be printed or published

19 any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer . . . or relating to any

20 classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency, . . . indicating any

21 preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on race [or] national origin.” 42

22 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(b).

23

185. Facebook is an “employment agency” under Title VII, as Facebook is a “person”

24 who “regularly undertak[es] with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer or

- 53 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 55 of 58

1 to procure for employees opportunities to work for an employer and includes an agent of such a

2 person.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(c). A “person” under Title VII “includes” “corporations” like

3 Facebook. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a). Upon information and belief, Facebook regularly receives

4 compensation from employers to place advertisements for employers—and provide related

5 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services—to

6 recruit applicants for employment and encourage them to apply for employment with such

7 employers.

8

186. Upon information and belief, by engaging in a pattern or practice of providing

9 marketing, recruitment, sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and

10 on behalf of Businesses that seek applicants for employment via Facebook and that use Facebook’s

11 targeting tools to exclude which Facebook customers will receive such marketing, recruitment,

12 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring advertisements for employment based

13 expressly on the race or national origin of the Facebook user and based on facially neutral

14 characteristics of the Facebook user that have a disparate impact on African Americans, Latinos,

15 Asian Americans, and other non-white individuals, including the location of the Facebook user (as

16 specific as the person’s zip code) and the user’s similarity to the company’s existing customers,

17 Facebook, an employment agency, has printed or published notices or advertisements relating to

18 employment by employers and/or relating to classification or referral for employment that indicate a

19 preference, limitation, specification or discrimination based on race or national origin and has

20 thereby harmed African American, Latinos, Asian American and other non-white individuals who

21 are denied employment opportunities.

22

187. Furthermore, Facebook’s pattern or practice of providing marketing, recruitment,

23 sourcing, advertising, branding, information, and/or hiring services for and on behalf of Businesses

24 that seek applicants for employment via Facebook and that use Facebook’s targeting tools to

- 54 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 56 of 58

1 exclude which Facebook customers based on a racial or ethnic group that Facebook knows or

2 believes the user has an affinity for, is a member of, or otherwise likes constitutes disparate

3 treatment, race- or national origin-based stereotyping, and associational discrimination based on

4 race or national origin, and unlawful disparate impact discrimination against African American,

5 Latino, Asian American and other non-white individuals in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(b).

6

188. Upon information and belief, due to Facebook’s pattern or practice Plaintiffs and

7 members of the putative class have been denied the opportunity to receive and respond to

8 employment advertisements that Facebook provided to similarly situated white potential applicants,

9 and accordingly suffered economic and non-economic harm.

10

189. The limitations period for Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims is two years prior to the date

11 that the first charge was filed. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(3)

12

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

13

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that judgment be entered against Facebook on all claims and

14 respectfully requests that this Court award the following relief:

15

A. Declare that Facebook’s pattern or practice described above violations Title

VII, the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Section 1981,

16

Section 1982, FEHA, the Unfair Competition Law, and the Unruh Civil

Rights Act.

17

B. Enter an order enjoining Facebook from continuing to engage in acts that

18

violate the same federal and state statutes.

19

C. Certify a Class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of

Civil procedure, appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel, and appoint the

20

named Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives.

21

D. Require Facebook to pay members of the Class for the economic harm they

have suffered due to the denial of employment, housing, and credit

22

opportunities, as well as punitive damages.

23

E. Require Facebook to pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs.

24

F. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems proper, appropriate,

just, or equitable.

