{"cached_at":"2026-09-04T09:50:45.695702+00:00","cl_docket_id":"72074891","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","id":72074891,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cand/","court_id":"cand","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/3228/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-23T12:28:12.568697-08:00","date_modified":"2026-09-01T18:02:49.750763-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Jon S. Tigar","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-12-23","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-08-27","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Ted Entertainment, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc","docket_number":"4:25-cv-10931","docket_number_core":"2510931","docket_number_raw":"4:25-cv-10931","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"4","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"JST","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"461720","cause":"17:101 Copyright Infringement","nature_of_suit":"820 Copyright","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2025-12-23T12:28:12.559707-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19660680/","id":19660680,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339727/","attorney_id":11339727,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339727/","attorney_id":11339727,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11351452/","attorney_id":11351452,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-04-23T14:55:42.569806-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-23T14:55:42.569818-07:00","name":"Chris Rice","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19660679/","id":19660679,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339727/","attorney_id":11339727,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339727/","attorney_id":11339727,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11351452/","attorney_id":11351452,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-04-23T14:55:42.552320-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-23T14:55:42.552330-07:00","name":"Nicole Chmura","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19660678/","id":19660678,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339727/","attorney_id":11339727,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339727/","attorney_id":11339727,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11351452/","attorney_id":11351452,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-04-23T14:55:42.525554-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-23T14:55:42.525562-07:00","name":"Devin Youngblood","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16922590/","id":16922590,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339728/","attorney_id":11339728,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339728/","attorney_id":11339728,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339729/","attorney_id":11339729,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339729/","attorney_id":11339729,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339730/","attorney_id":11339730,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339730/","attorney_id":11339730,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13583763/","attorney_id":13583763,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13583763/","attorney_id":13583763,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13583763/","attorney_id":13583763,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-23T12:30:04.744107-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-23T12:30:04.744131-08:00","name":"Meta Platforms, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16922589/","id":16922589,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11351452/","attorney_id":11351452,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339726/","attorney_id":11339726,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339726/","attorney_id":11339726,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13914360/","attorney_id":13914360,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13914360/","attorney_id":13914360,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11342098/","attorney_id":11342098,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11342098/","attorney_id":11342098,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13418244/","attorney_id":13418244,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13418244/","attorney_id":13418244,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339727/","attorney_id":11339727,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11000993/","attorney_id":11000993,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"individually and on behalf of all others similary situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-23T12:30:04.180920-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-23T12:30:04.180932-08:00","name":"Matt Fisher","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16922588/","id":16922588,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11351452/","attorney_id":11351452,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339726/","attorney_id":11339726,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339726/","attorney_id":11339726,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13914360/","attorney_id":13914360,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13914360/","attorney_id":13914360,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11342098/","attorney_id":11342098,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11342098/","attorney_id":11342098,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13418244/","attorney_id":13418244,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13418244/","attorney_id":13418244,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339727/","attorney_id":11339727,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11000993/","attorney_id":11000993,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"individually and on behalf of all others similary situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-23T12:30:04.125818-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-23T12:30:04.125830-08:00","name":"Golfholics, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16922587/","id":16922587,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11351452/","attorney_id":11351452,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339726/","attorney_id":11339726,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339726/","attorney_id":11339726,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13914360/","attorney_id":13914360,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13914360/","attorney_id":13914360,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11342098/","attorney_id":11342098,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11342098/","attorney_id":11342098,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13418244/","attorney_id":13418244,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13418244/","attorney_id":13418244,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11339727/","attorney_id":11339727,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11000993/","attorney_id":11000993,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","docket_id":72074891,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"individually and on behalf of all others similary situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-23T12:30:04.056705-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-23T12:30:04.056718-08:00","name":"Ted Entertainment, Inc.","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476047975/","id":476047975,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491598428/","id":491598428,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/52/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-27T12:02:44.248421-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T12:43:16.697942-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"52","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027565691","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T12:02:44.230448-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T12:02:44.234643-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-27","time_filed":"11:42:43","entry_number":52,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":176,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475784549/","id":475784549,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491327698/","id":491327698,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/51/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-25T16:01:44.391096-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-02T14:27:00.202709-07:00","sha1":"50bf3624ba0a1243f38083ed03dd7ffbb0aadfd5","page_count":1,"file_size":134953,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.461720/gov.uscourts.cand.461720.51.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.461720/gov.uscourts.cand.461720.51.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cand.461720/491327698.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 51 Filed 08/25/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2\n\n 3\n\n 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n 6\n\n 7 TED ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Case No. 25-cv-10931-JST\n Plaintiffs,\n 8\n REFERRAL FOR PURPOSE OF\n v. DETERMINING RELATIONSHIP\n 9\n\n 10 META PLATFORMS, INC.,\n Defendant.\n 11\n\n 12\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(c), the above-entitled case is hereby referred to the\n\n 14 Honorable Edward J. Davila for consideration of whether the case is related to Ted Entertainment,\n\n 15 Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation, No. 25-cv-10287-EJD.\n\n 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n 17 Dated: August 25, 2026\n ______________________________________\n 18\n JON S. TIGAR\n 19 United States District Judge\n\n 20\n\n 21\n\n 22\n\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n 27\n\n 28\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-26T07:22:51.588106-07:00","document_number":"51","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027556502","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-25T16:01:44.358541-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-01T18:02:49.784451-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-25","time_filed":"15:54:24","entry_number":51,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":174,"description":"REFERRAL FOR PURPOSE OF DETERMINING RELATIONSHIP. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on 08/25/2026. (dms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475622095/","id":475622095,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491160518/","id":491160518,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/50/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-24T15:36:07.648589-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-25T15:50:24.799143-07:00","sha1":"7a7be3b323fbc3c8cad5bd266dcc9a9afefac8d6","page_count":3,"file_size":190344,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.461720/gov.uscourts.cand.461720.50.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 50 Filed 08/24/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 Heather Lopez (SBN 354022)\n MILBERG, PLLC\n 2 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse\n Beverly Hills, CA 90212\n 3\n Tel.: (331) 240-3015\n 4 hlopez@milberg.com\n\n 5 Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class\n [additional counsel on signature page]\n 6\n\n 7 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 8\n TED ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al., ) Case No.: 4:25-CV-10931-JST\n 9\n )\n10 Plaintiffs, ) PLAINTIFFS\u2019 NOTICE OF\n vs. ) SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN\n11 ) OPPOSITION TO META PLATFORMS,\n META PLATFORMS, INC., ) INC.\u2019S MOTION TO DISMISS\n12 )\n Defendant. ) Hon. Jon S. Tigar\n13\n )\n14 )\n )\n15 )\n )\n16 )\n17 )\n\n18 Plaintiffs respectfully submit the August 20, 2026 decision in Anthony Justice, et al. v. Suno,\n\n19 Inc., No. 1:25-CV-11739-FDS, ECF No. 71 (D. Mass. Aug. 20, 2026) (attached hereto as Exhibit\n\n20 A) as supplemental authority to Plaintiffs\u2019 opposition to Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.\u2019s pending\n\n21 motion to dismiss. The decision addresses a claim under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(1)(A).\n\n22\n\n23 Dated: August 24, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n\n24 /s/ Heather Lopez\n25 Heather Lopez (SBN 354022)\n MILBERG, PLLC\n26 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse\n Beverly Hills, CA 90212\n27 Tel.: (331) 240-3015\n hlopez@milberg.com\n28\n\n\n NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 50 Filed 08/24/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 William J. Edelman (SBN 285177)\n MILBERG, PLLC\n 2 280 South Beverly Drive-Penthouse\n Beverly Hills, CA 90212\n 3\n Tel: (866) 252-0878\n 4 wedelman@milberg.com\n\n 5 Jarrett Lee Ellzey (pro hac vice)\n Tom Kherkher (pro hac vice)\n 6 ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD\n MONTGOMERY LLP\n 7\n 4200 Montrose Street, Suite 200\n 8 Houston, TX 77006\n Tel: (713) 244-6363\n 9 JEllzey@EKSM.com\n TKherkher@EKSM.com\n10\n\n11 Rom Bar-Nissim (SBN 293356)\n HEAH BAR-NISSIM LLP\n12 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400\n Los Angeles, CA 90067\n13 Tel: (310) 432-2836\n Rom@HeahBarNissim.com\n14\n\n15 James E. Cecchi (pro hac vice)\n Kevin G. Cooper (pro hac vice)\n16 CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI\n BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.\n17 5 Becker Farm Rd.\n Roseland, NJ 07068\n18\n Tel: (973) 994-1700\n19 jcecchi@carellabyrne.com\n kcooper@carellabyrne.com\n20\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 2\n NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 50 Filed 08/24/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n 2 I hereby certify that on August 24, 2026, I caused the foregoing Plaintiffs\u2019 Notice of\n 3\n Supplemental Authority in Opposition to Defendant\u2019s Motion to Dismiss to be filed electronically\n 4\n with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all counsel\n 5\n of record.\n 6\n\n 7 /s/ Heather Lopez\n Heather Lopez (SBN 354022)\n 8\n\n 9\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 3\n NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-25T15:50:24.707591-07:00","document_number":"50","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027550748","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Statement of Recent Decision","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491324518/","id":491324518,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/50/1/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-25T15:49:46.731058-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-25T15:49:46.731072-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":6,"file_size":211641,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"50","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027550749","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit A - Justice et al. v. Suno, Inc.","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-24T15:36:07.633226-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-25T05:49:39.576449-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-24","time_filed":"15:22:40","entry_number":50,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":166,"description":"STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d filed byNicole Chmura, Matt Fisher, Golfholics, Inc., Chris Rice, Ted Entertainment, Inc., Devin Youngblood. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Justice et al. v. Suno, Inc.)(Related document(s) 33, 37 ) (Lopez, Heather) (Filed on 8/24/2026) (Entered: 08/24/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475240468/","id":475240468,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490766192/","id":490766192,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/49/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-20T13:06:05.309519-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-23T04:15:18.466979-07:00","sha1":"b26c5dec2c5525bbb86863ea86378608b2bd396b","page_count":3,"file_size":317554,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.461720/gov.uscourts.cand.461720.49.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.461720/gov.uscourts.cand.461720.49.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 49 Filed 08/20/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 William J. Edelman (SBN 285177)\n Heather M. Lopez (SBN 354022)\n 2 MILBERG, PLLC\n 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse\n 3\n Beverly Hills, CA 90212\n 4 Tel: (866) 252-0878\n wedelman@milberg.com\n 5 hlopez@milberg.com\n\n 6 Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class\n [additional counsel on signature page]\n 7\n\n 8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 9\n\n10 TED ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al., ) Case No.: 4:25-CV-10931-JST\n )\n11 Plaintiffs, ) PLAINTIFFS\u2019 NOTICE OF\n vs. ) SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN\n12 ) OPPOSITION TO META PLATFORMS,\n META PLATFORMS, INC., ) INC.\u2019S MOTION TO DISMISS\n13\n )\n14 Defendant. ) Hon. Jon S. Tigar\n )\n15 )\n16 Plaintiffs respectfully submit the August 19, 2026 decision in Ted Entertainment, Inc., et al.\n17 v. Snap, Inc., No. 2:26-CV-00754-AB-MBK, ECF No. 70 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2026) (attached\n\n18 hereto as Exhibit A), and the August 18, 2026 decision in UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Suno Inc.,\n\n19 et al., No. 1:24-CV-11611-FDS, ECF No. 271 (D. Mass. Aug. 18, 2026) (attached hereto as Exhibit\n\n20 B) as supplemental authority to Plaintiffs\u2019 opposition to Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.\u2019s pending\n\n21 Motion to Dismiss. These decisions addresses claims under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(1)(A).\n\n22 Dated: August 20, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n23\n /s/ William J. Edelman\n24 William J. Edelman (SBN 285177)\n Heather M. Lopez (SBN 354022)\n25 MILBERG, PLLC\n 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse\n26 Beverly Hills, CA 90212\n Tel: (866) 252-0878\n27 wedelman@milberg.com\n hlopez@milberg.com\n28\n\n\n NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 49 Filed 08/20/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 Jarrett Lee Ellzey (pro hac vice pending)\n Tom Kherkher (pro hac vice)\n 2 ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD\n MONTGOMERY LLP\n 3 4200 Montrose Street, Suite 200\n Houston, TX 77006\n 4 Tel: (713) 244-6363\n JEllzey@EKSM.com\n 5 TKherkher@EKSM.com\n\n 6 Rom Bar-Nissim (SBN 293356)\n HEAH BAR-NISSIM LLP\n 7 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400\n Los Angeles, CA 90067\n 8 Tel: (310) 432-2836\n Rom@HeahBarNissim.com\n 9\n James E. Cecchi (pro hac vice)\n10 Kevin G. Cooper (pro hac vice)\n CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI\n11\n BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.\n12 5 Becker Farm Rd.