No. 19-1284 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States __________ MALWAREBYTES, INC., Petitioner, v. ENIGMA SOFTWARE GROUP USA, LLC, Respondent. __________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit __________ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FOR RESPONDENT __________ CHRISTOPHER M. VERDINI TERRY BUDD ANNA SHABALOV Counsel of Record K&L GATES LLP BUDD LAW, PLLC 210 Sixth Avenue 120 Lyndhurst Circle Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Wexford, PA 15090 (412) 355-6500 (412) 613-2541 ([email protected]) July 27, 2020 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2), titled “Protection for ‘Good Samaritan’ blocking and screening of offensive material,” does not provide immunity from liability for companies engaging in predatory practices that intentionally target competitors for anticompetitive reasons. ii RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Enigma Software Group USA, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Florida. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC is 100% owned by Globalist LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Globalist LLC has no parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ................. ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................v INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 STATEMENT .............................................................. 2 I. STATUTORY CONTEXT ................................ 2 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................ 4 III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .............................. 8 A. District Court Opinion ................................ 8 B. Ninth Circuit Opinion .............................. 10 REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION ......... 11 I. THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION WAS CORRECT ............................................. 11 A. The Ninth Circuit’s Judgment Is Consistent with the Statutory Text ......... 11 B. Malwarebytes’ Attacks on the Ninth Circuit Opinion Have No Merit ................ 14 II. THERE IS NO CONFLICT WARRANT- ING THE COURT’S REVIEW ....................... 17 A. Malwarebytes’ Claim of a General- ized Circuit Conflict Is Baseless............... 17 B. The Decision Below Created No Intra-Circuit Conflict ................................ 20 III. THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S NARROW AND FACT-BOUND DECISION IS NOT OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO WARRANT REVIEW ..................................... 22 iv IV. THIS CASE IS A POOR VEHICLE FOR FURTHER REVIEW ...................................... 29 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 31 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Almeida v. Amazon.com, Inc., 456 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2006) .................................................... 18 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................... 27 Asurvio LP v. Malwarebytes Inc., No. 5:18-cv- 05409-EJD, 2020 WL 1478345 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2020) ...................................................... 27 Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) ..... 2, 4 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ..............................................................26, 27 Breazeale v. Victim Servs., Inc., 878 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2017) ........................................................ 2 Chicago Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008) ...................................................... 18 Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ................................................................18, 19 Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) ..................................................................... 18 Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................. 14 Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, No. 19-859 (U.S. May 18, 2020) ..................................................................... 18 Goddard v. Google, Inc., No. C 08-2738 JF (PVT), 2008 WL 5245490 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008) ...... 28 vi Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019), reh’g denied, 140 S. Ct. 579 (2019) ................ 14-15 Hassell v. Bird, 420 P.3d 776 (Cal. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 940 (2019) .............................. 18 Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2016) ................................................. 18 Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010) ...... 18 Marshall’s Locksmith Serv. Inc. v. Google, LLC, 925 F.3d 1263 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ........................... 18 Nat’l Numismatic Certification, LLC v. eBay, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-42-Orl-19GJK, 2008 WL 2704404 (M.D. Fla. July 8, 2008) ........................ 28 Nat’l Soc’y of Prof’l Eng’rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978) ............................................. 13 Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 139 S. Ct. 1029 (2019)..................................................... 17 Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., Ltd. v. Newton, 139 S. Ct. 1881 (2019) ......................................... 15 Prager Univ. v. Google LLC, No. 19CV340667, 2019 WL 8640569 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 19, 2019), appeal docketed, No. H047714 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist. Dec. 19, 2019) ..........................................................19, 20 Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc., 997 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (S.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................... 28 Shiamili v. Real Estate Grp. of N.Y., Inc., 952 N.E.2d 1011 (N.Y. 2011) ............................... 18 Song fi Inc. v. Google, Inc., 108 F. Supp. 3d 876 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................... 27 Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) ....................... 27 vii Zango, Inc. v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 568 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) .................... 3, 9, 10, 20, 21, 22 Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) ..................................................................... 18 CONSTITUTION, STATUTES, AND RULES U.S. Const. amend. I ................................................. 31 Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-164, 132 Stat. 1253 (2018) ......................................29, 30 Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. ................................................................... 19 Communications Decency Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, tit. V, 110 Stat. 56, 133 .............1, 2, 9 47 U.S.C. § 230 ............................................. passim 47 U.S.C. § 230(b) ............................................ 3, 11 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(2) ............................................ 13 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1) ............... 17, 18, 20, 23, 28, 30 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(2) .................... 3, 4, 9, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(A) ............................ 11, 22, 28 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(B) ............ 9, 11, 15, 17, 22, 23 47 U.S.C. § 230(e) ................................................ 30 47 U.S.C. §230(e)(3) .......................................18, 27 28 U.S.C. § 1404 .......................................................... 9 N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 ........................................... 9 viii Fed. R. Civ. P.: Rule 12(b) ............................................................... 9 Rule 12(b)(2) .......................................................... 9 Rule 12(b)(6) .................................................... 9, 29 Rule 45 ................................................................... 5 LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS “Biased Algorithm Deterrence Act of 2019,” H.R. 492, 116th Cong. (2019) .............................. 30 Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, 115th Cong., Final Vote Results for Roll Call 91 on H.R. 1865 (Feb. 27, 2018), http://clerk.house. gov/evs/2018/roll091.xml ..................................... 30 “EARN IT Act of 2020,” S. 3398, 116th Cong. (2020) ................................................................... 30 “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act,” S. 1914, 116th Cong. (2019) ................................ 30 “Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act,” S. 3983, 116th Cong. (2020) ................................................................... 30 “Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act (PACT Act),” S. 4066, 116th Cong. (2020) .............................................. 30 “Stop the Censorship Act,” H.R. 4027, 116th Cong. (2019) ......................................................... 30 U.S. Senate, 115th Cong., Roll Call Vote on H.R. 1865 (Mar. 21, 2018), https://www. senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_ call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2 &vote=00060 ........................................................ 30 ix ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS Exec. Order No. 13,925, 85 Fed. Reg. 34,079 (May 28, 2020) ..................................................... 31 U.S. Dep’t of Justice: Office of Att’y Gen., Department of Justice’s Review of Section 230 of the Communi- cations Decency Act of 1996, https://www. justice.gov/ag/department-justice-s-review- section-230-communications-decency-act- 1996 (last visited July 23, 2020) .................... 30-31 Section 230 — Nurturing Innovation or Fostering Unaccountability?: Key Takeaways and Recommendations (June 2020), https:// www.justice.gov/file/1286331/download ............