- 55 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 57 of 58

1 Dated: February 13, 2017 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Jahan C. Sagafi Jahan C. Sagafi
Jahan C. Sagafi (State Bar No. 224887) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
Adam T. Klein (admitted pro hac vice) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com
P. David Lopez (admitted pro hac vice) Peter Romer-Friedman (admitted pro hac vice) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW Second Floor West Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 847-4400 Facsimile: (646) 952-9114 E-mail: pdl@outtengolden.com E-mail: prf@outtengolden.com
William Most (State Bar No. 279100) LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MOST 201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 114, # 101 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: (504) 509-5023 Email: williammost@gmail.com

- 56 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

Case 5:16-cv-06440-EJD Document 28 Filed 02/13/17 Page 58 of 58

1

Jason R. Flanders (State Bar No. 238007)

Sarah M.K. Hoffman (State Bar No. 308568)

2

AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP

828 San Pablo Ave., Ste. 115B

3

Albany, CA 94706

Phone: (916) 202-3018

4

Email: jrf@atalawgroup.com

Email: smkh@atalawgroup.com

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class

6

Members

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

- 57 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 16-cv-06440-EJD

 
  
 Case: 5:16-cv-06440-EJD As of: 04/05/2019 07:04 AM PDT 1 of 10
ADRMOP,CLOSED,PRVADR
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Jose) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:16−cv−06440−EJD

Onuoha et al v. Facebook, Inc. Assigned to: Hon. Edward J. Davila Referred to: Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff
Victor Onuoha

Date Filed: 11/03/2016 Date Terminated: 03/19/2019 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Jason Robert Flanders Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group 490 43rd Street, Suite 108 Oakland, CA 94609 (916) 202−3018 Email: jrf@atalawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patrick David Lopez Outten and Golden LLP 601 Massachussets Ave NW 2nd Floor West Washington, DC 20001 202−847−4400 Email: pdl@outtengolden.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Romer−Friedman Outten and Golden LLP 601 Massachussets Ave NW Second Floor West Washington, DC 20001 United Sta 202−847−4400 Email: prf@outtengolden.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Margaret Keast Hoffman ATA Law Group 828 San Pablo Ave Albany, CA 94706 415−706−7947 Email: smkh@atalawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam T. Klein Outten & Golden LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 212−245−1000 Fax: 646−509−2060 Email: atk@outtengolden.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:16-cv-06440-EJD As of: 04/05/2019 07:04 AM PDT 2 of 10

Jahan C. Sagafi Outten & Golden LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 638−8800 Fax: (415) 638−8810 Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katrina Leigh Eiland ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 343−0770 Fax: (415) 395−0950 Email: keiland@aclu.org TERMINATED: 02/23/2017

Relic Sun Outten and Golden LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415−638−8800 Fax: 415−638−8810 Email: rsun@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Brock Most Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group 828 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 115B Albany, CA 94706 (650) 465−5023 Email: williammost@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Suzanne−Juliette Mobley

represented by Jason Robert Flanders (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patrick David Lopez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Margaret Keast Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam T. Klein (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:16-cv-06440-EJD As of: 04/05/2019 07:04 AM PDT 3 of 10

Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katrina Leigh Eiland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Relic Sun (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Brock Most (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Karen Savage TERMINATED: 02/13/2017

represented by Jason Robert Flanders (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patrick David Lopez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Margaret Keast Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam T. Klein (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katrina Leigh Eiland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2017

Relic Sun (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Brock Most (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Daniel Adrian Manriguez

represented by Jason Robert Flanders (See above for address)

Case: 5:16-cv-06440-EJD As of: 04/05/2019 07:04 AM PDT 4 of 10
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Relic Sun (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Facebook, Inc.
Interested Party United States of America
Amicus

represented by Rosemarie Theresa Ring Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP 560 Mission St 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 95105−2907 415−512−4000 Fax: 415−512−4700 Email: rose.ring@mto.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Ann Kim Munger Tolles and Olson LLP 560 Mission Street 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−512−4089 Fax: 415−644−6909 Email: elizabeth.kim@mto.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Patashnik Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105−2907 415−512−4072 Fax: 415−644−6972 Email: josh.patashnik@mto.com TERMINATED: 09/05/2018
represented by Sara Winslow United States Attorney's Office Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue 9th Floor, Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102 415/436−6925 Fax: 415/436−6748 Email: sara.winslow@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:16-cv-06440-EJD As of: 04/05/2019 07:04 AM PDT 5 of 10

