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

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE 

PATRICK J. MASSARI [admitted pro hac vice] [Lead Counsel] 

patrick.massari@causeofaction.org 

MICHAEL PEPSON [admitted pro hac vice] 

Admitted only in Maryland. 

Practice limited to matters and proceedings before United States Courts and agencies. 

michael.pepson@causeofaction.org 

CYNTHIA CRAWFORD [admitted pro hac vice] 

cynthia.crawford@causeofaction.org 

JOSHUA N. SCHOPF [pro hac vice pending] 

josh.schopf@causeofaction.org 

JESSICA LEE THOMPSON [pro hac vice pending] 

Admitted only in North Carolina. 

Practicing under the supervision of Patrick Massari, a member of the D.C. Bar. 

jessica.thompson@causeofaction.org 

KARA E. MCKENNA [admitted pro hac vice] 

kara.mckenna@causeofaction.org 

1875 Eye Street N.W., Suite 800 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Telephone: (202) 422-4332/Facsimile: (202) 330-5842 

Christopher Kao (SBN 237716) 

ckao@velaw.com 

Erica Connolly (SBN 288822) 

econnolly@velaw.com 

Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. 

555 Mission Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: 415.979.6900/Facsimile: 415.651.8786 

Attorneys for Defendant D-Link Systems, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC., 

Defendant.

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF FEDERAL 

TRADE COMMISSION’S COMPLAINT 

FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND 

OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 
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

-1- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

 Defendant D-Link Systems, Inc. (“DLS”), responds as follows to plaintiff Federal Trade 

Commission’s (“Plaintiff,” “FTC,” or “Commission”) Complaint for Permanent Injunction and 

Other Equitable Relief, dated January 5, 2017 (the “Complaint”) (Dkt. Nos. 1, 44),1 with respect to 

their own actions and knowledge and/or upon information and belief. To the extent not expressly 

admitted, all allegations in the Complaint are denied. 

 Pursuant to this Court’s Order on May 15, 2017 granting Joint Stipulation Dismissing DLink Corporation Without Prejudice (Dkt. No. 75), non-party D-Link Corporation (“D-Link 

Corp.”) has been dismissed from this case and is not a defendant in or party to this action. 

Pursuant to this Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 90) on September 19, 2017, Plaintiff’s “unfairness” claim 

(Count I) and certain of Plaintiff’s “deception” claims (Counts IV and V) have been dismissed. To 

the extent that a response to the allegations related to these claims and/or to non-party D-Link 

Corp. is required, DLS denies all such allegations. 

1. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 1 are legal conclusions, no response is 

required. To the extent paragraph 1 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link Corp., 

no response is required. To the extent any response is required, DLS admits that it has marketed 

and sold routers and IP cameras to United States consumers. Except as expressly admitted herein, 

DLS denies the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint. With respect to the allegations in 

paragraph 1 that relate to non-party D-Link Corp., DLS further states that it is without knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, and denies them on 

that basis. 

 

1

 DLS states that the Complaint contains section titles or organizational headings to which no 

response is required. To the extent that the headings can be construed to contain allegations of fact 

to which a response is required, DLS denies all such allegations. DLS further states that pursuant 

to the Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 43) on the parties’ Stipulation on Federal Trade Commission’s 

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 41), on 

March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an unredacted Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other 

Equitable Relief (Dkt. No. 44), the exhibits to which are attached to the Plaintiff’s January 5, 2017, 

Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). 
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

-2- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 2 are legal conclusions, no response is 

required. To the extent any response is required, DLS admits that the Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction and that Plaintiff purports to base subject matter jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1337(a), and 1345. DLS further admits that Plaintiff purports to assert claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 

45(a) and 53(b), but denies that DLS violated the statutes cited by Plaintiff and that Plaintiff is 

entitled to any relief under those statutes. Except as expressly admitted herein, DLS denies the 

allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 

3. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 3 are legal conclusions, no response is 

required. To the extent any response is required, DLS admits that Plaintiff purports to base venue 

on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), but denies that venue is proper in this District. DLS further admits 

that Plaintiff purports to assert claims under the Federal Trade Commission Act (the “FTC Act”), 

but denies that DLS violated that statute and that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief under that statute. 

Except as expressly admitted herein, DLS denies the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 

PLAINTIFF 

4. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4 are legal conclusions, no response is 

required. To the extent any response is required, DLS admits that Plaintiff purports to assert claims 

under the FTC Act, but denies that DLS violated the statutes cited by Plaintiff and that Plaintiff is 

entitled to any relief under those statutes. DLS lacks knowledge sufficient to admit or deny 

allegations about the legal status of the FTC. 

5. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 5 are legal conclusions, no response is 

required. To the extent any response is required, DLS admits that Plaintiff purports to assert claims 

under the FTC Act, but denies that it violated the statutes cited by Plaintiff or that Plaintiff is 

entitled to any relief under those statutes. DLS lacks knowledge sufficient to admit or deny 

allegations about the legal status of the FTC. 
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

-3- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

DEFENDANTS 

6. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 6 are legal conclusions, no response is 

required. To the extent paragraph 6 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link Corp., 

no response is required. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 6 that relate to non-party DLink Corp., DLS states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of those allegations, and denies them on that basis, except that DLS admits that D-Link 

Corporation is a Taiwanese corporation with its principal office or place of business at No. 289, 

Xinhu 3rd Rd., Neihu District, Taipei City, Taiwan 114. Except as expressly admitted herein, DLS 

denies the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 

7. DLS admits that it is a California corporation with its principal office or place of 

business at 17595 Mt. Hermann St., Fountain Valley, California 92708. DLS further admits that it 

has sold routers and internet-protocol cameras (“IP cameras”) in the United States. DLS further 

admits that it has communicated with or through non-party D-Link Corp. regarding the security of 

DLS routers and IP cameras and other D-Link Brand routers and IP cameras. Except as expressly 

admitted herein, DLS denies the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 

8. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 8 are legal conclusions, no response is 

required. To the extent paragraph 8 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link Corp., 

no response is required. To the extent a response is required, DLS states that it is without 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and denies 

them on that basis. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 8 that relate to non-party D-Link 

Corp., DLS states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of those allegations, and denies them on that basis. Except as expressly admitted herein, DLS 

denies the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 

COMMERCE 

9. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 9 are legal conclusions, no response is 

required. To the extent paragraph 9 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link Corp., 
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

-4- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

no response is required. To the extent any response is required, DLS admits that it sells routers and 

IP cameras in the United States. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 9 that relate to nonparty D-Link Corp., DLS states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of those allegations, and denies them on that basis. Except as expressly 

admitted herein, DLS denies the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS PRACTICES 

10. To the extent paragraph 10 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link 

Corp., no response is required. To the extent any response is required, with respect to the 

allegations in paragraph 10 that relate to non-party D-Link Corp., DLS states that it is without 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, and denies 

them on that basis. DLS admits that non-party D-Link Corp. may choose to assist in testing the 

software that may be used in certain models of D-Link Brand routers and IP cameras that DLS 

chooses to sell. DLS further admits that private keys are used for the software included in the IP 

cameras and routers DLS chooses to sell. Except as expressly admitted herein, DLS denies the 

allegations in paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 

11. To the extent paragraph 11 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link 

Corp. or non-party D-Link Holding Company, Ltd., no response is required. To the extent any 

response is required, with respect to the allegations in paragraph 11 that relate to non-party D-Link 

Corp. or non-party D-Link Holding Company, Ltd., DLS states that it is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, and denies them on that 

basis, except that DLS admits that it is a subsidiary of non-party D-Link Corp., which is 

approximately 98% owned by non-party D-Link Corp. and non-party D-Link Holding Company, 

Ltd., and that DLS, from time to time, communicates with or through D-Link Corp. about D-Link 

Brand products. DLS further admits that it markets and distributes DLS products in the United 

States and also notifies users of DLS products about the availability of firmware updates to those 

products through means such as DLS’s website. DLS admits it provides after-sale support to 
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

-5- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

owners/users of DLS products. DLS admits that owners/users of DLS IP cameras and routers may 

contact DLS’s Customer Service Department and/or Consumer Contact Support via phone or email 

regarding those products and that DLS will appropriately assist owners/users of its products in 

attempting to address any product-related issues. DLS further admits that it monitors reports 

regarding its products, investigates the validity of reports regarding purported potential security 

vulnerabilities possibly affecting its products, and, as appropriate, informs, through non-party DLink Corp., the third-party vendor/manufacturers that make the IP cameras and routers DLS sells 

of such reports that may warrant firmware updates from the third-party vendor/manufacturer. 