\n Roseland, NJ 07068\n13 Tel: (973) 994-1700\n jcecchi@carellabyrne.com\n14 kcooper@carellabyrne.com\n15\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 2\n NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 49 Filed 08/20/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n 2 I hereby certify that on August 20, 2026, I caused the foregoing Plaintiffs\u2019 Notice of\n 3\n Supplemental Authority in Opposition to Defendant\u2019s Motion to Dismiss to be filed electronically\n 4\n with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all counsel\n 5\n of record.\n 6\n\n 7 /s/ William J. Edelman\n William J. Edelman\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 3\n NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-20T15:23:46.855571-07:00","document_number":"49","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027536606","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Statement of Recent Decision","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490793578/","id":490793578,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/49/1/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-20T15:23:37.148470-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-20T15:23:37.148484-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":18,"file_size":224643,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"49","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027536607","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A - Ted Enter. v. Snap","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490793579/","id":490793579,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/49/2/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-20T15:23:37.184856-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-20T15:23:37.184870-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":13,"file_size":278395,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"49","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"035027536608","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B - UMG v Suno","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-20T13:06:05.277963-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-25T05:49:39.551824-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-20","time_filed":"12:38:26","entry_number":49,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":163,"description":"STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d filed byNicole Chmura, Matt Fisher, Golfholics, Inc., Chris Rice, Ted Entertainment, Inc., Devin Youngblood. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Ted Enter. v. Snap, # 2 Exhibit B - UMG v Suno)(Related document(s) 37 ) (Edelman, William) (Filed on 8/20/2026) (Entered: 08/20/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474026094/","id":474026094,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489513344/","id":489513344,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/48/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-11T11:05:13.715117-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-11T17:28:08.798401-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"48","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027495241","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-11T11:05:13.644894-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-25T05:49:39.524421-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-11","time_filed":"10:52:00","entry_number":48,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":161,"description":"APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE; ORDER by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 46 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Jarrett L. Ellzey. (dms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2026) (Entered: 08/11/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473322126/","id":473322126,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488785126/","id":488785126,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/47/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-05T09:06:19.393895-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T15:07:45.504958-07:00","sha1":"6a3306f482af67db69e08048793303601166e389","page_count":2,"file_size":308260,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.461720/gov.uscourts.cand.461720.47.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.461720/gov.uscourts.cand.461720.47.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 47 Filed 08/05/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n 1 William J. Edelman (SBN 285177)\n Heather M. Lopez (SBN 354022)\n 2 MILBERG, PLLC\n 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse\n 3\n Beverly Hills, CA 90212\n 4 Tel: (866) 252-0878\n wedelman@milberg.com\n 5 hlopez@milberg.com\n\n 6 Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class\n [additional counsel on signature page]\n 7\n\n 8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 9\n\n10 TED ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al., ) Case No.: 4:25-CV-10931-JST\n )\n11 Plaintiffs, ) PLAINTIFFS\u2019 NOTICE OF\n vs. ) SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN\n12 ) OPPOSITION TO META PLATFORMS,\n META PLATFORMS, INC., ) INC.\u2019S MOTION TO DISMISS\n13\n )\n14 Defendant. ) Hon. Jon S. Tigar\n )\n15\n Plaintiffs respectfully submit the July 31, 2026 decision in Reddit, Inc. v. Serp API LLC, No.\n16\n 25 Civ. 8736 (PAE), Dkt. 104 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2026), as supplemental authority to Plaintiffs\u2019\n17\n opposition to Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.\u2019s pending motion to dismiss. The decision addresses\n18\n claims under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(1)(A). A copy of the decision is attached as Exhibit A.\n19\n Dated: August 5, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n20\n\n21 /s/ William J. Edelman\n William J. Edelman (SBN 285177)\n22 Heather M. Lopez (SBN 354022)\n MILBERG, PLLC\n23 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse\n Beverly Hills, CA 90212\n24 Tel: (866) 252-0878\n wedelman@milberg.com\n25 hlopez@milberg.com\n\n26 Jarrett Lee Ellzey (pro hac vice pending)\n Tom Kherkher (pro hac vice)\n27 ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD\n MONTGOMERY LLP\n28 4200 Montrose Street, Suite 200\n Houston, TX 77006\n\n NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 47 Filed 08/05/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n 1 Tel: (713) 244-6363\n JEllzey@EKSM.com\n 2 TKherkher@EKSM.com\n\n 3 Rom Bar-Nissim (SBN 293356)\n HEAH BAR-NISSIM LLP\n 4 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400\n Los Angeles, CA 90067\n 5 Tel: (310) 432-2836\n Rom@HeahBarNissim.com\n 6\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class\n 7\n\n 8\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n 9\n\n10 I hereby certify that on August 5, 2026, I caused the foregoing Plaintiffs\u2019 Notice of\n\n11 Supplemental Authority in Opposition to Defendant\u2019s Motion to Dismiss to be filed electronically\n\n12 with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all counsel\n\n13\n of record.\n14\n /s/ William J. Edelman\n15 William J. Edelman\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 2\n NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-05T13:33:24.298229-07:00","document_number":"47","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027470024","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Statement of Recent Decision","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488844267/","id":488844267,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/47/1/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-05T13:31:58.096414-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T01:47:27.148494-07:00","sha1":"a2b7e88f658b545de40e903561283ff411d63411","page_count":64,"file_size":8059379,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.461720/gov.uscourts.cand.461720.47.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.461720/gov.uscourts.cand.461720.47.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 47-1 Filed 08/05/26 Page 1 of 64\n\nEXHIBIT A\n\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Dmmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 2 of 64\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nREDDIT, INC.,\nPlaintiff,\n-v- 25 Civ. 8736 (PAE)\nSERPAPI LLC, OXYLABS UAB, AWMPROXY, and OPINION & ORDER\nPERPLEXITY AI, INC.,\nDefendants.\n\nPAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:\n\nThe Digital Millenium Copyright Act (\u201c\u201cSDMCA\u201d), 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201 et seq., was enacted\nin 1998 in response to the rise of the digital marketplace for copyrighted works. Congress\nsought to protect against mass piracy by making it unlawful to circumvent, or create products\nthat circumvent, technological measures implemented to prevent unauthorized access to and\ninfringement of such works. At the time, the emergent technologies visible to Congress included\nones that could descramble cable programming or defeat copy protections on videocassettes,\nenabling users to access, reproduce, or distribute copyrighted works therein. In the decades\nsince, with the explosion of cyber communications and commerce, technologies carrying\ncopyrightable works in bulk have proliferated. Cable and videocassettes have been supplanted\nby blogs, social media, digital repositories, and streaming services. But the problem the DMCA\naimed to address\u2014the accessing and copying of protected content en masse, without the\nauthority of the copyright owner, with the potential for further downstream infringements of\ncopyright interests\u2014remains real. The rise of artificial intelligence (\u201cAI\u201d) has added a new\ndimension to this problem, as copyright-protected works have been widely used to populate\u2014\n\nand train and source\u2014-AI companies\u2019 large language models.\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Dmmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 2 of 64\n\nThis case concerns the alleged circumvention of copyright-protective technology in the\nage of AI. Reddit, Inc. (\u201cReddit\u2019\u2019), the widely used online discussion forum, brings claims\nagainst four entities for circumventing technological protection measures (\u201cTPMs\u201d) intended to\nprevent automated systems from accessing copyrighted content. Reddit alleges that this\ncircumvention has enabled these entities to access and \u201cscrape\u201d (i.e., copy) vast amounts of\ncontent authored by Reddit and its users. Its First Amended Complaint (\u201cFAC\u201d), Dkt. 55, brings\nclaims under the DMCA for circumvention of access control measures, in violation of 17 U.S.C\n\u00a7 1201(a)(1)(A), and for offering circumvention products and services, in violation of 17 U.S.C\n\u00a7 1201(a)(2) and (b). Reddit also brings New York common law claims for unfair competition,\nunjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.\n\nPending now are motions to dismiss, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), by\ntwo defendants, SerpApi LLC and Perplexity AI, Inc. (individually, \u201cSerpApi\u201d and \u201cPerplexity,\u201d\nand collectively, \u201cdefendants\u201d). For the reasons that follow, the Court predominantly denies the\nmotions to dismiss. The Court grants the motions to dismiss the section 1201(b) claim against\nSerpApi, and the unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims against both defendants. The\nCourt otherwise denies the motions to dismiss.\n\nI. Factual Background!\n\nA. The Relevant Parties\n\nReddit is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco,\nCalifornia. FAC \u00a7 8. Its platform is an online discussion forum with more than 100 million\n\nunique users per day. Id. \u00a5 44.\n\n' The following facts are drawn primarily from the FAC. See DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable LLC,\n622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (\u201cIn considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim\npursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint,\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Dmmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 4of 64\n\nSerpApi is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in\nAustin, Texas. Id. \u00a7 9. It provides products and services that enable users to bypass\ntechnological measures that prevent large-scale access and web scraping. Id.\n\nPerplexity is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San\nFrancisco, California. Jd. \u00a7 12. Its platform is an \u201canswer engine\u201d powered by AI. Id.\nPerplexity is a customer of SerpApi. Jd. & n.4; Dkt. 1-1 (\u201cSerpApi Website\u201d) at 9.\n\nB. Reddit\u2019s Platform\n\nFounded in 2006, Reddit states that its mission is to \u201cempower communities and provide\nhuman perspectives to everyone.\u201d Jd. [\u00a7 8, 44. It seeks to achieve this mission by providing a\nforum for millions of users to engage in discussions across hundreds of thousands of internet-\nbased communities known as \u201csubreddits.\u201d Jd. 42. Subreddits cover \u201cvirtually every topic\nimaginable,\u201d including current events, product reviews, sports, and entertainment. Id. \u00a5 44.\nMost content on Reddit is created by its users, but tens of thousands of posts and comments are\nauthored by Reddit itself. Jd. 7 47.\n\nReddit\u2019s platform contains billions of posts and comments\u2014*\u201cnearly two decades of\nhuman conversational data.\u201d Jd. 4 44. This data is \u201cinvaluable to AI companies\u201d in training\nlarge language models because it \u201cconstantly grows and regenerates as users come and interact\nwith their communities and each other in genuine and authentic ways.\u201d Id. 445. Reddit\n\naccordingly has emerged as one of the most cited sources by AJ models. Id. ] 2.\n\ndocuments attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the\ncomplaint.\u201d). For purposes of resolving the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court\naccepts all factual allegations in the FAC as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in Reddit\u2019s\nfavor. See Koch v. Christie\u2019s Int'l PLC, 699 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 2012).\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Dmmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 4 of 64\n\nC. Reddit\u2019s Policies\n\nReddit\u2019s user agreement (the \u201cuser agreement\u2019\u2019) governs its relationship with its users.\n\nId. 4 46; User Agreement, Reddit, https://redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement (\u201cUser\nAgreement\u201d). Under it, users retain any ownership rights that they have in their content (i.e., the\ntext, graphics, photos, and videos they have posted), while granting an irrevocable, non-\nexclusive, and sublicensable license to Reddit to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative\nworks of, distribute, store, perform, and display the content in any media formats and channels.\nFAC \u00a7 46. That license includes the right for Reddit to make the content available for\nsyndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other entities who partner with Reddit, and\nto use the content to train AI and machine learning models. Id.\n\nThe user agreement imposes various restrictions on users. Users cannot license, sell,\ntransfer, assign, distribute, host, or otherwise commercially exploit Reddit user content to anyone\nelse. Id. 4 48. Users may access Reddit\u2019s website, mobile apps, and other online products, but\nthese are owned and operated by Reddit and protected by intellectual property laws, and all\nmaterials contained therein are the property of Reddit or its third-party licensors. Id. | 49. Users\ncannot \u201caccess, search, or collect data\u201d from these sources \u201cby any means (automated or\notherwise) except as permitted\u201d in the user agreement. Jd.\n\nThe user agreement incorporates by reference Reddit\u2019s privacy policy and public content\npolicy (collectively, the \u201cuser agreement\u201d). Both policies authorize Reddit to take measures to\nprotect users\u2019 information and content. Jd. 450. The privacy policy authorizes Reddit to take\n\u201cmeasures to help protect information about you from loss, theft, misuse, and unauthorized\naccess, disclosure, alteration, and destruction.\u201d Jd.; Privacy Policy, Reddit,\n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/en-us/policies/privacy-policy (\u201cPrivacy Policy\u201d). The public content\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Dmmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 5 of 64\n\npolicy, in turn, states that users can \u201cuse Reddit content for non-commercial uses, such as\nlearning and community,\u201d but must \u201ctalk to [Reddit] if [they] have commercial purposes in\nmind.\u201d FAC 4 48; Public Content Policy, Reddit, https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-\nus/articles/26410290525844-Public-Content-Policy (\u201cPublic Content Policy\u201d). It states that\nReddit enters licensing arrangements only with partners who \u201callow us to put into place\nmeaningful protections\u201d\u2014including to enable users to know who is accessing public content, to\nrestrict contractually the use of public content, and to prohibit data licensees from using or\npublishing content that has been deleted by users. FAC 451. That policy states: \u201cProtecting\nRedditors in our data licensing arrangements is essential.\u201d Jd.\n\nConsistent with the user agreement, Reddit has entered partnership arrangements with\nvarious companies to license Reddit content. /d. 952. These agreements prohibit the partner\ncompanies from making Reddit data available to unauthorized third parties. Id. Most such\nagreements also prohibit using Reddit data for AI purposes. Jd. Reddit has, however, entered\ninto partnership agreements with certain AI companies, such as OpenAI, that agree to abide by\nReddit\u2019s policies. Id. J\u00a7 3,52. On February 22, 2024, Reddit and Google entered one such\npartnership. Id. \u00a7 52.\n\nD. Reddit\u2019s Anti-Scraping Measures\n\nReddit maintains systems designed to detect and protect against unauthorized access to its\nproducts and services by scrapers and bots.\u201d Id. \u00a7 54. If Reddit\u2019s systems detect unauthorized\n\nautomated access, they issue challenges that must be bypassed before the content is provided. Jd.\n\n> Scraping is \u201can automated process for copying content from a website using web crawlers or\n\u2018bots.\u201d\u201d FAC \u00a7 53 n.27.\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Dmmument4io4 Filed 02/85/26 Page @ of 64\n\nReddit employs techniques such as registered user-identification limits, captcha bot protection,\nand anomaly detection tools. Jd.\n\nReddit communicates its anti-scraping policy in various ways. The user agreement\nprohibits scraping Reddit\u2019s platform \u201cwithout Reddit\u2019s prior written consent.\u201d Jd. Reddit\u2019s\nrobots exclusion protocol file (\u201crobots.txt\u201d) notifies scrapers that it prohibits unapproved web\ncrawlers from accessing any part of Reddit\u2019s website. Jd.