Upturn, Inc. Non−profit organization and proposed amicus curiae.

represented by Mary Kelly Persyn Persyn Law and Policy 912 Cole Street #124 San Francisco, CA 94117 628−400−1254 Fax: 415−773−5759 Email: marykelly@persynlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/03/2016 11/03/2016 11/04/2016 11/04/2016
11/04/2016 11/04/2016 11/04/2016
01/12/2017 01/12/2017 01/12/2017 01/12/2017 01/17/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971−10907124.). Filed byKaren Savage, Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Most, William) (Filed on 11/3/2016) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
2 Proposed Summons. (Most, William) (Filed on 11/3/2016) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
3 CLERK'S NOTICE counsel to resubmit correct civil cover sheet for the Northern District Court of California. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (sv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2016) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
4 Case assigned to Hon. Edward J. Davila and Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd.
Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E−Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.
Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5−1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (sv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2016) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
5 Civil Cover Sheet by Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha, Karen Savage . (Most, William) (Filed on 11/4/2016) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
6 Summons Issued as to Facebook, Inc.. (cv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2016) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
7 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras Case Management Statement due by 1/26/2017. Case Management Conference set for 2/2/2017 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(cv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2016) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Jahan C. Sagafi (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/12/2017) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Katrina Leigh Eiland (Eiland, Katrina) (Filed on 1/12/2017) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
10 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3−5 d) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/12/2017) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
11 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options by Parties and Counsel (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 1/12/2017) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
12 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options Victor Onuoha (Hoffman, Sarah) (Filed on 1/17/2017) (Entered: 01/17/2017)

Case: 5:16-cv-06440-EJD As of: 04/05/2019 07:04 AM PDT 6 of 10

01/17/2017 01/17/2017 01/17/2017 01/18/2017 01/19/2017 01/20/2017 01/20/2017 01/20/2017 01/23/2017
01/23/2017 01/30/2017
02/01/2017 02/10/2017 02/10/2017 02/13/2017

13 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options Suzanne−Juliette Mobley (Hoffman, Sarah) (Filed on 1/17/2017) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
14 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options Karen Savage (Hoffman, Sarah) (Filed on 1/17/2017) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
15 ADR Clerk's Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on January 30, 2017 at 1:30 PM Pacific time. Please note that you must be logged into an ECF account of counsel of record in order to view this document. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2017) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
16 *** Posted in error *** please see 17 by Adam T. Klein (Klein, Adam) (Filed on 1/18/2017) Modified on 1/23/2017 (cv, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2017)
17 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Adam T. Klein, CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 16 ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971−11087927.) filed by Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha, Karen Savage. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Klein, Adam) (Filed on 1/19/2017) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
18 ORDER Granting 17 Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice for Adam T. Klein, Counsel for Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/20/2017. (amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2017) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
19 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen for all further discovery proceedings. Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 1/20/2017. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2017) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
20 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Continuing Initial Case Management Conference and Related Dates filed by Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha, Karen Savage. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/20/2017) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
21 ORDER granting 20 Stipulation Continuing Initial Case Management Conference and Related Dates. The 2/2/2017 initial Case Management Conference shall be continued to 3/2/2017 at 10:00 a.m. and associated dates and deadlines shall also be extended accordingly. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/23/2017. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2017) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
***Set Deadlines/Hearings pursuant to ECF No. 21 : Joint Case Management Statement due by 2/23/2017. Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/2/2017 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose. (amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2017) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
22 ADR Remark: ADR Phone Conference held on 1/30/2017 with Tamara Lange. A further ADR Phone Conference is scheduled for 6/7/2017 at 10:30 AM. The call−in information remains the same. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2017) (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 01/30/2017)
23 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Karen Savage, Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha. Service waived by Facebook, Inc. waiver sent on 2/1/2017, answer due 4/3/2017. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 2/1/2017) (Entered: 02/01/2017)
24 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Peter Romer−Friedman ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971−11148955.) filed by Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha, Karen Savage. (Romer−Friedman, Peter) (Filed on 2/10/2017) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
25 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Patrick David Lopez ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971−11149011.) filed by Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha, Karen Savage. (Lopez, Patrick) (Filed on 2/10/2017) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
26 ORDER Granting 24 Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice for Peter Romer−Friedman Counsel for Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/13/2017. (amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2017) (Entered: 02/13/2017)