Except as expressly admitted herein, DLS denies the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 

12. To the extent paragraph 12 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link 

Corp., no response is required. To the extent any response is required, with respect to the 

allegations in paragraph 12 that relate to non-party D-Link Corp., DLS states that it is without 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, and denies 

them on that basis. DLS admits that certain DLS IP cameras and routers can be accessed by the 

owners/authorized users of those IP cameras via mobile devices through software applications for 

mobile devices like the free “mydlink Lite” mobile app, which can be used by the 

owners/authorized users of certain DLS router and IP camera models who choose to use it. DLS 

further admits that owners/authorized users of certain DLS routers and IP cameras who choose to 

use the mydlink Lite app must enter a user name and password the first time the owner/authorized 

user employs the app on a particular mobile device. DLS admits that owners/authorized users of 

the app may choose whether to store login credentials, and, if so, for how long, and whether and 

when to log in or out. Except as expressly admitted herein, DLS denies the allegations in 

paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 

DEFENDANTS’ ROUTERS 

13. To the extent paragraph 13 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link 

Corp., no response is required. To the extent any response is required, with respect to the 
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

-6- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

allegations in paragraph 13 that relate to non-party D-Link Corp., DLS states that it is without 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, and denies 

them on that basis. DLS admits that DLS routers operate to forward data packets along a network. 

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 13 that relate to other unspecified routers sold by other 

businesses and the FTC’s characterization of the typical role of said routers, DLS states that it is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, 

and denies them on that basis. Except as expressly admitted herein, DLS denies the allegations in 

paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 

DEFENDANTS’ IP CAMERAS

14. To the extent paragraph 14 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link 

Corp., no response is required. To the extent any response is required, with respect to the 

allegations in paragraph 14 that relate to non-party D-Link Corp., DLS states that it is without 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, and denies 

them on that basis. DLS admits that certain DLS IP cameras can be used by their 

owners/authorized users to monitor homes or businesses and that live video and audio of certain 

DLS IP camera models can be accessed via the Internet by the owner/authorized user of the DLS 

IP camera using a mobile device or computer, depending on how the owner chooses to configure 

and use the device. DLS admits that paragraph 14 purports to characterize DLS marketing and/or 

other materials relating to DLS IP cameras. DLS states that these documents speak for themselves. 

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 14 relating to other unspecified IP cameras sold by 

other businesses and the FTC’s characterization of the role said IP cameras play, DLS states that it 

is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, 

and denies them on that basis. Except as expressly admitted herein, DLS denies the allegations in 

paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 

DEFENDANTS’ SECURITY FAILURES

15. DLS denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 
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

-7- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

THOUSANDS OF CONSUMERS AT RISK

16. DLS lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or 

falsity of the allegations in paragraph 16 regarding anonymous, unspecified press reports, so the 

allegations regarding what the “press has reported” about DLS are denied. DLS denies the 

remainder of the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint. DLS states that paragraph 16 

contains vague terms such as “significant risk” and “have been vulnerable,” and DLS further 

denies those allegations on that basis. 

17. DLS denies the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint. DLS states that 

paragraph 17 contains vague terms such as “risk,” “vulnerable,” “could,” “significant,” “widely 

known,” “readily accessible,” “readily available,” and “widely available,” and DLS further denies 

those allegations on that basis. 

18. DLS denies the allegations in paragraph 18 of the Complaint. DLS states that 

paragraph 18 contains vague terms such as “significant risk” and “could,” and DLS further denies 

those allegations on that basis. To the extent paragraph 18 contains allegations directed solely at 

non-party D-Link Corp., no response is required. To the extent any response is required, with 

respect to the allegations in paragraph 18 that relate to non-party D-Link Corp., DLS states that it is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, 

and denies them on that basis. 

DEFENDANTS’ SECURITY STATEMENTS

19. DLS admits the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint to the extent the 

allegations relate to DLS, and states that to the extent those allegations constitute legal conclusions, 

or relate to claims which the Court has already dismissed, no response is required. To the extent 

paragraph 19 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link Corp., no response is 

required. To the extent any response is required, with respect to the allegations in paragraph 19 

that relate to non-party D-Link Corp., DLS states that it is without knowledge or information 
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

-8- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, and denies them on that basis. Except 

as expressly admitted herein, DLS denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 

SECURITY EVENT RESPONSE POLICY

20. DLS admits that from approximately December 2013 until September 2015, a 

document titled “Security Event Response Policy” was posted on its webpage at 

http://support.dlink.com/securityadvisories.aspx. DLS further admits that paragraph 20 of the 

Complaint purports to describe the contents of an exhibit to the Complaint (PX 1). DLS states that 

PX 1 is a document that speaks for itself. Except as expressly admitted herein, DLS denies the 

allegations in paragraph 20 of the Complaint. DLS states that paragraph 20 contains vague terms 

such as “general form,” “highly publicized,” “affect,” and “many,” and DLS further denies those 

allegations on that basis. 