\n\nFor authorized third parties with whom Reddit has licensing agreements, Reddit has\nimplemented a data application programming interface (the \u201cdata API\u2019) that allows them to\naccess Reddit data in bulk, subject to restrictions. Id. \u00a7 60. Third parties must agree to use the\ndata API in accordance with Reddit\u2019s terms, and to use the bulk data only for development,\ndeployment, and distribution in their applications. Jd. Reddit prohibits using content for any\nother unapproved purpose, such as AI training, unless the third party has entered a separate\nagreement with Reddit to do so. Id.\n\nE. Google SERPs and SearchGuard\n\nReddit data is accessible via Google, as a result of an agreement between Google and\nReddit giving Google \u201cprogrammatic access . . . to Reddit\u2019s content for use in Google\u2019s products\nand services.\u201d Id. \u00a7 52. When a user submits a query, Google\u2019s search engine returns pages of\nlinks, ads, snippets, images, and summaries\u2014known as search engine results pages (\u201cSERPs\u201d).\nId. \u00a5\u00a7 5, 55. Depending on the query, Google\u2019s SERPs may display Reddit content, in the form\nof snippets from posts and comments by Reddit and its users. Id. 955. For example, a Google\nsearch for \u201cclassic movies\u201d returns, among other results, a snippet of a Reddit post on that\nsubject. Id. 967. These snippets tend to be brief (based on the pleadings, they do not appear to\n\nexceed a few sentences), and to be excerpted from a single post or comment, which is often the\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Dmmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page %of 64\n\npost or comment that Reddit \u201chas decided to display most prominently\u201d on its forum. Jd. J] 69-\n72.\n\nGoogle\u2019s terms of service prohibit unauthorized automated access to its SERPs. Id. J 55.\nSince January 2025, Google has employed a TPM called SearchGuard, which is designed to\nprevent automated systems from accessing and obtaining wholesale search results and indexed\ndata. Id. \u00a7 56; Google LLC v. SerpApi, LLC, No. 25 Civ. 10826, slip op. at 3 (N.D. Cal. July 20,\n2026) (\u201cGoogle Decision\u201d).? SearchGuard examines each incoming search query to determine\nwhether it is coming from a recognized or an unrecognized source. FAC 7 58. Ifthe source is\nunrecognized, SearchGuard sends a JavaScript \u201cchallenge\u201d or CAPTCHA (which cannot be\nsolved in the ordinary course by automated systems) to validate that the query came from a real\nhuman user, instead of an automated software. Id. 9{ 57-58. If the user solves the challenge,\nGoogle permits access to the search results. Id. 58. This process blocks automated access\nwithout disrupting the experience for human users, whose browsers run the JavaScript code and\nsend back the required information \u201cseamlessly.\u201d Jd.\n\nGoogle does not have an agreement with defendants that would permit them to bypass\nGoogle\u2019s TPMs. Jd. \u00a7 61. On December 19, 2025, Google sued SerpApi\u2014in a separate action\nfiled in the Northern District of California\u2014for circumventing SearchGuard. Id. \u00a7 62. Google\nalleged there that \u201cSerpApi, on billions of separate occasions, circumvented SearchGuard in\n\norder to gain access to Google Search results and the copyrighted content they contain.\u201d Google\n\n3 The FAC incorporated by reference, FAC \u00a7 62, the complaint in Google LLC, where Google\nalleges SerpApi\u2019s circumvention of SearchGuard and brings claims under two of the DMCA\nprovisions at issue here. See Google LLC v. SerpApi, LLC, No. 25 Civ. 10826, Dkt. 1 (N.D. Cal.\nJuly 20, 2026) (\u201cGoogle Complaint\u201d). On July 21, 2026, Reddit filed the Northern District of\nCalifornia\u2019s decision dismissing Google\u2019s claims without prejudice on the docket of this case as\nsupplemental authority. Dkt. 90-1. The Court accordingly considers the complaint and decision\nfrom that case.\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Dmmumenit4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 9 of 64\n\nLLC v. SerpApi, LLC, No. 25 Civ. 10826, Dkt. 1 \u00a7 38 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026) (\u201cGoogle\nComplaint\u201d). As more fully discussed infra, on July 20, 2026, the Google Decision granted\nSerpApi\u2019s motion to dismiss Google\u2019s claims, for reasons particular to the pleadings in that case.\n\nF. SerpApi\u2019s Data Scraping Tool\n\nSerpApi\u2019s tool circumvents SearchGuard to access and collect Reddit data from Google\nSERPs. FAC 7 64. It allows SerpApi\u2019s customers to customize the parameters of such\ncircumvention, including by choosing and inputting operational data that determine \u201cwhen, how,\nand at what scale\u201d the circumvention will occur. Jd. 65. Customers can set parameters such as\ngeographic location, language settings, advanced filtering, and \u201cother operational inputs.\u201d Jd.\n\nSerpApi\u2019s interface is a Google Search API. Id. As pictured below, when customers\nsearch \u201creddit public data policy,\u201d or \u201cclassic movies,\u201d the API reproduces the corresponding\nSERPs and the machine-readable format of the same results. Jd. [| 66-67, 71. That format\u2014\nwhich extracts fields such as titles, links, and snippet texts from the SERPs\u2014enables users to\n\naccess Reddit content as structured data that identifies elements of the content. Jd. 71.\n\ntoler oar as te od\n\nGoogle Search Engine Results\n\ni 2 itera: Hemmer, i th 36490.. E\nPublic Content Policy < Reddit Help\n5 ae 29, fogs\nadda say provide public coteent in offers, hut never private Reddtor data - Private messages, nivale...\n\noer naei nba\n\nSerpAp! Scraped Data\n\n\fCased ZpowI0@a6JSAE Dodocoreen4704 RipWGeOa/26 Page Doin\n\nRefers; asics em se Ua\n\nGoogle Search Engine Results\n\ni\ni PANS tebtiventa : Zips age 2\n: Classics everyone should watch? movies\nFoneption. Lom ilegy: Futh Demant. The frincess hada: ues Stamis. Move Hunt (anche personal,\n| favowite: ti biased}. Michal Bay's.\n| What une coma clasaic filme ienayone should watch... US answers Sig 22, 2024\ni Classks mendes that everyone should weatch? \u00abReddit: \u201cbio snawers | May Rd, Hie.\n$5 .\n\n2 Mor\u00e9 det corn:\n\nSerpApi Scraped Data\n\nId. J\u00a7 66-67.\n\nSerpApi advertises these scraping capabilities on its website. Jd. \u00a7 66. It states that\ncustomers \u201cdon\u2019t need to care\u201d about TPMs, such as block scrapers, CAPTCHA, or bots\ndetection. Id. J\u00a7 81-82. \u201c[T]o avoid being detected and blocked by Google,\u201d it states, \u201cSerpApi\nuses a proxy and the latest technologies to mimic human behavior.\u201d Jd. { 81 (emphasis omitted);\nsee also id. \u00a7 82 (chief executive officer, describing tool as \u201ccreating fake browsers using a\nmultitude of IP addresses that Google sees as normal users\u201d). SerpApi tells users how to scrape\ndata without being blocked, and how to extract additional text to obtain from Google SERPs full\nsnippets, instead of the truncated texts that are typically displayed. Jd. | 73-76.\n\nSerpApi markets its tool as providing a method for scraping Google web searches \u201cat\nscale,\u201d with the capacity to run more than 100,000 searches per hour. Jd. { 81. Its website states\nthat AI companies can use the tool to help train large language models and power AI chatbots.\n\nId. 4 83.\n\fCase 4:25-cv-089365-PAE Drmument4o4 Filed 08/85/26\n\nPerplexity\u2019s Use of SerpApi\u2019s Data Scraping Tool\n\nPage 10 of 64\n\nSerpApi\u2019s website lists Perplexity as one of its customers. Jd. J] 6, 12 n.4; SerpApi\n\nWebsite at 9. Perplexity is an answer engine powered by data from \u201ctop tier sources.\u201d FAC\n\n{ 87. Perplexity allegedly uses SerpApi\u2019s tool to access Google SERPs and extract content such\n\nas Reddit posts. Id. \u00a7\u00a7 89-90. Perplexity is not \u201csimply receiving data from SerpApi,\u201d but\n\n\u201cconducting the actual queries itself.\u201d Jd. \u00a7 100. Perplexity then places that data into a retrieval-\n\naugmented generation database and utilizes it in responding to user queries. Jd. 4 89.\n\nThe FAC provides several illustrations of this process at work. As pictured below, if a\n\nuser asks Perplexity where to see jazz in New York City, the answer engine\u2019s response is\n\npartially extracted from Reddit posts on those topics. Jd. { 91.\n\nId.\n\nSiew Yoru City hac many excellent jaor Clube a few of tre most consintently recemmended are\nVidege Vanguartl, Biue Note, Bieler, Smafia, and Mezzo \u201cshusmmieiere %\n\nHistoric Icons\n\n+ Village Vanguard inv Greeraich Vilage 2 ene of te most legendary clubs, with many classic\nlive aibuens cecorded there and an imimate GasemenL-riom vibe, lignan 2:\n\n\u00bb Bindiand is Matiown, named after Charlie Parkers aioagiine azz Comer of the Wewid\u201d vaith\nbig-name bards and \u00ab theater-disinel locatior, tomeeet- The FAC alleges multiple injuries. See FAC 9 101-13. Because the Court finds various\ncognizable injuries sufficient to support standing, it need not and does not address alternative\ntheories of standing. See New York v. U.S. Dep\u2019t of Lab., 477 F. Supp. 3d 1, 9 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).\n\n12\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 14 of 64\n\nA. Governing Legal Framework\n\nArticle III of the Constitution limits the federal judicial power to the resolution of \u201ccases\u201d\nand \u201ccontroversies.\u201d U.S. Const. art. III., \u00a7 2. \u201cAn \u2018essential and unchanging part\u2019 of this\nlimitation is that a plaintiff have standing to sue.\u201d Brown v. Nat\u2019 Football League, Inc., 825 F.\nSupp. 3d 265, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2026) (Engelmayer, J.) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504\nU.S. 555, 560 (1992)). Article III standing thus \u201cis the threshold question in every federal case,\ndetermining the power of the court to entertain the suit.\u201d Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498\n(1975).\n\nThe \u201cirreducible constitutional minimum\u201d of standing is that a plaintiff \u201c(1) suffered an\ninjury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that\nis likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.\u201d Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330,\n338 (2016) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61). A plaintiff must \u201cdemonstrate standing for\neach claim and form of relief sought.\u201d Cacchillo v. Insmed, Inc., 638 F.3d 401, 404 (2d\nCir. 2011) (quoting Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d 625, 642 n.15 (2d Cir. 2003)).\n\nDefendants here contest the injury-in-fact requirement. Article II] requires that a\nplaintiffs injury be \u201cconcrete\u201d\u2014i.e., \u201creal, and not abstract.\u201d Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 340 (cleaned\nup). In assessing whether an injury is real and not abstract, \u201chistory and tradition offer a\nmeaningful guide.\u201d TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 424 (2021) (quoting Sprint\nCommc\u2019ns Co. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 274 (2008)). \u201c[C]jourts should assess\nwhether the alleged injury to the plaintiff has a \u2018close relationship\u2019 to a harm \u2018traditionally\u2019\nrecognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.\u201d Jd. (quoting Spokeo, 578 U.S.\nat 341). A plaintiff must identify \u201ca close historical or common-law analogue for their asserted\n\ninjury,\u201d but such need not be an \u201cexact duplicate.\u201d Jd. Certain harms \u201creadily qualify as\n\n13\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 18 of 62\n\nconcrete.\u201d Jd. \u201cThe most obvious\u201d of these \u201care traditional tangible harms, such as physical\nharms and monetary harms.\u201d Jd. at 425. Intangible harms, such as reputational harm, can also\nbe concrete where they have a \u201cclose relationship to harms traditionally recognized as providing\na basis for lawsuits in American courts.\u201d Jd.\n\nCongress\u2019s views may be \u201cinstructive\u201d in determining whether a harm is sufficiently\nconcrete to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. Jd. (quoting Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 341). But\nalthough courts must \u201cafford due respect to Congress\u2019s decision . . . to grant a plaintiff a cause of\naction to sue,\u201d id., a plaintiff does not \u201cautomatically satisf[y] the injury-in fact requirement\nwhenever a statute grants a person a statutory right,\u201d Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 426. There is an\n\u201cimportant difference\u201d between a \u201cplaintiffs statutory cause of action\u201d and \u201ca plaintiff's\nsuffering concrete harm because of the defendant\u2019s violation of federal law.\u201d TransUnion, 594\nU.S. at 426-27. An \u201cinjury in law is not an injury in fact.\u201d Id. at 427.\n\nB. Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief\n\nTo guard against future violations of the DMCA, Reddit seeks an injunction enjoining\ndefendants from: accessing or using Reddit\u2019s or Google\u2019s websites and data for unlawful\nscraping purposes; developing or distributing any technology or product used for the\nunauthorized circumvention of TPMs and scraping Reddit data; and using, selling, or offering\nReddit data previously obtained through circumvention of TPMs. FAC at 57-58.\n\n1. Injury in Fact\n\nA plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must establish a \u201creal or immediate threat of\n\ninjury\u201d \u2014i.e., that the plaintiff \u201cis likely to be harmed again in the future in a similar way.\u201d\n\nNicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 239 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting City of Los Angeles v.\n\n14\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 15 of 62\n\nLyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983)). The Court finds that the FAC\u2019s allegations satisfy this standard\nwith respect to copyrighted content authored by both Reddit and its users.\na. Reddit-Authored Content\n\nReddit claims that its copyright interests in content it has authored have been, and\ncontinue to be, violated by the circumvention of SearchGuard, which enables defendants to\naccess and scrape snippets of those works from Google SERPs. FAC 9 47.\u00b0 Reddit argues that\nthis injury has a \u201cclose historical analogue in copyright\u201d and thus is sufficiently concrete to\nsatisfy Article III. Opp\u2019n at 5\u20146.\n\nCopyright infringement is \u201ca harm \u2018traditionally recognized as providing a basis for\nlawsuits in American Courts.\u2019\u201d N.Y. Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., 777 F. Supp. 3d 283, 312\n\n(S.D.N.Y. 2025) (quoting TransUnion, 594 US. at 424-25). Copyright claims \u201cpredate the\n\n6 Reddit separately argues that it enjoys a copyright interest in the arrangement\u2014the\nsequencing\u2014of user-created content presented on Reddit, and that defendants\u2019 circumvention\nhas infringed this interest. Opp\u2019n at 6. To this effect, the FAC alleges that, when snippets of\nReddit user posts appear in Google SERPs, \u201cthe snippets shown often correspond to comments\nthat Reddit has made prominent within a post.\u201d See FAC {J 69-70 (alleging defendants access\n\u201cnot only the content itself, but also Reddit\u2019s arrangement of Reddit data\u2019).\n\nIt is correct that a person who compiles works authored by others \u201cmay enjoy a copyright in the\nselection if \u2018some minimal level\u2019 of creativity has been exercised in the selection process.\u201d\nSilverstein v. Penguin Putnam, Inc., 368 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Feist Publ ns Inc. v.\nRural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 348 (1991)). And liability for infringement of a compilation\ncan occur, provided that the defendant \u201csubstantially reproduced plaintiff's selection and\narrangement.\u201d 1 Nimmer on Copyright \u00a7 3.04. Such, however, has not been pled here. The\nCourt assumes arguendo that Reddit\u2019s sequencing of user posts bespeaks the required \u201cminimal\nlevel of creativity\u201d to support copyright protection. But as pled, Google\u2019s SERPs, given their\nbrevity, tend to present a snippet of a single user post on a given thread. That the post displayed\nby Google\u2014and allegedly scraped by defendants\u2014corresponds to one that Reddit has decided to\nhighlight does not make that snippet a substantial reproduction of Reddit\u2019s selection and\narrangement. See Key Publ\u2019ns Inc. v. Chinatown Today Pub. Enters., Inc., 945 F.2d 509, 515\n(2d Cir. 1991) (no infringement of directory where 17% of listings were copied from original and\nno category \u201ccontaining more than a few entries is duplicated in total\u201d). The Court therefore\ndoes rely on this asserted copyright interest in the ensuing analysis.\n\n15\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 16 of 62\n\nConstitution\u2019s ratification.\u201d The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 3d 18, 26\n(S.D.N.Y. 2025) (citing The Federalist No. 43 (James Madison) (\u201cThe copyright of authors has\nbeen solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law.\u201d)). Copyright claims are\n\u201csrounded in notions of \u2018property rights\u2019\u201d-\u2014i.e., \u201can author\u2019s property right in his original work\nof authorship.\u201d Jd. at 27-28 (quoting Oren Bracha, The Ideology of Authorship Revisited:\nAuthors, Markets, and Liberal Values in Early American Copyright, 118 Yale L.J. 186, 199\n(2008)).\n\nThe FAC plausibly alleges an injury \u201csimilar to the harm traditionally actionable in\ncopyright.\u201d Jd. at 27. The FAC alleges that the content posted to Reddit includes \u201ctens of\nthousands of posts, comments, and other original works authored by Reddit itself.\u201d FAC 4 47. It\nalleges that these posts were among those which defendants accessed and scraped, without\nauthorization, by circumventing SearchGuard. Jd. 66. For example, the FAC alleges, a search\nof SerpApi\u2019s API for \u201cReddit public data policy\u201d returns \u201ca list of snippets directly from Reddit,\nwhich SerpApi scraped from Google\u2019s SERPs.\u201d Jd. That conduct resembles the unauthorized\ncopying and reproduction that copyright has centrally historically guarded against. See Perris v.\nHexamer, 99 U.S. 674, 675-76 (1878) (\u201cA copyright gives the author or the publisher the\n\nexclusive right of multiplying copies of what he has written or printed.\u201d).\u2019\n\nT A section 1201 claim, of course, differs from a traditional copyright claim, in that the conduct it\ntargets is not the \u201cunauthorized reproduction and distribution of protected works,\u201d N.Y. Times\nCo., 777 F. Supp. 3d at 312, but the use of legally prohibited techniques to enable the\nunauthorized accessing, in bulk, of copyrighted content. But the standing inquiry does not\nrequire an exact replica of common-law claims. It inquires \u201c\u2018whether plaintiffs have identified a\nclose historical or common-law analogue for their asserted injury,\u2019 not the asserted cause of\naction.\u201d Jd. (emphasis in original) (quoting Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2025 WL 744032,\n\nat *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2025)). \u201cFor both DMCA and traditional copyright infringement claims,\nthe harm involves an injury to \u2018an author\u2019s property right in his original work of authorship.