Case: 5:16-cv-06440-EJD As of: 04/05/2019 07:04 AM PDT 7 of 10

02/13/2017 02/13/2017 02/23/2017 02/23/2017 02/28/2017
02/28/2017
03/15/2017 03/24/2017 04/03/2017
04/07/2017 04/18/2017 04/19/2017 04/19/2017 05/01/2017 05/08/2017
05/15/2017

27 ORDER Granting 25 Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice for Patrick David Lopez Counsel for Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/13/2017.(amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2017) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT , Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint against Facebook, Inc.. Filed byKaren Savage, Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 2/13/2017) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
29 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Katrina Leigh Eiland (Eiland, Katrina) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
30 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Facebook, Inc.. (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
31 ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The court schedules a hearing on Defendant's anticipated motion to dismiss for 9:00 a.m. on 6/1/2017. The Case Management Conference scheduled for 3/2/2017 is CONTINUED to 10:00 a.m. on 7/13/2017. The parties shall file an updated Joint Case Management Statement on or before 7/6/2017. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/28/2017. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2017) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
***Set Deadlines/Hearings pursuant to ECF 31 Order: Joint Case Management Statement due by 7/6/2017. Motions due by 4/27/2017. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/13/2017 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose. Motion Hearing set for 6/1/2017 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Edward J. Davila. (amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2017) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Relic Sun (Sun, Relic) (Filed on 3/15/2017) (Entered: 03/15/2017)
33 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha, Karen Savage. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (Defendant), # 2 Proposed Order (Plaintiffs))(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/24/2017) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
34 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Facebook, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 6/1/2017 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Edward J. Davila. Responses due by 4/17/2017. Replies due by 4/24/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order)(Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 4/3/2017) Modified on 1/8/2019 (cv, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/03/2017)
35 ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/7/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2017) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
36 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing Dates and Setting Briefing Schedule filed by Facebook, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 4/18/2017) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
37 ORDER GRANTING 36 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DATES AND SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/19/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2017) (Entered: 04/19/2017)
***Set/Reset Deadlines pursuant to 37 as to 34 Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Opposition due by 5/18/2017. Reply due by 6/8/2017. Joint Status Report due by 5/1/2017. (amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2017) (Entered: 04/19/2017)
38 STATUS REPORT RE MEDIATION by Facebook, Inc.. (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 5/1/2017) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
39 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REGARDING PAGE LIMITATIONS TO BRIEFING FOR MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha, Karen Savage. Responses due by 5/12/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jahan Sagafi, # 2 Proposed Order)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/8/2017) Modified on 5/9/2017 (cv, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/2017)
40 ORDER GRANTING 39 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/15/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed

Case: 5:16-cv-06440-EJD As of: 04/05/2019 07:04 AM PDT 8 of 10

05/18/2017 05/18/2017 06/01/2017 06/01/2017 06/05/2017
06/05/2017 06/08/2017 06/08/2017 06/27/2017 06/27/2017 09/18/2017 09/19/2017
09/20/2017 10/27/2017 10/30/2017 12/14/2017 12/15/2017
01/02/2018