PROMOTIONAL CLAIMS

21. DLS admits that user manuals and brochures describing the features of DLS routers 

are available on DLS’s website. DLS further admits that paragraph 21 purports to describe the 

contents of exhibits to the Complaint (PX 2-5). DLS states that exhibits PX 2-5 are documents that 

speak for themselves and denies any allegations inconsistent with those exhibits. To the extent 

paragraph 21 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link Corp., no response is 

required. To the extent any response is required, with respect to the allegations in paragraph 21 

that relate to non-party D-Link Corp., DLS states that it is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, and denies them on that basis. Except 

as expressly admitted herein, DLS denies the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint. DLS 

states that paragraph 21 contains vague terms such as “general form,” “wide range,” and 

“highlight” and DLS further denies those allegations on that basis. 

22. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 22 relate to claims which the Court has 

already dismissed, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, DLS states as 

follows: DLS admits that materials are available on DLS’s website that relate to the features of 
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

-9- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

DLS IP cameras, including user manuals and brochures. DLS admits that this paragraph purports 

to describe the contents of exhibits to the Complaint (PX 6 and PX 7). DLS states that exhibits PX 

6 and PX 7 are documents that speak for themselves and denies any allegations that are 

inconsistent with PX6. DLS specifically denies that PX 7 was ever used to market DLS products 

or was otherwise publicly released by DLS. To the extent paragraph 22 contains allegations 

directed solely at non-party D-Link Corp., no response is required. To the extent any response is 

required, with respect to the allegations in paragraph 22 that relate to non-party D-Link Corp., DLS 

states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those 

allegations, and denies them on that basis. Except as expressly admitted herein, DLS denies the 

allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint. DLS states that paragraph 22 contains vague terms 

such as “general form,” “highlight,” “security-related,” and “wide range” and DLS further denies 

those allegations on that basis. 

INTERACTIVE SECURITY FEATURES

23. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 23 relate to claims which the Court has 

already dismissed, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, DLS states as 

follows: DLS admits that users of some models of DLS routers must access a graphical user 

interface (“GUI”) before using the routers. DLS further admits that DLS routers offer security 

features and that DLS provides instructions regarding use of these features through a variety of 

means, including the GUI. DLS admits that this paragraph purports to describe the contents of 

exhibits to the Complaint (PX 8 and PX 9). DLS states that exhibits PX 8 and PX 9 are documents 

that speak for themselves and denies any allegations inconsistent with those exhibits. To the extent 

paragraph 23 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link Corp., no response is 

required. To the extent any response is required, with respect to the allegations in paragraph 23 

that relate to non-party D-Link Corp., DLS states that it is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, and denies them on that basis. Except 

as expressly admitted herein, DLS denies the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint. DLS 
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

-10- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

states that paragraph 23 contains vague terms such as “general form,” “many instances,” and 

“numerous” and DLS further denies those allegations on that basis. 

24. DLS admits that DLS IP cameras offer security features and that the 

owners/authorized users of some models of DLS IP cameras must access a GUI before using the IP 

cameras. DLS further admits that this paragraph purports to describe the contents of exhibits to the 

Complaint (PX 10 and PX 11). DLS states that exhibits PX 10 and PX 11 are documents that 

speak for themselves and denies any allegations inconsistent with those exhibits. To the extent 

paragraph 24 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link Corp., no response is 

required. To the extent any response is required, with respect to the allegations in paragraph 24 

that relate to non-party D-Link Corp., DLS states that it is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, and denies them on that basis. Except 

as expressly admitted herein, DLS denies the allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint. DLS 

states that paragraph 24 contains vague terms such as “general form,” “numerous,” and “many 

instances” and DLS further denies those allegations on that basis. 

D-LINK DIRECTS ITS PRACTICES TO U.S. CONSUMERS

25. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 25 are legal conclusions, no response is 

required. To the extent paragraph 25 contains allegations directed solely at non-party D-Link 

Corp., no response is required. To the extent any response is required, with respect to the 

allegations in paragraph 25 that relate to non-party D-Link Corp., DLS states that it is without 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, and denies 

them on that basis. DLS denies the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint. DLS states that 

paragraph 25 contains vague terms such as “develop,” and DLS further denies those allegations on 

that basis. 
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

-11- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT

26. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 26 are legal conclusions, no response is 

required. To the extent any response is required, DLS denies that it violated the statute cited by 

Plaintiff and that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief under that statute. 

27. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 27 are legal conclusions, no response is 

required. To the extent any response is required, DLS denies that it violated the statute cited by 

Plaintiff and that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief under that statute. 

COUNT I 

Unfairness

28. The allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Complaint address Plaintiff’s 

unfairness claim under Count I, which the Court dismissed; therefore, no response is required. To 

the extent that a response is required, DLS denies the allegations. 

29. The allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the Complaint address Plaintiff’s 

unfairness claim under Count I, which the Court dismissed; therefore, no response is required. To 

the extent that a response is required, DLS denies the allegations. 

30. The allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint address Plaintiff’s 

unfairness claim under Count I, which the Court dismissed; therefore, no response is required. To 

the extent that a response is required, DLS denies the allegations. 

COUNT II 

Security Event Response Policy Misrepresentation

31. DLS states that the allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint constitute legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, DLS 

incorporates by reference its response to paragraph 20 as stated in this Answer and otherwise 

denies the allegation. 

32. DLS states that the allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint constitute legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, DLS 
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

-12- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

incorporates by reference its response to paragraphs 15-18 as stated in this Answer and otherwise 

denies the allegation. 

33. DLS states that the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint constitute legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, DLS denies 

the allegation. 

COUNT III 

Router Promotional Misrepresentations

34. DLS states that the allegations in paragraph 34 of the Complaint constitute legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, DLS 

incorporates by reference its response to paragraph 21 as stated in this Answer and otherwise 

denies the allegation. 

35. DLS states that the allegations in paragraph 35 of the Complaint constitute legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, DLS 

incorporates by reference its response to paragraphs 15-18 as stated in this Answer and otherwise 

denies the allegation. 

36. DLS states that the allegations in paragraph 36 of the Complaint constitute legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, DLS denies 

the allegation. 

COUNT IV 

IP Camera Promotional Misrepresentations

37. The allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Complaint address Plaintiff’s 

deception claim under Count IV, which the Court dismissed; therefore, no response is required. To 

the extent that a response is required, DLS denies the allegations. 

38. The allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Complaint address Plaintiff’s 

deception claim under Count IV, which the Court dismissed; therefore, no response is required. To 

the extent that a response is required, DLS denies the allegations. 
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

-13- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

39. The allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the Complaint address Plaintiff’s 

deception claim under Count IV, which the Court dismissed; therefore, no response is required. To 

the extent that a response is required, DLS denies the allegations. 

COUNT V 

Router GUI Misrepresentations

40. The allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the Complaint address Plaintiff’s 

deception claim under Count V, which the Court dismissed; therefore, no response is required. To 

the extent that a response is required, DLS denies the allegations. 

41. The allegations contained in paragraph 41 of the Complaint address Plaintiff’s 

deception claim under Count V, which the Court dismissed; therefore, no response is required. To 

the extent that a response is required, DLS denies the allegations. 

42. The allegations contained in paragraph 42 of the Complaint address Plaintiff’s 

deception claim under Count V, which the Court dismissed; therefore, no response is required. To 

the extent that a response is required, DLS denies the allegations. 

COUNT VI 

IP Camera GUI Misrepresentations

43. DLS states that the allegations in paragraph 43 of the Complaint constitute legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, DLS 

incorporates by reference its response to paragraph 24 as stated in this Answer and otherwise 

denies the allegation. 

44. DLS states that the allegations in paragraph 44 of the Complaint constitute legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, DLS 

incorporates by reference its response to paragraphs 15-18 as stated in this Answer and otherwise 

denies the allegation. 
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

-14- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

45. DLS states that the allegations in paragraph 45 of the Complaint constitute legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, DLS denies 

the allegation. 

CONSUMER INJURY

46. DLS denies the allegations contained paragraph 46 of the Complaint and states that 

to the extent those allegations constitute legal conclusions, no response is required. 

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF

47. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 47 are legal conclusions, no response is 

required. To the extent any response is required, DLS denies that it violated the statute cited by 

Plaintiff and that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief under that statute. 

[FTC’S] PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 The remainder of the Complaint constitutes Plaintiff’s prayer for relief for which an answer 

is not required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, DLS denies that Plaintiff is entitled to 

any relief requested in this section, Paragraphs A through B of the Complaint. 