\u2019\u201d\n\nId. (quoting The Intercept Media, 767 F. Supp. 3d at 28).\n\n16\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 1% of 62\n\nSerpApi\u2019s counterargument is unavailing. SerpApi argues that \u201cReddit has not alleged\n(and cannot allege) any concrete, particularized injuries stemming from SerpApi\u2019s alleged\nscraping of Reddit-authored content.\u201d SerpApi Reply at 3. The premise of that argument, that\nReddit must concretely allege commercial harm from the infringement of its copyright-protected\nmaterial, is wrong.\u00ae To have standing to bring a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff\nneed not allege that its work has commercial value. And at trial, although a plaintiff may pursue\nactual damages from copyright infringement, those who are unable or choose not to do so may\npursue statutory (or nominal) damages. See Yurman Design, Inc. vy. PAJ, Inc., 262 F.3d 101, 112\n(2d Cir. 2001) (\u201cthe Copyright Act allows plaintiffs to sue for \u2018statutory damages\u2019 in lieu of\n\u2018actual damages and profits\u2019\u201d (citing 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 504(c))). Accordingly, where a copyright\nholder alleges infringement of rights in his or her work, courts, to find standing, have not\nrequired an allegation of additional harm. See, e.g., Gray v. Paramount Glob., No. 25 Civ. 3484,\n2025 WL 3003298, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025) (injury was exploitation of plaintiffs\ncopyrighted material, which removed \u201ca stick from [plaintiffs] bundle of property rights\u201d\n(cleaned up)); The Intercept Media, 767 F. Supp. 3d at 28 (finding injury in fact based on harm\n\u201cin the form of defendants\u2019 alleged interference with [plaintiff's] property right\u201d); Kadrey v.\nMeta Platforms, Inc., No. 23 Civ. 3417, 2025 WL 744032, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2025)\n(\u201cCopyright infringement is obviously a concrete injury sufficient for standing.\u201d\u2019).\n\nAccordingly, Reddit has plausibly alleged an injury in fact based on defendants\u2019\n\ncircumvention and scraping of Reddit\u2019s own copyrighted works. See, e.g., The Intercept Media,\n\n8 SerpApi\u2019s factual assumption underlying this argument is also open to debate. SerpApi\ncontended at argument that Reddit-authored content lacks \u201ccommercial utility\u201d such that the\nscraping of such content could not be found to cause Reddit monetary loss. Tr. at 17. Whether\nthat is necessarily so presents a factual issue that is premature to resolve without discovery.\n\n17\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 19 of 62\n\n767 F. Supp. 3d at 27 (plaintiff had standing to bring DMCA claim, because \u201cinjury under the\nDMCA is similar to the harm traditionally actionable in copyright\u201d); N.Y. Times Co., 777 F.\nSupp. 3d at 312 (same, because \u201c[b]oth traditional copyright and DMCA claims are grounded in\nnotions of property rights, and both claims are designed to \u2018promote the Progress of Science and\nuseful Arts\u2019\u201d (citing U.S. Const. art. I, \u00a7 8, cl. 8)); see also Kadrey, 2025 WL 744032, at *1\n(similar).\n\nThat injury is adequate to support Reddit\u2019s standing to seek injunctive relief. And the\nthreat of its recurrence absent injunctive relief is well pled. The FAC\u2019s allegations depict\ndefendants as engaged in an ongoing scheme of circumventing SearchGuard to access and scrape\nReddit\u2019s data. It alleges that, after Reddit sent Perplexity a cease-and-desist letter in May 2024,\nPerplexity\u2019s citations to Reddit increased 40-fold. FAC 4 94. It alleges that, on an unspecified\ndate thereafter, Reddit created a test post (that it authored) that was reproduced by Perplexity\u2019s\nanswer engine \u201c[w]ithin hours\u201d of its being posted on Reddit. Jd. \u00a7 96. It alleges that, in\nJuly 2025, SerpApi accessed more than one billion Google SERPs containing Reddit data within\na two-week period. Jd. 7 85. It alleges that, in August 2025, Perplexity noted that Reddit was\n\u201cthe most cited domain across AI models globally,\u201d based on an analysis of citations by\nPerplexity and two other AI companies. Jd. \u00a7 88. And it alleges that defendants continue to\nprofit from the use of Reddit\u2019s data. Id. 7.\n\nThese allegations support the existence of a substantial threat of continued accessing and\nscraping of Reddit\u2019s copyrighted works. Cf Broad. Music, Inc. v. Prana Hosp., Inc., 158 F.\nSupp. 3d 184, 195 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (Engelmayer, J.) (\u201csignificant threat of future copyright\ninfringements\u201d where defendants continued to permit public performance of works, disregarded\n\ncommunications from plaintiff, and \u201cto date, have not entered into a license\u201d); Entral Grp. Int\u2019l,\n\n18\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 29 of 62\n\nLLC v. 7 Day Cafe & Bar Inc., No. 5 Civ. 1911, 2006 WL 8439052, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29,\n2006) (\u201cthere is a substantial threat of future infringement, particularly given defendants\u2019\ncontinued violations following the cease and desist letter\u201d), report and recommendation adopted\nin relevant part, No. 5 Civ. 1911, 2006 WL 8439053 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2006). Because Reddit\nhas shown a \u201clikelihood that [it] will be injured in the future,\u201d it has standing to seek injunctive\nrelief for infringement of its copyright in its own works. Shain v. Ellison, 356 F.3d 211, 215 (2d\nCir. 2004) (cleaned up).\nb. User-Authored Content\n\nReddit separately claims injury to itself from defendants\u2019 circumvention of SearchGuard\nto access and scrape content authored by Reddit\u2019s users. These activities, it claims, undermine\nthe protections for users\u2019 content that its policies tout to users and would-be users. FAC { 102.\nThese prohibit unauthorized access to Reddit data by third parties, and provide that Reddit enters\nlicensing agreements with third parties only where these contain \u201cmeaningful protections,\u201d such\nas restricting prohibited use of public content. Id. \u00a7 51. Reddit argues that defendants\u2019 conduct\nhas compromised Reddit\u2019s ability to comply with these policies, harming Reddit\u2019s reputation as a\ntrusted forum for open discussion. Opp\u2019n at 3, 7.\n\nReputational harms, \u201cas a general matter, are classic Article II] injuries.\u201d Bost v. Illinois\nState Bd. of Elections, 607 U.S. 71, 78 (2026); see also Gully v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd.,\n341 F.3d 155, 161 (2d Cir. 2003) (\u201cThe Supreme Court has long recognized that an injury to\nreputation will satisfy the injury element of standing.\u201d). SerpApi does not dispute this truism.\nBut, it argues, Reddit has alleged nothing \u201cbeyond conclusory assertions that its public\n\nreputation has been harmed.\u201d SerpApi Mot. at 5 (cleaned up).\n\n19\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 20 of 62\n\nThe FAC\u2019s allegations of reputational harm are adequate to support Article II standing.\nThese focus on Reddit\u2019s deletion feature, which Reddit touts to users and which the FAC terms\n\u201cmaterial to Reddit\u2019s business model.\u201d FAC { 105. Reddit allows users to delete content using a\nself-service tool or to request that Reddit delete their content. Jd. J 104. Once deleted, a post\nwill no longer publicly appear on Reddit. Jd. To guard against exploitation of deleted posts,\nReddit states, it requires its licensed partners, like Google, to \u201cstop using deleted posts\u201d and\ngives them \u201cdedicated tools\u201d to assist in implanting this obligation. Jd. However, the FAC\nalleges, when third parties access Reddit content by circumventing TPMs, these \u201cprivacy and\ncontent protections are stripped away.\u201d Jd. And, the FAC alleges, \u201c[t]his concern is not\nspeculative.\u201d Jd. 4105. In a single month, \u201cmillions of posts\u201d are deleted from Reddit by users,\nand Reddit thereafter identifies these deletions to its partners to enable removal from their\nplatforms. Jd. Users delete content for various reasons, including to protect their identities or\nbecause they no longer wish to have a post publicly available. Jd. { 107 (quoting posts by users\nexplaining why they delete their comments). The deletion feature, the FAC alleges, thus\n\u201cenables candid participation\u201d in discussions on topics such as \u201cmental health, fertility,\naddiction, trauma, personal relationships, and other sensitive subjects.\u201d Jd. 4106. But, it alleges,\nwhen deleted content is not honored but lives on through unlawful scraping and reproduction,\nsuch undermines Reddit\u2019s reputation as a trusted \u201csteward of its users\u2019 communities, discussions,\n\nand authentic human discourse.\u201d Jd. J 7, 102.\u00b0\n\n\u00b0 SerpApi notes, Tr. at 10, that Reddit\u2019s Public Content Policy cautions users that it \u201ccannot\nguarantee that third parties [(7.e., non-licensees)] have deleted copies of Reddit content they\u2019ve\nmade without you or our permission.\u201d But that disclosed possibility does not make it\nimplausible that users expect, based on Reddit\u2019s representations, that Reddit will use its best\nefforts to safeguard their content\u2014efforts compromised by the alleged bulk circumvention.\n\n20\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 22 of 62\n\nThese allegations of harm to the reputation of a corporate custodian of users\u2019 posts are\nentirely plausible. And the FAC\u2019s claims of reputational harm are well more specific than in\ncases in which courts have found inadequately pled claims of reputational injury. See, e.g., Nat.\nRes. Def. Council, Inc. v. Wheeler, 367 F. Supp. 3d 219, 231 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no standing\nwhere plaintiffs reaffirmed \u201cin conclusory terms their belief that the Directive harms their\nreputation,\u201d and did \u201cnot allege with any additional specificity what sort of actual, tangible harm\nto their reputations they have suffered or will suffer\u201d (emphasis in original)); Network Apps,\n\nLLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 21 Civ. 718, 2025 WL 1115284, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15,\n2025) (no reputational harm based on \u201cmere allegations\u201d that defendant was \u201cclaiming credit\u201d\nfor plaintiffs\u2019 work and depriving them of recognition was \u201cinsufficient to constitute the requisite\nconcrete and particularized reputational interest\u2019), reconsideration denied, 2024 WL 706966\n(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2024).!\u00b0\n\nTo be sure, as SerpApi notes, the FAC does not identify any particular user who to date\nhas \u201cstopped using Reddit because of SerpApi\u2019s activities.\u201d SerpApi Mot. at 5 (cleaned up). But\nevidence of past injury is not necessary to show the likelihood of future injury required for\ninjunctive relief. See E. Coast Advanced Plastic Surgery, LLC v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co.,\nNo. 25 Civ. 1686 (PAE), 2025 WL 2371537, at *16n.9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2025) (\u201cpast injury\n\ndoes not supply a predicate for likelihood of future injury\u201d). And, \u201cat the pleading stage,\n\n10 SerpApi cites two district court decisions rejecting standing based on reputational harm, see\nSerpApi Mot. at 5, but these are inapposite. In each, the court held, the allegedly harmful\ninformation had not been disclosed, preventing a finding of past or future injury. See Miller v.\nJames, 751 F. Supp. 3d 21, 32 (N.D.N.Y. 2024) (\u201c[p]laintiffs rely on a press conference in which\nneither [p]laintiff was mentioned by name\u201d); Braver v. Diversified Adjustment Serv., Inc., No. 22\nCiv. 9390, 2023 WL 8435825, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2023) (\u201c[p]laintiff fails to identify how or\nto whom Defendant allegedly disseminated his negative credit report\u201d (emphasis in original)).\nHere, in contrast, the FAC plausibly alleges that, after defendants accessed and scraped users\u2019\ndeleted posts, they were used in Perplexity\u2019s answer engine. See, e.g., FAC J\u00a5 104, 108.\n\n21\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 22 of 62\n\n\u2018general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant\u2019s conduct may suffice.\u2019\u201d Do\nNo Harm y. Pfizer Inc., 126 F Ath 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2025) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561).\n\nAccordingly, the Court finds the FAC has plausibly alleged a \u201creal or immediate threat,\u201d\nLyons, 461 U.S. at 111, to Reddit\u2019s reputation based on ongoing accessing and scraping of users\u2019\ncontent in contravention of Reddit\u2019s policies. Cf ACORN v. United States, 618 F.3d 125, 134\n(2d Cir. 2010) (plaintiff had standing to seek injunction where challenged action \u201caffects the\nplaintiffs\u2019 reputation\u201d).\n\n2. Causation & Redressability\n\nThe remaining standing requirements are satisfied as to both injuries supporting the\nclaims for injunctive relief.!! Reddit has plausibly alleged causation: by accessing and scraping\nReddit data using prohibited means, defendants infringe Reddit\u2019s copyright in its own works and\nundermine Reddit\u2019s protections for user content. It has also plausibly alleged that a favorable\ndecision would redress its injuries because injunctive relief would halt the infringement of\nReddit\u2019s copyright and prevent defendants from accessing and scraping users\u2019 deleted content.\nSee, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env\u2019t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 185-86\n(2000) (\u201ca sanction that effectively abates [illegal] conduct and prevents its recurrence provides a\nform of redress\u201d); Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 103 (2d Cir. 2011) (\u201congoing\nviolation of [plaintiff's] statutorily-created rights . .. would likely be redressed by prospective\n\ninjunctive relief\u2019). Accordingly, the Court finds, Reddit has standing to seek injunctive relief.\n\n\u20181 Although these points are undisputed, the Court \u201chas an independent obligation to assure that\nstanding exists, regardless of whether it is challenged by any of the parties.\u201d Summers v. Earth\nIsland Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 499 (2009).\n\n22\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 24 of 62\n\nC. Standing to Seek Damages\n\nThe FAC seeks damages \u201cfor all injuries suffered as a result of [d]efendants\u2019 unlawful\nacts,\u201d including actual, statutory, and/or compensatory damages and disgorgement of defendants\u2019\nprofits. FAC at 58-59; Nicosia, 834 F.3d at 239 (past injuries may support standing for money\ndamages).\n\n1. Injury in Fact\n\nThe FAC alleges that Reddit has suffered economic harm in the form of lost profits.\nFAC 7 109. Reddit contends that, by enabling Perplexity to access and scrape Reddit\u2019s data,\nSerpApi\u2019s tool has eliminated the need for Perplexity to enter a licensing agreement with Reddit,\nas other AI companies have done to gain access to Reddit\u2019s content in bulk. Opp\u2019n at 8-9.\n\nContrary to SerpApi\u2019s depiction of Reddit\u2019s lost profits injury as \u201cpure conjecture,\u201d\nSerpApi Mot. at 6, that injury is plausibly pled. The FAC alleges that Reddit\u2019s dataset is a\ntreasure trove for AI companies, from whom access to it is in demand. FAC \u00a7 2. Reddit\u2019s\ndataset is \u201cone of the largest repositories of human conversation in existence\u201d and supplies a\nresource that allows AI companies to train their large language models on human-generated\ncontent. Id. J] 2, 42-45. The FAC alleges, in fact, that Al companies such as Google and\nOpenAI have entered licensing agreements with Reddit that permit them to access Reddit data,\nsubject, however, to restrictions imposed by Reddit. Jd. 43. It alleges that Perplexity, in\ncontrast, has not entered such an agreement, because Perplexity\u2019s arrangement with SerpApi has\nenabled Perplexity to use Reddit data to feed its answer engine and to respond to user queries.\nId. TF 6, 88-89, 99. The FAC further alleges that Perplexity\u2019s access to Reddit data is important\nto Perplexity\u2019s business model\u2014so much so that Perplexity\u2019s citations to Reddit increased 40-\n\nfold after Reddit sent a cease-and-desist letter in August 2024. Id. | 94; see also id. | 88\n\n23\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Dmmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 28 of 62\n\n(Perplexity blog post noting that Reddit \u201chas emerged as the most cited domain across Al\nmodels,\u201d including Perplexity). These allegations plausibly support that, but for SerpApi\u2019s\nenabling circumvention of SearchGuard, Perplexity, to access Reddit\u2019s data, would have\u2014as\nhave its competitors Google and OpenAl\u2014entered into a licensing agreement with Reddit under\nwhich it would have paid Reddit. The absence of such revenue is a classic Article II] injury. See\nAm. Immigr. Visa Kits, Inc. v. Chavez-DeRemer, No. 24 Civ. 7627 (PAE), 2025 WL 2207448, at\n*6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2025) (\u201c[L]ost revenue is a quintessential cognizable harm.\u201d).\n\nSerpApi argues that Reddit has not shown that the fruits of its scraping tool are a match\u2014\na \u201ccomparative commercial substitute\u201d\u2014for the data Perplexity would have obtained under a\nlicensing agreement with Reddit. Tr. at 9. It notes that, whereas Google SERPs display snippets\nof Reddit content, a licensing agreement would presumably have given Perplexity access to\ncomplete Reddit posts and the demographic data associated with them. Id. at 6-7. That\nargument is not a basis to find a lack of standing. SerpApi\u2019s tool need not be a perfect substitute\nfor a Reddit license for that tool to have obviated Perplexity\u2019s business incentive to seek out such\nalicense. It is enough for Reddit to plead that, because of the unlawful use of that tool,\nPerplexity was disincentivized from entering into a licensing agreement that it otherwise would\nhave pursued. As pled, the snippets made available to Perplexity via SerpApi allowed Perplexity\nto access portions of Reddit posts and to feed these to its AI engine, thus obtaining much of the\nbenefit of a licensing agreement.\n\nBecause Reddit has plausibly pled a past economic injury, it has standing to seek\nmonetary damages. See, e.g., N.Y. Times Co., 777 F. Supp. 3d at 313 (standing where\ndefendants\u2019 removal of copyright management information allegedly \u201cdeprive[d] plaintiffs of\n\nlicensing and subscription revenue\u201d); Breuninger v. Williams, No. 20 Civ. 7033, 2022 WL\n\n24\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 25 of 62\n\n438400, at *5 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2022) (allegation that plaintiffs \u201clost a contract worth\n$2,000,000,000 sufficiently satisfies the traditional standing requirements\u201d).