on 5/15/2017) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
41 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 34 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) filed bySuzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha, Karen Savage. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/18/2017) (Entered: 05/18/2017)
42 RESPONSE to Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice by Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha, Karen Savage. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/18/2017) (Entered: 05/18/2017)
43 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Ann Kim (Kim, Elizabeth) (Filed on 6/1/2017) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
44 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua Patashnik (Patashnik, Joshua) (Filed on 6/1/2017) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
45 ADR Remark: The further ADR Phone Conference scheduled for 6/7/2017 at 10:30 AM is off calendar. Parties are utilizing Private ADR 37 .(cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2017) (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
CASE REFERRED to Private ADR 37 . (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2017) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
46 REPLY (re 34 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) filed byFacebook, Inc.. (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 6/8/2017) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
47 REPLY (re 34 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) (Reply in support of Request for Judicial Notice) filed byFacebook, Inc.. (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 6/8/2017) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
48 Certificate of Interested Entities by Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha, Karen Savage (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 6/27/2017) (Entered: 06/27/2017)
49 Certificate of Interested Entities by Facebook, Inc. (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 6/27/2017) (Entered: 06/27/2017)
50 STATUS REPORT Joint Post−Mediation Status Report & Joint [Proposed] Order by Facebook, Inc.. (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 9/18/2017) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
51 ORDER re: 50 JOINT POST−MEDIATION STATUS REPORT. The Motion to Dismiss 34 is ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED but may be restored to the active calendar if necessary. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/19/2017. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
52 AMENDED ORDER re 51 Order. Deadline for the parties to file a joint status report is 10/27/2017. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/20/2017. (amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2017) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
53 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT /Joint Post−Mediation Status Report and Proposed Order filed by Facebook, Inc.. (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 10/27/2017) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
54 ORDER RE JOINT POST−MEDIATION STATUS REPORT. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/30/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2017) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
55 STATUS REPORT Post−Mediation and Proposed Order by Facebook, Inc.. (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 12/14/2017) (Entered: 12/14/2017)
56 ORDER re: 55 Status Report. By 3/21/2018, the parties shall file a joint status report (a) addressing the status of the mediation efforts and, if appropriate, (b) propose new dates for the hearing on Facebooks Motion to Dismiss and Initial Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/15/2017. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2017) (Entered: 12/15/2017)
57 MOTION to Relate Case Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases are Related filed by Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha, Daniel Adrian Manriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter Romer−Friedman, # 2 Exhibit 1

Case: 5:16-cv-06440-EJD As of: 04/05/2019 07:04 AM PDT 9 of 10

01/08/2018 03/22/2018 03/23/2018 05/29/2018 05/29/2018 06/05/2018 06/08/2018 06/11/2018 08/13/2018 08/14/2018
08/24/2018
08/27/2018
08/28/2018
09/05/2018 09/10/2018

(Proposed Order), # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Romer−Friedman, Peter) (Filed on 1/2/2018) (Entered: 01/02/2018)
58 ORDER Denying 57 Motion to Relate Case to 5:17−cv−07232−BLF. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/8/2018. (amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2018) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
59 STATUS REPORT Joint Post−Mediation; and [Proposed] Order by Facebook, Inc.. (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 3/22/2018) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
60 ORDER re: 59 Status Report. By 5/4/2018, the parties shall file a joint status report. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 3/23/2018. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2018) (Entered: 03/23/2018)
61 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jahan C. Sagafi (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/29/2018) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
62 NOTICE of Change of Address by Relic Sun (Sun, Relic) (Filed on 5/29/2018) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
63 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jason Robert Flanders (Flanders, Jason) (Filed on 6/5/2018) (Entered: 06/05/2018)
64 STATUS REPORT Joint Post−Mediation Status Report & [Proposed] Order by Daniel Adrian Manriguez, Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 6/8/2018) (Entered: 06/08/2018)
65 ORDER re: 64 Status Report. By 7/6/2018, the parties shall file a joint status report. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/11/2018. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2018) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
66 STATUS REPORT JOINT MEDIATION STATUS REPORT AND PROPOSED ORDER by Facebook, Inc.. (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 8/13/2018) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
67 STATUS REPORT ORDER. The parties are advised this is the final time the court will permit postponement of the Case Management Conference and Motion to Dismiss. The court intends to reset the Case Management Conference and hearing on the Motion to Dismiss upon receiving the September 18th status update unless it receives notification the parties have reached a settlement of this action. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/14/2018. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2018) (Entered: 08/14/2018)
68 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Relate Cases Facebook, Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3−12 and 7−11 filed by Facebook, Inc.. Responses due by 8/28/2018. (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 8/24/2018) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
69 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 68 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Relate Cases Facebook, Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3−12 and 7−11 ) filed byBert riddick. (Rava, Alfred) (Filed on 8/27/2018) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
70 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 68 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Relate Cases Facebook, Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3−12 and 7−11 ) filed byDaniel Adrian Manriguez, Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/28/2018) (Entered: 08/28/2018)
71 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Rosemarie Theresa Ring (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 9/5/2018) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
72 ORDER RE: 68 RE: MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED. The court finds the cases are not related within the definition of Rule 3−12 and will not order a reassignment. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/10/2018. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2018) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