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES 

Without assuming the burden of proof as to any defense or issue that would otherwise rest 

on Plaintiff or as to any element of Plaintiff’s claims, and reserving the right to amend this Answer 

to assert any additional defenses when, and if, in the course of investigation, discovery, preparation 

for trial or otherwise it becomes appropriate to assert such defenses, DLS asserts the following 

affirmative and other defenses: 

FIRST DEFENSE 

Plaintiff lacks statutory authority to assert the claims alleged in the Complaint. 

SECOND DEFENSE 

 This action violates DLS’s due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution because, among other things, the FTC has failed to provide constitutionally adequate 

fair notice of what acts or practices Section 5 prohibits or requires, as applied to the allegations in 
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

-15- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

the Complaint and this case; Section 5, as applied to the allegations in the Complaint and this case, 

does not provide constitutionally adequate fair notice of what acts or practices it prohibits or 

requires; and also because the FTC’s lack of standards for Section 5 enforcement authorizes and/or 

encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement. 

THIRD DEFENSE 

The Complaint, and each and every claim stated therein, fails to state a claim on which 

relief can be granted. 

FOURTH DEFENSE 

The Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief because this is not a “proper case” for relief within 

the meaning of Section 13(b) of the FTC Act insofar as any violation of Section 5 that may have 

occurred—there are none—was not clear and in any event is not likely to recur. 

FIFTH DEFENSE 

The FTC is not entitled to injunctive relief on conduct that occurred solely in the past. 

SIXTH DEFENSE 

The contemplated relief would not be in the public interest because it would, among other 

things, harm consumers. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE 

 The Plaintiff cannot prove that any of the alleged statements at issue in Counts II, III, and 

VI were or are material; that any of those alleged statements were or are likely to mislead 

consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; or that DLS made the representations 

alleged in paragraphs 31, 34, and 43 of the Complaint. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE 

 DLS cannot be held liable for any Section 5 violation and/or other unlawful conduct 

committed by the “popular search engine that can locate devices running particular software 

versions or operating in particular locations” referenced in paragraph 17 of the Complaint and/or 

hackers using this “popular search engine” or by other means. 
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

-16- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

NINTH DEFENSE 

DLS cannot be held liable for any Section 5 violation, if any, committed by nonparties, 

including third-party vendor/manufacturers. 

TENTH DEFENSE 

The alleged statements and claims that allegedly form the basis of Plaintiff’s claims are 

truthful Commercial Speech protected by the First Amendment; were not false, misleading, or 

inaccurate; constituted statements of opinion; and/or constituted nonactionable puffery. 

ELEVENTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by laches, estoppel, waiver, and/or other equitable defenses. 

TWELTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s claims are time barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of limitations set forth 

in 28 U.S.C. § 2462. 

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE 

Neither Plaintiff nor any consumer has suffered any actual or likely injury, harm, or 

economic loss. 

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE 

DLS acted at all times with reasonable care and competence and/or in accordance with 

industry standards in the matters alleged in the Complaint. 

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE 

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires use of an 

objective industry standard of care to determine liability under Section 5, and Plaintiff cannot 

prove that DLS’s alleged actions deviated from this constitutionally required objective industry 

standard at specific points in time. 

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE 

 This action violates DLS’s right of equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to 

the U.S. Constitution because, among other things, the Plaintiff has intentionally treated DLS 
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

-17- 

No. 3:17-cv-00039-JD 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

4818-9994-9888.v1 

differently from others similarly situated and there is no rational basis for the difference in 

treatment and/or the Plaintiff’s decision to prosecute DLS was based on an unjustifiable standard 

such as the countries of origin of the products DLS sells, DLS’s principled refusal to enter into a 

draconian and punitive twenty-year consent order with Plaintiff, or another arbitrary classification. 

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE 

This action is barred because it is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and therefore void 

because Plaintiff, as structured, violates the separation of powers required by the U.S. Constitution 

by, among other things, combining investigative, prosecutorial, quasi-legislative, and adjudicative 

functions and powers into a single administrative body. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, DLS seeks judgment: 

A. Dismissing the remaining claims against DLS in their entirety, with prejudice; 

B. Awarding the costs of defending this action, including attorneys’ fees, costs and 

disbursements; and 

C. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 

Dated: October 3, 2017 

 Signed: /s/ Patrick J. Massari ___________________ 

 PATRICK J. MASSARI [admitted pro hac vice] 

 [Lead Counsel] 

 Attorneys for Defendant D-Link Systems, Inc. 

 (Additional counsel listed on caption page)