\n2. Causation & Redressability\n\nReddit has plausibly pled the remaining standing requirements with respect to its claims\nfor damages. It plausibly alleges that Reddit\u2019s lost profits were attributable to defendants\u2019\nconduct, insofar as SerpApi created a tool that enabled access to Reddit content, and Perplexity\nused that tool in lieu of entering into a licensing agreement. As to redressability, damages would\ncompensate Reddit for the monetary benefit from a licensing agreement that it was denied. See,\ne.g., Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279, 293 (2021) (\u2018nominal damages provide the\nnecessary redress for a completed violation of a legal right\u201d); Soule v. Conn. Ass\u2019n of Schs., Inc.,\n90 F 4th 34, 47 (2d Cir. 2023) (en banc) (compensatory damages \u201care definitionally \u2018intended to\nredress the concrete loss that the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant\u2019s wrongful\nconduct\u2019\u201d (quoting Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Grp., 532 U.S. 424, 432 (2001))).\nVI. Whether the DMCA Authorizes Reddit to Sue\n\nA. Governing Legal Framework\n\nTo bring a claim under a federal statute, a plaintiff must \u201cfall[] within the class of\nplaintiffs whom Congress has authorized to sue.\u201d Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control\nComponents, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 128 (2014). In assessing whether a plaintiff \u201chas a cause of\naction under the statute,\u201d the Court must \u201cdetermine the meaning of the congressionally enacted\nprovision creating a cause of action\u201d using \u201ctraditional principles of statutory interpretation.\u201d Id.\n\nat 128.'2 The Court \u201cpresume[s] that a statutory cause of action extends only to plaintiffs whose\n\n!2 The parties refer to this inquiry as \u201cstatutory standing.\u201d See SerpApi Mot. at 7; Opp\u2019n at 11.\nAlthough it was formerly so called, the Second Circuit today \u201cavoid[s] this appellation\u201d because\nit is \u201cmisleading,\u201d since \u201cthe absence of a valid cause of action does not implicate subject-matter\n\n25\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 26 of 62\n\ninterests \u2018fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.\u2019\u201d Jd. at 129 (quoting\nAllen vy. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)).\n\nB. Analysis\n\nAs with any question of statutory interpretation, the Court \u201cbegin[s] with the words of the\ntext.\u201d Saks v. Franklin Covey Co., 316 F.3d 337, 345 (2d Cir. 2003). Salient here, section 1203\nstates: \u201cAny person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an\nappropriate United States district court for such violation.\u201d 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1203(a). The plain\nmeaning of \u201cany person injured\u201d is that anyone\u2014not just copyright holders\u2014can bring a DMCA\nclaim if their injury falls within the ambit of the statute. See Post Univ. Inc. v. Learneo, Inc.,\nNo. 21 Civ. 1242, 2025 WL 2702043, at *5 (D. Conn. Sept. 23, 2025) (\u201c[I]imiting actions to only\nthe copyright owner finds no footing in the unambiguous text of the DMCA\u201d (emphasis in\noriginal)). That is supported by comparison to the Copyright Act, which authorizes only \u201c[t]he\nlegal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright . . . to institute an action for any\ninfringement of that particular right.\u201d 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 501(b). The DMCA does not contain such a\n\nlimitation.\u2019\u00b0\n\njurisdiction.\u201d Am. Psychiatric Ass\u2019n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 821 F.3d 352, 359 (2d\nCir. 2016) (cleaned up) (quoting Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 128 n.4).\n\n3 SerpApi argues that the anti-circumvention provisions \u201creflect a narrow zone of interests:\nprotecting the copyright owner\u2019s rights.\u201d SerpApi Mot. at 8 (emphasis in original). SerpApi\npoints to section 1201(a)(3)(A), which defines circumvention as bypassing or avoiding a TPM\n\u201cwithout the authority of the copyright owner.\u201d Jd. at 8-9. But that copyright owners are the\nintended beneficiaries of the statute does not mean that only they can bring claims thereunder.\nSee Bank v. GoHealth, LLC, No. 19 Civ. 5459, 2021 WL 1884671, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. May 11,\n2021) (\u201cThe zone of interest test does not require a specific congressional purpose that benefits\nthe plaintiff asserting standing.\u201d (citing Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass\u2019n, 479 U.S. 388, 399\n(1987))), aff'd, 2022 WL 1132503 (2d Cir. Apr. 18, 2022). SerpApi appears to recognize as\nmuch in acknowledging that creators of TPMs can bring anti-circumvention claims. See SerpApi\nMot. at 10-11. If TPM creators, as guardians of digital content, have standing to bring a\n\n26\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 2% of 62\n\nThe DMCA\u2019s broad language (\u201cany person injured\u201d) is a variant of \u201cany person\nadversely affected\u201d or \u201cany person adversely affected or aggrieved\u201d\u2014terms of art that the\nSupreme Court has interpreted \u201cbroadly, as covering anyone even \u2018arguably within the zone of\ninterests to be protected or regulated by the statute . . . in question.\u201d Food & Drug Admin. v. R.\nJ. Reynolds Vapor Co., 606 U.S. 226, 232-33 (2025) (\u201cR.J. Reynolds\u2019\u2019) (emphasis in original)\n(quoting Ass\u2019n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 (1970)); see also\nBank of Am. Corp. v. City of Miami, 581 U.S. 189, 197 (2017) (statute permitting \u201cany aggrieved\nperson to bring a housing-discrimination lawsuit\u201d had been interpreted to \u201cdefine standing as\nbroadly as is permitted by Article III of the Constitution\u201d (cleaned up)); Thompson v. N. Am.\nStainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170, 173, 178 (2011) (statute permitting suit by \u201ca person claiming to be\naggrieved\u201d conferred cause of action to \u201cany plaintiff with an interest arguably sought to be\nprotected\u201d (cleaned up)).'* Accordingly, consistent with those cases, this Court considers\nwhether Reddit\u2019s interests \u201care not \u2018so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes\nimplicit in the [DMCA] that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit\nthe suit.\u2019\u201d RJ. Reynolds, 606 U.S. at 236 (quoting Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass\u2019n, 479 U.S. 388,\n399 (1987)).\n\nThe DMCA was \u201cenacted in 1998 to strengthen copyright protection in the digital age.\u201d\n\nUniversal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 435 (2d Cir. 2001). Congress understood\n\nsection 1201 claim, then it logically follows that Reddit\u2014which protects copyright owners\u2019\nrights in their digital works\u2014has standing, too.\n\n4 This broad formulation of the zone-of-interests test originated in decisions interpreting the\nAdministrative Procedure Act (\u201cAPA\u201d), but the Supreme Court has clarified that it applies to\nother federal statutes that confer causes of action in similarly broad terms. See R.J. Reynolds,\n606 U.S. at 235 (\u201cthe term \u2018adversely affected\u2019 carries the same meaning outside the APA as in\nit\u201d).\n\n27\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 29 of 62\n\nthat \u201cthe law must adapt in order to make digital networks safe places to disseminate and exploit\ncopyrighted materials.\u201d S. Rep. 105-190, at 2 (1998). Because of \u201cthe ease with which pirates\ncould copy and distribute a copyrightable work in digital form,\u201d Corley, 273 F.3d at 435,\nCongress feared that \u201ccopyright owners will hesitate to make their works readily available on the\nInternet without reasonable assurance that they will be protected against massive piracy,\u201d S. Rep.\n105-190, at 8. Congress enacted the anti-circumvention measures at issue here to combat\ncopyright piracy \u201cin its earlier stages, before the work was even copied,\u201d Corley, 273 F.3d\n\nat 435, to make copyrighted works \u201cavailable quickly and conveniently via the Internet,\u201d S. Rep.\n105-190, at 8.\n\nThe Court must assess whether Reddit\u2019s claimed injuries are \u201carguably\u201d within the zone\nof these interests. Bank of America Corp., 581 U.S. at 197 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Camp,\n397 U.S. at 153). Reddit alleges that it has been, or will be, harmed by defendants\u2019 provision\nand use of circumvention technologies, which, inter alia, (1) facilitate bulk infringement of\nReddit\u2019s copyright in its own authored works; (2) harm Reddit\u2019s reputation by undermining its\nprotections for users\u2019 content; and (3) deprive Reddit of the profits from a licensing agreement\nwith Perplexity. SerpApi does not dispute that Reddit\u2019s interests as a copyright holder are within\nthe zone of interests of the statute. See SerpApi Mot. at 9 (\u201conly copyright owners are\ndefinitively within the DMCA\u2019s zone of interests\u201d). But, SerpApi argues, as to Reddit\u2019s injuries\nthat relate to user-created content (i.e., lost profits and reputational harm), Reddit lacks a cause\nof action. Id. at 10-12.\n\nThe Court finds these injuries within the zone of interests that the DMCA protects. As\nalleged, Reddit provides a platform for more than 100 million unique users every day to\n\ncontribute posts and comments to hundreds of thousands of \u201csubreddits\u201d related to \u201cvirtually\n\n28\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 29 of 62\n\nevery topic imaginable, from current events to product reviews to sports and entertainment.\u201d\nFAC ff 2, 44. Reddit thus epitomizes the \u201cglobal digital on-line marketplace for copyrighted\nworks\u201d that the DMCA sought to promote. S. Rep. 105-190, at 8. The FAC alleges that the\nsuccess of this digital discussion forum depends on users\u2019 willingness to contribute, which, in\nturn, depends (at least in part) on the protections that Reddit provides, such as the ability of users\nto delete their posts and know how their content is being used. See FAC J 104-07 (\u201cin a single\nmonth, millions of posts are deleted from Reddit by the users who posted them\u201d). It further\nalleges that licensing agreements are the method Reddit uses to guarantee such safeguards,\nallowing access to Reddit data \u201cso long as the third party agrees to specific restrictions.\u201d Id.\n\n47 52, 60. Although many of these alleged restrictions relate to users\u2019 privacy, rather than\ncopyright protections, those interests are closely related. For example, by honoring users\u2019\ndeletions and requiring its partners like Google to do the same, Reddit seeks to ensure that the\nonly posts that are reproduced and distributed are those that users have authorized. It thereby\nprotects copyright holders\u2019 ability to control the dissemination of their works. See Universal\nCity Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 82 F. Supp. 2d 211, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (Congress sought to\nfacilitate development of digital works by \u201cmaking digital networks safe places to\n\ndisseminate and exploit copyrighted materials\u201d (cleaned up)).\n\nThe FAC\u2019s allegations thus support that, in the absence of licensing agreements, Reddit\ncannot fully protect user content, see id. \u00a7 104, with the likely result being that users will\n\u201chesitate to make their works readily available\u201d on Reddit, S. Rep. 105-190, at 7. That is a harm\nthe DMCA sought to prevent. Accordingly, Reddit\u2019s injuries are within the zone of interests of\nthe DMCA\u2019s anti-circumvention provisions. See, e.g., Echostar Satellite, L.L.C. v. Viewtech,\n\nInc., 543 F. Supp. 2d 1201, 1206 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (plaintiff that \u201ccontracted and purchased the\n\n29\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 30 of 62\n\ndistribution rights of the programming\u201d could bring section 1201 claim). Although Reddit\u2019s\ninterests with respect to user content are not the precise ones that Congress had in mind in\nenacting the statute, courts have found the zone-of-interests test satisfied where the plaintiff\u2019 s\ninjuries are closely related to the statute\u2019s animating concern. See, e.g., Bank of America Corp.,\n581 U.S. at 200-01 (city\u2019s lost tax revenue from banks\u2019 discriminatory lending practices was\nwithin zone of interests of Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discriminatory housing practices);\nNew York v. U.S. Dep\u2019t of Homeland Sec., 969 F.3d 42, 62-63 (2d Cir. 2020) (states\u2019 lost\nrevenue from non-citizens\u2019 disenrollment from public benefits was within zone of interests of\npublic charge statute); Fed. Defs. of N.Y., Inc. v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 954 F.3d 118, 131-32\n(2d Cir. 2020) (attorneys\u2019 inability to visit clients was within zone of interests of regulations\ngoverning attorney-client visits, which were arguably intended to benefit inmates, because\nattorneys could be \u201cexpected to police the interests that the statute protects\u201d (citation omitted)).\nSerpApi argues that, insofar as Reddit\u2019s claims are based on defendants\u2019 accessing and\nscraping content created by Reddit\u2019s users, \u201cno court has extended Section 1203 standing to a\nputative plaintiff with interests as attenuated as Reddit\u2019s.\u201d SerpApi Reply at 4; see also SerpApi\nMot. at 10-12 (noting that users do not give Reddit a contractual right to pursue copyright\ninfringement claims on their behalf and that Google, not Reddit, is the creator of SearchGuard).\nSerpApi is correct that most section 1201 anti-circumvention claims have been brought by\ncopyright holders and creators of TPMs\u2014groups courts have found within the zone of interests\nof the DMCA. See, e.g., CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Greenleaf Elecs., Inc., 2000 WL 715601, at *6\n(N.D. Ill. June 2, 2000) (plaintiff had \u201cproprietary rights in technological measures it uses to\neffectively control access to works\u201d); CoxCom, Inc. v. Chaffee, 2006 WL 1793184, at *10\n\n(D.R.L. June 26, 2006) (plaintiff was \u201cthe entity which controls access to copyrighted material\u201d\n\n30\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PRE Dmunrearttaoa Filed 08/85/26 Page 32 of 64\n\nthrough its descrambling technology); Comcast of Ill. X, LLC. v. Hightech Elecs., Inc., 2004 WL\n1718522, at *6 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2004) (same); Sheldon v. Plot Com., No. 15 Civ. 5885, 2016\nWL 5107072, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2016) (plaintiff claimed to be \u201ccopyright owner of the\nPhotograph\u201d), report and recommendation adopted, No. 15 Civ. 5885, 2016 WL 5107058\n(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2016). But it does not follow that those groups alone are within the statute\u2019s\nzone of interests. The case law is to the contrary. See, e.g., Post Univ. Inc., 2025 WL 2702043,\nat *5 (plaintiff had cause of action under section 1201 of DMCA, including as to \u201cdocuments it\ndoes not own\u201d); D&J Optical, Inc. v. Wallace, 2015 WL 1474146, at *6 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 31,\n2015) (\u201ccourts have generally held that ownership of a copyright is not necessarily a requirement\nto bring suit under sections 1201 and 1203\u201d). Such a limitation would be inconsistent with\nsection 1203\u2019s expansive grant of litigation authority (\u201c[a]ny person injured . . . may bring a civil\naction .. . for such violation\u201d) and the DMCA\u2019s multi-faceted approach to protecting copyright\nand promoting digital access. See Mango v. BuzzFeed, Inc., 970 F.3d 167, 172 n.2 (2d Cir. 2020)\n(purpose of DMCA is to provide \u201cbroad protections to copyright owners\u201d); Google Decision at 7\n(\u201cbroad language [of DMCA] indicates that the set of people or entities who can sue under the\nstatute is defined by whether they suffered an injury arising out of a violation of the DMCA, and\nnot by whether they are owners or exclusive licensees of copyrighted material\u201d).\n\nSerpApi is also wrong that \u201ccourts in the Second Circuit have held that only copyright\nowners are definitively within the DMCA\u2019s zone of interests.\u201d SerpApi Mot. at 9. The two\ncases it cites were reports and recommendations, one of which was not adopted because the case\nsettled. And the statements there on which SerpApi seizes were dicta. See Sheldon, 2016\nWL 5107072, at *2 (because plaintiff was alleged to be copyright owner, unnecessary to\n\nconsider whether non-owners have right of action under DMCA), report and recommendation\n\n31\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 32 of 62\n\nadopted, 2016 WL 5107058 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2016); Sanborn Libr. LLC v. ERIS Info. Inc.,\nNo. 19 Civ. 2049, 2024 WL 1744630, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2024) (\u201cunnecessary\u201d to\nconsider whether plaintiff has standing until copyright ownership issue is \u201csettled one way or the\nother\u201d). These decisions do not undermine the conclusion that Reddit is authorized to bring this\nsuit.)\n\nAccordingly, the Court finds that the alleged injuries suffered by Reddit\u2014both as a\ncopyright holder and a protector of users\u2019 content\u2014are within the zone of interests of\nsection 1201. See, e.g., Post Univ. Inc., 2025 WL 2702043, at *5; Echostar Satellite, L.L.C., 543\nF. Supp. 2d at 1205-06.\nV. Failure to State a Claim\n\nA. Governing Legal Framework\n\nTo survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead \u201cenough\nfacts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.\u201d Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550\nU.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible \u201cwhen the plaintiff pleads factual content that\nallows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct\n\nalleged.\u201d Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint is properly dismissed where\n\n'S SerpApi argues that VidAngel LLC v. ClearPlay, Inc., 703 F. Supp. 3d 1329 (D. Utah 2023)\n\u201cdefinitively foreclosed standing under the DMCA\u201d for a plaintiff akin to Reddit. SerpApi Mot.\nat 11. But that case does not resemble this. There, the injury asserted was \u201cbased only on\ncompetitive disadvantage\u201d\u2014both parties were filtered streaming providers (they offered\nproducts designed to remove objectional content), and the plaintiff claimed that the defendant\u2019s\nunlawful streaming of filtered content, in violation of section 1201, caused plaintiff's customers\nto switch to defendant\u2019s service. VidAngel LLC, 703 F. Supp. 3d at 1334. The plaintiffs\ninterests\u2014in maintaining its own place in a competitive market\u2014were thus divorced from the\nDMCA\u2019s aims of strengthening copyright protection and making copyrighted works digitally\naccessible. Here, in contrast, this case\u2019s capacity to vindicate core DMCA interests is clear:\ndefendants\u2019 alleged accessing and scraping of Reddit data, without Reddit\u2019s authorization in a\nlicensing agreement, undermines Reddit\u2019s ability to safeguard user content.