Case: 5:16-cv-06440-EJD As of: 04/05/2019 07:04 AM PDT 10 of 10

09/19/2018 09/21/2018
10/15/2018 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 12/04/2018 12/04/2018 12/04/2018 01/07/2019
01/14/2019 01/14/2019 02/12/2019 02/12/2019 03/19/2019 03/19/2019

73 STATUS REPORT Joint/Re Mediation and Proposed Schedule for Initial CMC and Hearing on Motion to Dismiss, and Proposed Order by Facebook, Inc.. (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 9/19/2018) (Entered: 09/19/2018)
74 STATUS REPORT ORDER. The parties shall file a brief joint status report addressing the status of mediation efforts on or before 10/15/2018. The court schedules a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss 34 for 9:00 a.m. on 12/13/2018. The Initial Case Management Conference is also scheduled for that date and time. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/21/2018. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2018) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
75 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by Daniel Adrian Manriguez, Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/15/2018) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
76 MOTION Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs filed by Upturn, Inc.. Responses due by 11/20/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amicus Brief for Upturn)(Persyn, Mary) (Filed on 11/16/2018) Modified on 11/16/2018 (cv, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2018)
77 Statement of Interest by United States of America. (Winslow, Sara) (Filed on 11/16/2018) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
78 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Requesting Continuance of December 13, 2018 Hearing Date and Initial Case Management Conference filed by Facebook, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mediator Hunter Hughes)(Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 12/4/2018) (Entered: 12/04/2018)
79 Order granting 78 Stipulation to continue hearing on the motion to dismiss and case management conference to January 24, 2019. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/4/2018. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2018) (Entered: 12/04/2018)
***Set Deadlines/Hearings per ECF 79 Order: Joint Status Report due by 1/14/2019. Initial Case Management Conference and Motion to Dismiss 34 Hearing set for 1/24/2019 09:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 4, 5th Floor before Judge Edward J. Davila. (amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2018) (Entered: 12/04/2018)
80 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING HEARING AND DEADLINE. Please take NOTICE that the Motion to Dismiss 34 Hearing previously set for 1/24/2019 is HEREBY RESET for 2/28/2019 09:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 4, 5th Floor before Judge Edward J. Davila. Initial Case Management Conference previously scheduled for 1/24/2019 is HEREBY RESET for 3/28/2019 10:00 AM. Joint Case Management Statement due by 3/18/2019. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2019) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
81 Order granting 76 Motion for Leave to File an amicus curiae brief. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/14/2019. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2019) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
82 STATUS REPORT of the Parties by Daniel Adrian Manriguez, Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha. (Romer−Friedman, Peter) (Filed on 1/14/2019) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
83 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Facebook, Inc.. (Ring, Rosemarie) (Filed on 2/12/2019) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
84 ORDER granting 83 Stipulation to VACATE hearing date for Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/12/2019. 34 is terminated. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2019) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
85 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Daniel Adrian Manriguez, Suzanne−Juliette Mobley, Victor Onuoha (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/19/2019) (Entered: 03/19/2019)
86 ORDER APPROVING re 85 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. All deadlines/hearings are terminated. THE CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE FILE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 3/19/2019. (amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2019) (Entered: 03/19/2019)