\n\n32\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 34 of 62\n\n\u201cthe allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief.\u201d\nTwombly, 550 U.S. at 558. For the purpose of resolving a motion to dismiss, the Court must\nassume all well-pled facts to be true, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the\n\nplaintiff. Koch v. Christie\u2019s Int'l PLC, 699 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 2012). That tenet, however,\n\u201cis inapplicable to legal conclusions.\u201d Jgbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers only\n\u201clabels and conclusions\u201d or \u201ca formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not\ndo.\u201d Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.\n\nB. DMCA Claims\n\nThe FAC brings a claim against both defendants under section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the\nDMCA. It brings claims under sections 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) against SerpApi. The Court\nconsiders these claims in turn.\n\n1. Section 1201(a)(1)(A)\n\nSection 1201(a)(1)(A) of the DMCA states: \u201cNo person shall circumvent a technological\nmeasure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.\u201d To plausibly plead\na violation of section 1201(a)(1)(A), a complaint thus must allege that (1) a work protected under\nthe Copyright Act (2) was protected by a technological measure that effectively controls access\n(an \u201caccess control measure\u201d), and (3) the access control measure was circumvented.\n\na. Work Protected Under This Title\n\nThe DMCA prohibits circumvention of a measure that controls access to \u201ca work\nprotected under this title\u201d\u2019\u2014i.e. the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(1)(A). The Copyright\nAct, for its part, protects \u201coriginal works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of\nexpression,\u201d including literary works. Jd. \u00a7 102(a). It does not protect \u201cany idea, procedure,\n\nprocess, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in\n\n33\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 38 of 62\n\nwhich it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.\u201d Jd. \u00a7 102(b). To be\noriginal, a work \u201cmust be independently created by the author and possess \u2018at least some\nminimal degree of creativity.\u2019\u201d Scholz Design, Inc. v. Sard Custom Homes, LLC, 691 F.3d 182,\n186 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Feist Publ\u2019ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345\n(1991)). \u201cThe vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative\nspark, \u2018no matter how crude, humble or obvious\u2019 it might be.\u201d Feist, 499 U.S. at 345 (citation\nomitted).\n\nThe relevant question is whether the snippets of Reddit posts, which SerpApi and its\ncustomers (like Perplexity) are alleged to access and scrape from Google\u2019s SERPs, qualify for\nCopyright Act protection, not whether the full posts on Reddit themselves are copyrightable.\nThe Court finds the FAC plausibly pleads that at least some of these snippets are protected. The\nFAC alleges that Reddit serves as a digital discussion forum where millions of users contribute\n\u201ca continuous stream of real-time and creative copyrighted works.\u201d FAC \u00a7 2. It alleges that\nsnippets of these works frequently appear in Google SERPs, which are then accessed and\nscraped by defendants. Jd. \u00a7 85. In one two-week period in July 2025, the FAC alleges, SerpApi\naccessed more than one billion Google SERPs containing Reddit data. Id. And, it alleges,\nSerpApi\u2019s tool has the capacity to retrieve more than the truncated text that appears in SERPs,\nenabling extraction of \u201cthe full, untruncated text\u201d behind each webpage. Id. {| 73-76.\n\nThe FAC\u2019s allegations support that Reddit content often consists of creative contributions\nfrom users, and that substantial portions of such content\u2014as much as several sentences\u2014can be\naccessed and scraped from Google SERPs. It plausibly alleges that at least some snippets from\nthe sea of SERPs scraped by defendants possess the minimal level of creativity that the\n\nCopyright Act requires. See, e.g., Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc., 942 F. Supp. 2d 962, 971 (N.D.\n\n34\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 35 of 62\n\nCal. 2013) (complaint plausibly alleged that posts on Craigslist, which include \u201ca title,\ndescription and other relevant details about whatever the user placing the ad may be offering or\nseeking,\u201d were \u201csufficiently original\u201d (citation omitted)).!\u00ae\n\nSerpApi argues that, of the examples of snippets provided in the FAC, \u201c[n]one is\ncopyrightable as a matter of law.\u201d SerpApi Mot. at 17. But at least one of these\u2014an excerpt of\na Reddit post recommending jazz clubs in New York City\u2014could plausibly be entitled to\ncopyright protection, even if its individual words or phrases are not copyrightable.'\u201d See\nSalinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 98 (2d Cir. 1987) (\u201cThe \u2018ordinary\u2019 phrase may\nenjoy no protection as such, but its use in a sequence of expressive words does not cause the\nentire passage to lose protection.\u201d), opinion supplemented on denial of reh\u2019g, 818 F.2d 252 (2d\nCir. 1987). In any event, putting aside these examples, the FAC plausibly pleads that among the\nmillions of snippets in Google SERPs that defendants have scraped is copyrightable material.\nThe alternative conclusion is implausible. The FAC \u201chas pleaded sufficient facts to satisfy the\n\u2018modest\u2019 requirements of originality.\u201d Trackman, Inc. v. GSP Golf AB, No. 23 Civ. 598, 2024\nWL 4276497, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2024) (quoting Weissmann v. Freeman, 868 F.2d 1313,\n\n1321 (2d Cir. 1989)); see, e.g., Nicholls v. Tufenkian Imp./Exp. Ventures, Inc., No. 4 Civ. 2110,\n\n16 SerpApi argues that a snippet by definition cannot be copyrighted due to its length. SerpApi\nMot. at 16 (citing Moody v. Morris, 608 F. Supp. 2d 575, 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), aff'd, 407 F.\nApp\u2019x 434 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). It is true that \u201cwords and short phrases\u201d generally are not protected\nby copyright, but that rule applies to phrases along the lines of one to four words, such as\n\u201cnames, titles, and slogans.\u201d 1 Nimmer on Copyright \u00a7 2.01 (2017) (cleaned up). As alleged and\ndemonstrated in the FAC, the snippets of Reddit content that appear in Google\u2019s SERPs often\nconsist of much more. See FAC {] 66-68, 70.\n\n'7 That snippet states, in response to the post \u201cWhich Jazz Club in NYC?\u201d: \u201cVillage\nVanguard. 100% the most legendary club in NYC[,] with many classic albums recorded\nin that room. Birdland, the Blue Note, Smalls etc[.] are fine, but the Vanguard is hallowed\nground. Make sure to listen to...\u201d FAC 4 91.\n\n35\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 3 of 62\n\n2004 WL 1399187, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2004) (allegation that plaintiff \u201ccreated an original\ndesign\u201d was adequate to \u201cwithstand a motion to dismiss\u201d); FragranceNet.com, Inc. v.\nFragranceX.com, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 312, 320-21 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (allegations as to artistic\nchoices made by photographer, which \u201cmay be sufficient to provide plaintiff's images with the\nrequisite originality,\u201d were \u201csufficient to survive a motion to dismiss\u201d).\nb. Technological Measure That Effectively Controls Access\n\nSection 1201(a)(1)(A) prohibits circumvention of \u201ca technological measure that\neffectively controls access to a work protected under this title.\u201d A measure effectively controls\naccess if it, \u201cin the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a\nprocess or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.\u201d 17\nU.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(B). That definition contains two requirements: (1) the application of\ninformation, a process, or a treatment, and (2) the authority of the copyright owner.\n\n1. Application of Information, a Process, or a Treatment\n\nThe paradigmatic examples of measures requiring application of information, a process,\nor a treatment, are encryption codes and scrambling technologies. See 17 U.S.C.\n\u00a7 1201(a)(3)(A); see, e.g., Dish Network L.L.C. v. World Cable Inc., 893 F. Supp. 2d 452, 456\n(E.D.N.Y. 2012) (encryption); Paramount Pictures Corp. v. 321 Studios, No. 3 Civ. 8970, 2004\nWL 402756, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2004) (content scramble system). Courts have also found\nmeasures that operate similarly to those to qualify as access control measures. See, e.g., See\nCorley, 273 F.3d at 435 (password protections); LivePerson, Inc. v. 24/7 Customer, Inc., 83 F.\nSupp. 3d 501, 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (\u201cactivation and validation keys\u201d); Yout, LLC v. Recording\n\nIndus. Ass\u2019n of Am., Inc., 633 F. Supp. 3d 650, 669 (D. Conn. 2022) (\u201cby not making a download\n\n36\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 3% of 62\n\noption readily available on the player page, [defendant] restrains users\u2019 ability to access and copy\naudio and video files\u201d).\n\nSearchGuard, as pled, constitutes another such measure. The FAC alleges that it is\n\u201cdesigned to prevent automated systems from accessing and obtaining wholesale search results\nand indexed data while allowing individual users\u2014i.e., humans\u2014access to Google\u2019s search\nresults.\u201d FAC \u00a7 56. SearchGuard examines each search query to determine whether it is coming\nfrom a recognized or unrecognized source. Jd. { 58. If the source is unrecognized, SearchGuard\nsends a challenge or CAPTCHA that requires the browser to return information about the user\ngenerating the query. Jd. Google is then able to validate that the query came from a real user\ninstead of an automated system. Jd. Browsers belonging to human users send back the required\ninformation \u201cseamlessly, without disrupting the user experience.\u201d Jd. Automated systems, in\ncontrast, usually cannot solve the SearchGuard challenge and are therefore blocked from\naccessing Google\u2019s SERPs. Id.\n\nSearchGuard is thus a \u201cprocess\u201d required \u201cto gain access to the work.\u201d 17 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 1201(a)(3)(B); see also Google Decision at 15 (SearchGuard constituted access control\nmeasure). It erects a gate between users and Google SERPs, which, in the ordinary course, can\nbe opened only by human users but which keeps out automated users. It thereby controls access\nto the snippets of Reddit content in Google SERPs, restricting such access to human users who\ncannot engage in the mass scraping of data. See, e.g., MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Ent., Inc.,\n629 F.3d 928, 954 (9th Cir. 2010) (measure that scanned computer to \u201cconfirm the absence of\nany bots or cheats\u201d before connecting to server was effective access contro] measure), as\namended on denial of reh\u2019g (Feb. 17, 2011), opinion amended and superseded on denial of\n\nreh\u2019g, 2011 WL 538748 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2011); Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs., Inc., 507\n\n37\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 39 of 62\n\nF. Supp. 2d 1096, 1102, 1111 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (plaintiff likely to prevail in showing \u201ccomputer\nsecurity program known as CAPTCHA that is designed to distinguish between human users and\ncomputer programs\u201d was effective access control measure).\n\nDefendants dispute that SearchGuard is an access control measure. They emphasize that,\nwhile restricting automated systems from accessing SERPs, it allows human users seamlessly to\naccess the same content. SerpApi Mot. at 15; Perplexity Mot. at 16. In so arguing, SerpApi\nrelies on the Sixth Circuit\u2019s statement in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control\nComponents, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004), that section 1201(a)(2) \u201cdoes not naturally\nextend to a technological measure that restricts one form of access but leaves another route wide\nopen.\u201d Jd. at 547. The Sixth Circuit there stated: \u201cJust as one would not say that a lock on the\nback door of a house \u2018controls access\u2019 to a house whose front door does not contain a lock . . . it\ndoes not make sense to say that this provision of the DMCA applies to otherwise-readily-\naccessible copyrighted works.\u201d Id.\n\nAlthough the broad language in Lexmark about the scope of the DMCA, read literally,\nwould imply that SearchGuard is not covered by the statute, that language, on inspection, is\ndicta. And denying statutory coverage for a measure designed to prevent bulk electronic\ncircumventions does not follow from the statutory text and is in tension, if not outright\nantithetical, to the DMCA\u2019s purposes. In addition, the circumstances of Lexmark were a far cry\nfrom those here. There, the plaintiff (\u201cLexmark\u201d) sold printers designed to work only with\nauthorized toner cartridges. Id. at 529. Lexmark used an authentication sequence (i.e., an\nencryption algorithm) that performed a \u201csecret handshake\u201d between the printer and the microchip\non an authorized toner cartridge. Id. at 530. The defendant (\u201cStatic Control\u201d), as alleged, sold\n\nits own low-cost microchip that satisfied Lexmark\u2019s authentication sequence without an\n\n38\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 29 of 62\n\nauthorized toner cartridge. Jd. Lexmark claimed that Static Control\u2019s chip circumvented the\nauthentication sequence, which effectively controlled access to the printer\u2019s computer programs\n(the copyrighted works). Jd. at 546. The Sixth Circuit held that the authentication sequence did\nnot control access because a buyer of a Lexmark printer could \u201cread the literal code\u201d of the\ncomputer programs \u201cdirectly from the printer memory, with or without the benefit of the\nauthentication sequence.\u201d Jd. The Circuit, in dismissing Lexmark\u2019s DMCA claim, noted that,\nalthough the authentication sequence blocked access insofar as it prevented the printer from\nfunctioning with an unauthorized cartridge, it did not block the \u201crelevant form of \u2018access\u2019\u201d under\nthe DMCA: the ability to obtain the copyrighted work. Jd. at 547.\n\nSearchGuard is unlike the authentication sequence in Lexmark for a simple reason: It\ndoes not leave Google SERPs \u201cfreely readable.\u201d Jd. Instead, as pled, SearchGuard effectively\nblocks access by automated users while maintaining access for human users. For this reason, the\nSixth Circuit\u2019s analogy to a \u201clock on the back door of a house . . . whose front door does not\ncontain a lock,\u201d id, does not fit this scenario. A more apt analogy is a facial-recognition\ntechnology programmed to open the door of a home for residents but not for other visitors.\nSearchGuard similarly differentiates. All Google users are sent a challenge to validate the\nquery\u2019s source, and access is then \u201cdependent on the browser\u2019s ability to provide a valid\nsolution.\u201d FAC 458. If Google recognizes the source as a human user, access (like for the\nresident who clears the facial recognition test), occurs \u201cseamlessly\u201d; if not, access (as for\nstrangers whose faces are unrecognized) is blocked. Id.\n\nThat the operation of SearchGuard\u2019s restriction depends on the character of the user does\nnot make it other than an effective access control measure. It merely means that SearchGuard\n\ntargets a particular type of access\u2014one resembling the \u201cmassive piracy\u201d that precipitated the\n\n39\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 40 of 62\n\nDMCA. S. Rep. 105-190, at 8. Nothing in the DMCA\u2019s text exempts from liability persons who\ncircumvent TPMs aimed at protecting copyrightable material against bulk access merely because\nthat material is accessible to an authorized individual (such as a person who accesses a website\nlike Reddit or Google).!8 Accordingly, SearchGuard, as pled, qualifies as an access control\nmeasure. See, e.g., Cordova v. Huneault, 817 F. Supp. 3d 819, 833-34 (N.D. Cal. 2026) (with\nrespect to measure preventing unauthorized downloading, \u201cimmaterial\u201d that videos remained\n\u201cpublicly available,\u201d because access control measure need only \u201cprovide some degree of control\nover access to a copyrighted work\u201d (quoting MDY Indus., 629 F.3d at 954 n.17)).\nil. Authority of the Copyright Owner\n\nTo qualify as an access control measure, the TPM must have been authorized by the\ncopyright owner. 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(B). Applying the DMCA\u2019s text, courts have held that\nthe copyright owner must have authorized the implementation of a TPM; they have not required\nthat the copyright owner himself or herself designed, implemented, or operated it. See, e.g.,\nYout, LLC, 633 F. Supp. 3d at 665 (DMCA \u201cdoes not set forth a requirement that the copyright\nowner put a technological measure in place\u201d); Google Decision at 14 (requiring plaintiff to plead\nallegations that copyright owners \u201cauthorized the implementation of SearchGuard\u201d).\n\nDefendants argue that the FAC does not allege either that Reddit users or Reddit\u2014each\nof whose copyrightable content is at issue in this case\u2014authorized Google to use the TPMs at\n\nissue. SerpApi Mot. at 15; Perplexity Mot. at 13-14. That is wrong.\n\n'8 Indeed, as Reddit argues, if a work\u2019s alternative availability defeated an access control\nmeasure, then \u201cno service could protect a copyrighted book, movie, or song so long as the same\nwork could be borrowed from a library, heard on the radio, or watched on broadcast television.\u201d\nOpp\u2019n at 26.\n\n40\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 42 of 62\n\nAs to users, the FAC plausibly pleads that they authorized Reddit to protect their interests\nin their copyrighted works. That authorization is evidenced by the user agreement, which the\nFAC incorporates by reference. It grants Reddit a non-exclusive right to distribute, copy,\nsublicense, and adapt users\u2019 content. FAC \u00a7 46. And it expressly informs users that Reddit has\nthe authority to protect users\u2019 content and enter licensing agreements that \u201callow us to put into\nplace meaningful protections.\u201d Jd. \u00a7 51 (\u201cProtecting Redditors in our data licensing\narrangements is essential.\u201d). Those protections, it states, (1) ensure \u201cthe ability to know who is\naccessing Reddit public content,\u201d (2) require that \u201cdata licensees honor public content deletions\nby Redditors and Reddit,\u201d and (3) prohibit certain uses of \u201cpublic content to protect user rights.\u201d\nId. The agreement adds that Reddit\u2019s licensees include \u201c[l]arge language model makers that\nshare our values that not all public data on the open internet is free to use without restraint.\u201d\nPublic Content Policy. In light of these provisions, the FAC plausibly pleads that users authorize\nand expect Reddit to protect their content, including by licensing content only to companies that\n\n9 That authorization is broad\n\nwill take measures to prevent unauthorized access to such content\nenough to encompass the mechanism (SearchGuard) allegedly circumvented here.\u201d\n\nAs to Reddit, the FAC plausibly pleads that it has authorized Google to put in place the\n\nTPMs necessary to safeguard Reddit content (including copyrighted content of its and its users).\n\n'9 Reddit separately points to a user agreement provision authorizing it to take \u201cmeasures to help\nprotect information about you from loss, theft, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure,\nalteration, and destruction.\u201d FAC 7 50; see Tr. at 65. But that provision applies to users\u2019\npersonal information (e.g., \u201cidentifiers used to create the[ir] account (such as phone number),\u201d\nPrivacy Policy). It does not authorize Reddit to take measures to protect users\u2019 content.\n\n20 At argument, the Court asked Reddit\u2019s counsel whether Reddit users can sue to enforce these\nprovisions of the user agreement, and Reddit\u2019s counsel responded that the agreement does not\ngive users a remedy in the event of Reddit\u2019s breach. See Tr. at 70-73. Whether that is correct is\nnot relevant here, because the operative issue under the DMCA is whether Reddit is authorized\nto implement access control measures to protect user content, not whether it is obligated to do so.\n\n4]\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 42 of 62\n\nTo be sure, no party put the contract between Reddit and Google before the Court. But the\nFAC\u2019s account of it adequately supports that Reddit authorized Google to implement measures\nto control access to its data. To this end, the FAC alleges that Reddit has entered partnership\narrangements with various companies to license Reddit content, and that \u201c[a]l] such agreements\u201d\ninclude prohibitions on redistribution of the content and most forbid AI use cases. Id. 52; see\nalso id. \u00a7 60 (agreements allow third parties to access Reddit data in bulk, subject to restrictions\nthat \u201climit[] the use of such bulk data\u201d for commercial purposes, including training AI models).\nIt alleges that Reddit has entered partnership agreements with a \u201cselect list of AI companies that\nagree to abide by Reddit\u2019s policies and restrictions to protect the intellectual property .. . of both\nReddit and Reddit users.\u201d Jd. And it alleges it announced one such partnership with Google,\nwhich \u201cenabled programmatic access by Google to Reddit content for use in Google\u2019s products\nand services.\u201d Jd. It further alleges: \u201cReddit has always authorized its partners, including\nGoogle, to protect [its] content from misuse and prevent unauthorized access to that data.\u201d Jd.\n\nq 111.\n\nAlthough discovery conceivably could support the contrary conclusion, on a motion to\ndismiss in which all factual disputes must resolved in favor of non-movant Reddit, the above\nterms make eminently plausible that the agreement between Reddit and Google authorized the\nuse of TPMs to control access to content by Reddit and its users. The Court accordingly finds\nauthorization plausibly pled. See, e.g., Echostar Satellite, 543 F. Supp. 2d at 1206 (complaint\nalleging plaintiff \u201ccontracted and purchased the distribution rights\u201d made it \u201creasonable to infer\n\nthat [plaintiff] also has the authority to control the measures protecting the programming\u201d).!\n\n21 At argument, counsel for Perplexity revealed that SearchGuard was not implemented until\nJanuary 2025\u2014almost a year after Reddit and Google entered their partnership agreement. Tr.\nat 32 (\u201c[W]e know that the agreement did not require Google to use SearchGuard . . . because\n\n42\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 44 of 62\n\nThe Google Decision is not to the contrary. In that case, Google alleged that SerpApi\ncircumvented SearchGuard when it accessed and scraped content from the knowledge panel of\nthe Google search results page, which displays information derived from licensed and open\nsources. Google Decision at 1.\u201d The district court dismissed Google\u2019s complaint because it did\n\u201cnot allege any facts that raise the inference\u201d that Google had implemented SearchGuard with\nthe authority of the copyright owner. Jd. at 13. It rejected Google\u2019s argument that authorization\ncould be inferred from the allegation that it \u201clicenses copyrighted works,\u201d because the complaint\ndid \u201cnot allege any facts regarding the terms of the licensing agreements that govern its use of\nany of the copyrighted content.\u201d Jd.\n\nThe same cannot be said of the FAC. Although the FAC does not set out in detail the\n\nterms of the agreement between Reddit and Google, it alleges that the agreement prohibits\n\nGoogle didn\u2019t launch SearchGuard until January of 2025.\u201d). Because that fact is alleged in the\nGoogle Complaint, which the FAC incorporates by reference, it is properly considered on this\nmotion.\n\nThat fact, however, does not disturb the above analysis. Section 1201 does not require that the\ncopyright holder specifically authorized the access control measure that was circumvented. If\nsuch were the case, private companies entrusted with safeguarding copyright holders\u2019 work\nwould need to seek authorization from the copyright holder each time they sought to implement\nanew TPM. That would be inconsistent with the DMCA\u2019s aim of \u201cencourag[ing] technological\nsolutions .. . by enforcing private parties\u2019 use of technological protection measures.\u201d S.\n\nRep. 105-190, at 11. It would also be unrealistic in a rapidly evolving technological landscape,\nwhere companies are constantly inventing and improving measures (e.g., CAPTCHA challenges,\nencryption, passwords, and robot.txt files) to control access to copyrighted works and prevent\nscraping. That the contract with Reddit did not direct or require Google to install SearchGuard\nthus does not undermine the finding that Reddit authorized such. Because the FAC supports that\nReddit broadly authorized Google to protect copyrighted works by Reddit and its users, the\nCourt finds that Reddit is plausibly alleged to have authorized the TPMs that Google\nimplemented, including SearchGuard.\n\n2 The knowledge panel is the bar displayed at the top of the Google search results page. For\n\nexample, when a user searches \u201cWillie Mays,\u201d Google displays an image of Mays that Google\nobtained pursuant to a copyright license. Google Complaint { 16.\n\n43\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 48 of 62\n\ncertain uses by Google of Reddit data and requires adherence to Reddit\u2019s policies, including\nprotecting against unauthorized third-party access. FAC J 51-52, 111. The FAC thus goes\nbeyond the bare allegation that Google \u201chas licenses to display copyrighted content\u201d by Reddit\nusers. Google Decision at 14 (finding that allegation \u201cnot sufficient, without more, to raise []\ninference\u201d of authorization). The FAC plausibly alleges that, in granting Google access to\ncopyrighted content, Reddit imposed limits on access to this content and authorized Google to\nimplement measures to control bulk automatic accessing and scraping of those works.\n\nAccordingly, the Court finds that, as pled, SearchGuard (1) requires application of a\nprocess to gain access to the copyrighted content in Google SERPs, and (2) was implemented\nwith the authorization of Reddit and its users. It thus fits the statute\u2019s definition of an access\ncontrol measure.\n\nd. Circumvention\n\nSection 1201(a)(1)(A) prohibits the circumvention of an access control measure. To\ncircumvent a technological measure, section 1201(a)(3)(A) states, \u201cmeans to descramble a\nscrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove,\ndeactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner.\u201d\nBecause the FAC\u2019s circumvention allegations are specific to each defendant, the Court considers\nwhether circumvention is plausibly alleged as to SerpApi and Perplexity, respectively.\n\nAs to SerpApi, the FAC alleges that its tool \u201cuses a proxy and the latest technologies to\nmimic human behavior,\u201d and \u201cavoid being detected and blocked by Google.\u201d FAC \u00a7 81 (cleaned\nup). The FAC alleges that the tool\u2019s \u201cludicrous speed\u201d and \u201cludicrous speed max\u201d features\ndeploy \u201ca server-swarm to hide from, avoid, or simply overwhelm by brute force\u201d TPMs,\n\ncreating numerous parallel requests. /d. It alleges that SerpApi uses, or encourages its\n\n44\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 45 of 62\n\ncustomers to use, techniques such as shifting IP addresses to avoid multiple requests from the\nsame address and sending fake user-agent strings. Id.; see also id. \u00a7 82. SerpApi thus \u201cavoid[s]\u201d\nand \u201cbypass[es]\u201d SearchGuard to access and scrape SERPs, which are otherwise inaccessible to\nautomated systems. 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)G)(A).\n\nThat conduct constitutes circumvention. See, e.g., Google Decision at 16 (complaint\nplausibly alleged that \u201cSerpApi circumvented SearchGuard by bypassing it or impairing its\nability to detect and block SerpApi\u2019s automated queries\u201d); Tu v. TAD Sys. Tech. Inc., No. 8\nCiv. 3822, 2009 WL 2905780, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2009) (circumvention plausibly alleged\nwhere defendants used program \u201cto forcefully remove or bypass an application code that checks\nfor licensing and activation\u201d); Yout, LLC, 633 F. Supp. 3d at 673 (same, where defendant\u2019s\nautomated program made an \u201cend-run\u201d around access control measure and caused users \u201cto\naccess content that is otherwise unavailable\u201d); Epic Games Inc. v. Araujo, 2025 WL 2019810,\nat *5 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2025) (same, where defendants used device that allowed them to \u201cavoid\nbeing detected\u201d by anti-cheat measures); Nintendo of Am. Inc. v. Chan, 2009 WL 2190186, at *4\n(C.D. Cal. July 21, 2009) (defendant\u2019s game cards, which were \u201cdesigned to precisely mimic the\nshape and electrical connections\u201d of plaintiff's authorized cards, circumvented access control\nmeasure). That SerpApi\u2019s tool does not \u201cdescramble\u201d or \u201cdecrypt\u201d does not remove its activities\nfrom the ambit of section 1201, which defines circumvention broadly to also encompass\nmeasures that \u201cotherwise ... avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological\nmeasure.\u201d 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also Yout, LLC, 633 F. Supp. 3d\nat 671 (\u201cscrambling and encryption are prima facie examples of technological measures, but it\ndoes not follow that scrambling and encryption constitute an exhaustive list\u2019).\n\nSerpApi reads section 1201(a)(1)(A) to require that the circumvention have an\n\n45\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 4 of 62\n\n\u201canfringement nexus.\u201d SerpApi Mot. at 18. It argues that the FAC fails to state a claim because\nit contains \u201cno allegations\u201d supporting that SerpApi\u2019s circumvention \u201cinfringed a protected work\nor facilitated infringement.\u201d Jd. Whether section 1201 contains such a requirement has divided\ncourts of appeals. Compare Chamberlain Grp. v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178, 1203 (Fed.\nCir. 2004) (requiring plaintiff alleging section 1201 claim to show circumvention \u201cinfringes or\nfacilitates infringing a right protected by the Copyright Act\u201d (emphasis omitted)), with MDY\nIndus., 629 F.3d at 952 (finding that \u201cfair reading of the statute .. . indicates that Congress\ncreated a distinct anti-circumvention right under \u00a7 1201(a) without an infringement nexus\nrequirement\u201d). The Court does not have occasion to resolve this statutory question, because,\neven if an infringement nexus were required, such is adequately pled. The FAC alleges that\nSerpApi accesses and scrapes text from Google SERPs, which it turns into a machine-readable\nformat that allows AI companies like Perplexity \u201cto ingest... the raw text of user comments.\u201d\nFAC \u00a7 72. On those facts, SerpApi \u201cfacilitate[s] infringement\u201d by reproducing (copying) the\ncontent of SERPs and making such content easier for others to exploit in violation of the\nCopyright Act. Cf Chamberlain, 381 F.3d at 1204 (no infringement nexus where plaintiff failed\nto \u201cexplain[] how the access provided by the Model 39 transmitter facilitates the infringement of\n\nany right that the Copyright Act protects\u201d (emphasis omitted)).\u201d\u00b0\n\n3 SerpApi argues that Reddit cannot claim copyright infringement because SerpApi \u201ccollects\npublicly accessible content that is not protected by the Copyright Act.\u201d SerpApi Mot. at 18. But\nSerpApi does not provide support for its claim that this material is unprotected. And the caselaw\nis to the contrary. See, e.g., Lynk Media, LLC v. Indep. Digital News & Media, LLC, No. 24\n\nCiv. 583, 2025 WL 2771625, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2025) (plaintiff had established prima\nfacie case of copyright infringement as to content posted on _X, formerly known as\n\nTwitter), reconsideration denied, No. 24 Civ. 583, 2025 WL 3204302 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2025);\nGraham v. Prince, No. 15 Civ. 10160, 2023 WL 3383029, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2023)\n(rejecting argument that \u201cany copyright holder who posts his copyrighted material onto a social\nmedia platform has waived his copyright to the material\u201d).\n\n46\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 4% of 62\n\nAs to Perplexity, the FAC alleges that it uses SerpApi\u2019s tool to access and scrape Reddit\ndata from SERPs and then uses that data to train its answer engine and respond to user queries.\nFAC \u00a79 89-96. It alleges that Perplexity \u201cset[s] the parameters for circumvention activity,\nincluding geographic location, rendering layouts, language settings, advanced filtering, and other\noperational inputs.\u201d Jd. \u00a7 65. It also alleges that Perplexity \u201cconduct[s] the actual queries itself.\u201d\nId. 4100. Perplexity is thus plausibly alleged to \u201caffirmatively perform[] an action that disables\nor voids\u201d an access protection measure. LivePerson, Inc., 83 F. Supp. 3d at 509 (quoting Dish\nNetwork L.L.C., 893 F. Supp. 2d at 466). Its conduct is the equivalent of \u201cbreak[ing] into a\nhouse using a tool, the primary purpose of which is to break into houses.\u201d S. Rep. 105-190,\nat 11. In sum, as pled, SerpApi made the circumvention tool, and Perplexity used it to\ncircumvent.** On the pleadings, Perplexity is thus more than a bystander to, or a downstream\nbeneficiary of, SerpApi\u2019s circumvention.\u201d\u00b0\n\nPerplexity\u2019s construction of section 1201(a) fails. If an entity in Perplexity\u2019s shoes\ncannot be liable under section 1201(a)(1)(A), it is unclear that any party could be save parties\nwhose conduct already makes out a violation of section 1201(a)(2). See United States v.\n\nJicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162, 185 (2011) (\u201cwe are hesitant to adopt an interpretation of\n\n24 The FAC\u2019s allegations related to SerpApi\u2019s marketing support that its users themselves are\nengaged in circumvention. SerpApi provides its users \u201cwith tips to reduce the chance of being\nblocked while web scraping\u201d; advertises \u201cthat Al companies can use SerpApi\u2019s tools\u201d to help\nfuel chatbots and minimize hallucinations; and offers a variety of features, such as \u201czero trace\nmode,\u201d which ensures that \u201conce your search is done, it\u2019s as if it were never here.\u201d FAC 4 81\u2014\n85. The FAC thus depicts that users have optionality and agency in utilizing SerpApi\u2019s tool.\n\n> Both in its motion and at argument, Perplexity argued that under section 1201, a party cannot\nbe held liable as a secondary participant. Perplexity Mot. at 5, 25 (citing Cent. Bank of Deny. v.\nFirst Interstate Bank of Denv., 511 U.S. 164, 184 (1994)); Tr. at 43-44. Because the Court finds\nthat the FAC has plausibly pled Perplexity\u2019s direct circumvention, the Court does not have\noccasion to reach that issue of statutory construction.\n\n47\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 49 of 62\n\na congressional enactment which renders superfluous another portion of that same law\u201d (citation\nomitted)).*\u00ae The statute instead supports that section 1201(a)(2), which prohibits providing a\nservice designed to circumvent an access control measure, covers actors like SerpApi, and that\nsection 1201(a)(1)(A), which \u201ctargets the use of a circumvention technology, not the trafficking\nin such a technology,\u201d reaches actors like Perplexity. Corley, 273 F.3d at 441.\u00b07\n\nPerplexity argues that the FAC\u2019s allegations fall short of plausibility. First, it argues, the\nFAC does not allege that Perplexity set parameters for \u201cthe substantive content\u201d that is scraped\u2014\nonly for the \u201ctype and format of the SERPs.\u201d Perplexity Mot. at 10 (emphasis omitted). But the\nFAC alleges that SerpApi\u2019s customers, including Perplexity, \u201cspecify[] operational inputs that\ndetermine when, how, and at what scale circumvention will occur.\u201d FAC { 65. Such parameters\nare plausibly alleged to contro! more than \u201ctype and format.\u201d Second, as to the queries that it\nallegedly conducted, Perplexity argues that the FAC lacks allegations as to \u201cwhich \u2018queries\u2019\nPerplexity supposedly ran, how it ran them, when it ran them, how often it ran them, or which\nReddit posts it received from SerpApi by running them.\u201d Perplexity Mot. at 10. In faulting the\nFAC for not alleging the \u201cwho, what, when, where, and how\u201d of Perplexity\u2019s alleged\nmisconduct, Perplexity imports Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)\u2019s heightened pleading\n\nstandard for fraud claims. Miller vy. United States ex rel. Miller, 110 F.4th 533, 544 (2d Cir.\n\n*6 Perplexity argues that its reading of the statute would not render section 1201(a)(1)(A)\nsuperfluous, because that provision would apply, for example, to a person who purchased a black\nbox (designed to bypass cable companies\u2019 access control measures) and \u201cthey themselves in their\nown home, plug it in, and use the box to descramble the signal.\u201d Tr. at 44-45. Perplexity\u2019s\nhypothetical does not avail it. A person who uses a black box to access cable programming is in\nthe same position under the statute as one who uses a data scraping tool to access copyrighted\ntext\u2014as Perplexity is alleged to have done. Both acts constitute circumvention.\n\n*7 Section 1201(a)(1)(A), of course, can also reach manufacturers like SerpApi, where they are\nalleged, as here, to have engaged in circumvention using their tool.\n\n48\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 49 of 62\n\n2024) (quoting United States ex rel. Sibley v. Univ. of Chicago Med. Ctr., 44 F.4th 646, 655 (7th\nCir. 2022)). That standard does not apply here. See, e.g., Cordova, 817 F. Supp. 3d at 834\n(\u201cdefendants cite no support for their apparent contention that a plaintiff must identify in his\ncomplaint the specific tools used to circumvent the technological measures, or a date on which\nthose tools were used, in order to survive a motion to dismiss\u201d); Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. Prestige\nEnt., Inc., 306 F. Supp. 3d 1164, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (\u201cPrestige\u201d) (\u201cthere are no heightened\npleading requirements for a DMCA circumvention claim\u201d).\n\nThe cases on which Perplexity relies are inapposite. They found circumvention\nimplausibly pled where complaints were conclusory as to a particular defendant\u2019s role, or where\nthe conduct at issue did not constitute circumvention. In contrast, the FAC contains numerous\ncircumvention-related allegations particular to Perplexity. It plausibly alleges that, by using\nSerpApi\u2019s tool, Perplexity bypassed SearchGuard, which is quintessential circumvention. The\nFAC\u2019s allegations are thus well afield of those in Perplexity\u2019s cases. See, e.g., Joint Stock Co.\nChannel One Russ. Worldwide v. Infomir LLC, No. 16 Civ. 1318, 2017 WL 696126, at *19\n(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2017) (complaint pled \u201cin conclusory fashion\u201d all defendants participated in\ncircumvention, and did \u201cnot provide any supporting facts\u201d specific to defendant), report and\nrecommendation adopted sub nom. Joint Stock Co. v. Infomir LLC, No. 16 Civ. 1318, 2017 WL\n2988249 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017); Dish Network L.L.C., 893 F. Supp. 2d at 464 (no\ncircumvention because \u201cusing deception to gain access to copyrighted material is not the type of\n\u2018circumvention\u2019 that Congress intended to combat\u201d); [ M.S. Inquiry Mgmt. Sys., Ltd. v. Berkshire\nInfo. Sys., Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 521, 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (similar).\n\nAccordingly, the Court finds, as to both defendants, the FAC has plausibly alleged\n\ncircumvention of an access control measure. See, e.g., Yout, LLC, 633 F. Supp. 3d at 673\n\n49\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 50 of 62\n\n(circumvention plausibly pled where \u201callegations suggest that [defendant] \u201cbypasses\u201d the\nYouTube player page and its measures that direct a user to stream content\u201d); Prestige, 306 F.\nSupp. 3d at 1174 (same where complaint alleges that defendants circumvent security measures\n\u201cby using bots or \u2018CAPTCHA farm\u2019 laborers\u201d); Craigslist, Inc. v. Naturemarket, Inc., 694 F.\nSupp. 2d 1039, 1050, 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (same, where defendants\u2019 product included\n\u201cautomatic CAPTCHA bypass feature that allows [defendants and its customers to circumvent\nPlaintiffs CAPTCHA security measure\u201d); NNG, KFT. v. AVA Enters., Inc., 2015 WL 5442725,\nat *3 (C.D. Cal. July 8, 2015) (same, where complaint \u201cidentifies [defendant] as the party that\nbypassed or circumvented security measures and describes what actions [defendant] undertook to\npull it off\u2019).\n\nBecause all elements of Reddit\u2019s section 1201(a)(1)(A) claim are plausibly pled, the\nCourt denies the motions to dismiss with respect to that claim.\n\n2. Section 1201(a)(2)\n\nSection 1201(a)(2) states that \u201c[n]o person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public,\nprovide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part\nthereof,\u201d that is \u201cprimarily designed or produced for the purpose of\u201d circumvention of an access\ncontrol measure; \u201chas only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than\u201d\ncircumvention of an access control measure; or \u201cis marketed by that person or another acting in\nconcert with that person with that person\u2019s knowledge for use\u201d in circumvention of an access\ncontrol measure.\n\nBecause the Court has found the FAC to plausibly allege that (1) Reddit\u2019s content is a\nwork protected under the Copyright Act and (2) SearchGuard constitutes an access control\n\nmeasure, the only remaining issue under this subsection is whether SerpApi\u2019s tool was designed\n\n50\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 52 of 62\n\nor marketed for the purpose of, or has limited use other than, circumvention. SerpApi does not\ndispute that this element has been plausibly pled. The Court accordingly denies SerpApi\u2019s\nmotion to dismiss Reddit\u2019s section 1201(a)(2) claim.\n\n3. Section 1201(b)\n\nSection 1201(b)(1) of the DMCA prohibits trafficking in technology that can circumvent\n\u201cprotection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright\nowner under this title.\u201d A measure \u201ceffectively protects a right of a copyright owner\u201d (a \u201crights\nprotection measure\u2019\u2019) if it \u201cin the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise\nlimits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner\u201d under the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 1201(b)(2)(B); see id. \u00a7 106 (exclusive rights in copyrighted works include \u201cto reproduce\u201d).\n\nThe FAC has not plausibly pled that SearchGuard prevents or restricts reproduction of\nthe copyrighted content in Google SERPs. As alleged, SearchGuard blocks automated access to\nthat content. But, as pled, SearchGuard does not control what a user does with such access once\nit has been obtained. Cf Macrovision v. Sima Prods. Corp., No. 5 Civ. 5587, 2006\nWL 1472152, at *1 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2006) (TPM that \u201chinder[ed] the making of\nvideotape copies of protected DVDs\u201d was rights protection measure); see MDY Indus., 629 F.3d\nat 954-55 (TPM that scanned player\u2019s computer \u201cto confirm the absence of bots or cheats\u201d was\naccess control measure, not rights protection measure, because it was not designed to protect\n\u201cagainst copying\u201d).\n\nIn defense of the FAC\u2019s section 1201(b) claim, Reddit highlights only one allegation:\n\u201cReddit and Google implement technological measures to effectively control access and prevent\nscraping.\u201d FAC 953. But the FAC does not allege how SearchGuard \u201cprevent[s] scraping,\u201d\n\nexcept insofar as it alleges that SearchGuard prevents automated access to Google SERPs in the\n\n51\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 52 of 62\n\nfirst instance. If that were enough, every TPM that qualifies as an access control measure under\nsection 1201(a) would automatically qualify as a rights protection measure under\n\nsection 1201(b). That outcome is contrary to the DMCA\u2019s text and structure. The Second\nCircuit has described the interplay between sections 1201(a) and 1201(b) as follows:\n\n[A]lthough both subsections prohibit trafficking in a circumvention technology, the\n\nfocus of subsection 1201(a)(2) is circumvention of technologies designed\n\nto prevent accessto a work, and the focus of subsection 1201(b)(1) is\n\ncircumvention of technologies designed to permit access to a work but prevent\n\ncopying of the work or some other act that infringes a copyright.\nCorley, 273 F.3d at 441 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). These subsections therefore\ntarget different mechanisms. See also S. Rep. 105-190 at 12 (sections 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)\n\u201cdesigned to protect two distinct rights and to target two distinct classes of devices\u201d).?* Where,\nas here, the TPM \u201cprevent[s],\u201d rather than \u201c\u2018permit[s],\u201d access, it falls under section 1201(a), not\nsection 1201(b).\n\nTo be sure, a TPM could serve dual functions such that both subsections apply. See, e.g.,\nRealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 WL 127311, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18, 2000)\n(TPM that both required authentication sequence for access and did \u201cnot permit the user to\nrecord a copy as the file is streamed\u201d constituted access control and rights protection measure);\nMDY Indus., 629 F.3d at 946 (\u201cif a copyright owner puts in place an effective measure that both\n(1) controls access and (2) protects against copyright infringement, a defendant who traffics in a\n\ndevice that circumvents that measure could be liable under both \u00a7 1201(a) and (b)\u201d). But that\n\nhas not been pled here. A complaint advancing such a dual-purpose theory must do more than\n\n28 The reasoning in RMG Techs., Inc., the out-of-Circuit case on which Reddit relies, Opp\u2019n\n\nat 32, is inconsistent with the Second Circuit\u2019s decision in Corley. See RMG Techs., Inc., 507 F.\nSupp. at 1112 (CAPTCHA \u201cprotects rights of a copyright owner because, by preventing\nautomated access to the ticket purchase webpage, CAPTCHA prevents users from copying those\npages\u201d (emphasis omitted)).\n\n52\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 54 of 62\n\nmerely allege that, because a TPM prevents access, it also protects a copyright owner\u2019s rights.\nBecause that is all the FAC alleges here, the Court dismisses Reddit\u2019s section 1201(b) claim\nagainst SerpApi.\n\nC. State Law Claims\n\n1. Governing Legal Framework\n\nThe Copyright Act preempts state-law claims where \u201c(1) the particular work to which the\nclaim is being applied falls within the type of works protected by the Copyright Act under 17\nU.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 102 and 103, and (2) the claim seeks to vindicate legal or equitable rights that are\nequivalent to one of the bundle of exclusive rights already protected by copyright law under 17\nU.S.C. \u00a7 106.2? Briarpatch Ltd. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296, 305 (2d Cir. 2004).\nThe first requirement, known as the \u201csubject matter requirement,\u201d is satisfied if the work \u201cfit[s]\ninto one of the copyrightable categories in a broad sense.\u201d Jd. (citing 17 U.S.C \u00a7 102(a)). The\nsecond requirement, known as the \u201cgeneral scope requirement,\u201d is satisfied when the violation of\nstate law \u201cwould, by itself, infringe one of the exclusive rights provided by federal copyright\nlaw.\u201d Id.\n\nIn assessing whether the general scope requirement is met, the Court must determine\nwhether the state law claim contains an \u201cextra element\u201d that \u201cchanges \u2018the nature of the action so\n\n339\n\nthat it is qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim.\u2019\u201d Computer Assocs. Int'l,\nInc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 716 (2d Cir. 1992) (emphasis in original) (quoting Mayer v.\n\nJosiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd., 601 F. Supp. 1523, 1535 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). This analysis asks\n\n2\u00b0 Section 106, in relevant part, \u201caffords a copyright owner the exclusive right to: (1) reproduce\nthe copyrighted work; (2) prepare derivative works; [and] (3) distribute copies of the work by\nsale or otherwise.\u201d Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 716 (2d Cir. 1992)\n(citing 17 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 106(1)-(3)).\n\n53\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmment4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 58 of 62\n\n\u201cwhat plaintiff seeks to protect, the theories in which the matter is thought to be protected and\nthe rights sought to be enforced.\u201d Jd. (citation omitted); see also Melendez vy. Sirius XM Radio,\nInc., 50 F 4th 294, 302 (2d Cir. 2022) (courts must engage in \u201cholistic evaluation\u201d (citation\nomitted)). The Second Circuit \u201ctake[s] a restrictive view of what extra elements transform an\notherwise equivalent claim into one that is qualitatively different from a copyright infringement\nclaim.\u201d Briarpatch, 373 F.3d at 306; see also Nat'l Basketball Ass\u2019n v. Motorola, Inc., 105\nF.3d 841, 851 (2d Cir. 1997) (\u201cthe \u2018extra element\u2019 test should not be applied so as to allow state\nclaims to survive preemption easily\u201d).\u00b0\u00b0\n2. Analysis\n\nThe snippets of Reddit content in Google SERPs are plausibly alleged to be works\nprotected by the Copyright Act. See supra pp. 33-36 (finding first element of DMCA\nsection 1201(a)(1) claim plausibly pled). The Court accordingly focuses its analysis on whether,\nwith respect to Reddit\u2019s state law claims, the FAC\u2019s allegations are adequate to satisfy the\ngeneral scope requirement.\n\na. Unjust Enrichment\n\nTo prevail on a claim for unjust enrichment under New York law, \u201ca plaintiff must\nestablish 1) that the defendant benefitted; 2) at the plaintiff's expense; and 3) that \u2018equity and\ngood conscience\u2019 require restitution.\u201d Kaye v. Grossman, 202 F. 3d 611, 616 (2d Cir. 2000)\n(quoting Dolmetta v. Uintah Nat\u2019! Corp., 712 F.2d 15, 20 (2d Cir. 1983)). Courts have generally\n\nheld unjust enrichment claims preempted where they \u201cprotect[] rights that are essentially\n\n3\u00b0 State law claims may be preempted by the Copyright Act even where, as here, the plaintiff has\nnot brought a copyright infringement claim. See, e.g., Elliott v. Cartagena, No. 19 Civ. 1998,\n2025 WL 486634, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2025), reconsideration denied, 2025 WL 1455761\n(S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2025); A Slice of Pie Prods., LLC v. Wayans Bros. Ent., 392 F. Supp. 2d 297,\n316 (D. Conn. 2005).\n\n54\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 03/85/26 Page 55 of 62\n\n\u2018equivalent\u2019 to rights protected by the Copyright Act.\u201d In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright\nInfringement Litig., No. 25 Civ. 4315, 2025 WL 3635559, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025)\n(quoting Ardis Health, LLC v. Nankivell, No. 11 Civ. 5013, 2012 WL 5290326, at *10 (S.D.N.Y.\nOct. 23, 2012)); see also Nimmer on Copyright \u00a7 1.15 (unjust enrichment claim \u201cshould be\nregarded as an \u2018equivalent right\u2019 and, hence, preempted insofar as it applies to copyright subject\nmatter\u201d).\n\nThe Court finds that Reddit\u2019s unjust enrichment claim, as formulated, seeks to protect\nsubstantially the same rights as a claim for copyright infringement. That claim alleges that\n(1) defendants \u201cbenefitted\u201d by creating, marketing, and/or using circumvention technology to\naccess and scrape Reddit data, resulting in (2) Reddit\u2019s loss of profits and business opportunities,\nand that (3) equity and good conscience \u201cdemand that the unjust benefits . . . should be repaid to\nReddit.\u201d FAC \u00a7f 148-52. The conduct supporting Reddit\u2019s claim is thus defendants\u2019 accessing\nand scraping Reddit\u2019s data without authorization. Although access does not infringe a right\nprotected by section 106, scraping does. As alleged, it entails turning the copyrighted content\nfrom Google SERPs into a \u201cstructured, machine-readable format that organizes information into\nlabeled data fields, rather than presented content as a webpage intended for human viewing.\u201d Jd.\n71. That conduct \u201cwould, in and of itself,\u201d infringe the right, under section 106(1), to\nreproduce the copyrighted work. Briarpatch, 373 F.3d at 306; see also Panizza v. Mattel, Inc.,\nNo. 2 Civ. 7722, 2003 WL 22251317, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2003) (unjust enrichment claim\nthat \u201cconcerns the benefit defendant[s] allegedly received by using plaintiffs ideas and related\n\nmaterials without her permission or authorization to do so,\u201d was \u201cwithin the scope of the\n\n55\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 5G of 62\n\nCopyright Act\u201d (citation omitted)).?!\n\nReddit argues that its unjust enrichment claim is not the equivalent of a copyright\ninfringement claim because the FAC alleges that the \u201cability to circumvent was material to both\n[djefendants\u2019 businesses and that both benefited by avoiding licensing fees.\u201d Opp\u2019n at 35 (citing\nFAC ff 109, 150). But circumvention is merely the means that defendants used to access and\nscrape Reddit data\u2014it is not \u201cneeded to bring a claim\u201d for unjust enrichment. Melendez, 50\nF.4th at 307. It thus does not constitute the \u201cextra element\u201d \u201crequired . . . in order to constitute a\nstate-created cause of action.\u201d Altai, 982 F.2d at 716 (citation omitted).\n\nNor does defendants\u2019 alleged circumvention change the nature of the unjust enrichment\nclaim to make it \u201cqualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim.\u201d Jd. The FAC\u2019s\nunjust enrichment claim is, in essence, aimed at stopping the bulk copying and reproduction of\ncontent authored by Reddit and its users. See Jones v. Haynes, No. 24 Civ. 7098, 2025 WL\n3090549, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2025) (\u201calleged misconduct that [plaintiff] identifies\nprovided the means by which the alleged infringement was carried out, but \u2018leaves its\nfundamental nature unaltered\u2019\u201d (citation omitted)), report and recommendation adopted, No. 24\nCiv. 7098, 2025 WL 3090106 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2025); Melendez, 50 F.4th at 308 (plaintiffs\nstate law claims \u201caimed at stopping the reproduction of copyrightable work,\u201d were \u201cin no\nmeaningful fashion distinguishable from infringement of a copyright\u201d (quoting Motorola, 105\n\nF.3d at 851)).?2\n\n31 Although defendants\u2019 enrichment \u201cis not required for copyright infringement,\u201d it does not\n\u201cgo[] far enough to make the unjust enrichment claim qualitatively different from a copyright\ninfringement claim.\u201d Briarpatch, 373 F.3d at 306.\n\n32 Reddit, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, 826 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2026), on which Reddit relies,\n\nis inapposite. That decision upheld, as not preempted by the Copyright Act, an unjust\nenrichment claim based on allegations of circumvention and scraping. But, critically, that case\n\n56\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 5% of 62\n\nThe subject matter and general scope requirements are thus satisfied with respect to the\nFAC\u2019s unjust enrichment claim. Accordingly, the Court finds that claim preempted by the\nCopyright Act. See, e.g., Inre OpenAl, Inc., 2025 WL 3635559, at *3\u20144 (in DMCA case,\nfinding claim that OpenAI was unjustly enriched by using plaintiff's copyrighted works to train\nits models was \u201cequivalent to a claim to enforce exclusive rights within the general scope of\ncopyright\u201d); Post Univ. Inc., 2025 WL 2702043, at *10 (same, finding claim that defendant was\nunjustly enriched by using plaintiff's copyrighted works \u201cfor its own financial gain\u201d was\npreempted by Copyright Act); see also Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., 744 F. Supp. 3d 956, 972\n(N.D. Cal. 2024) (same, finding claim that defendant had \u201cunjustly misappropriated\u201d plaintiffs\u2019\nworks to \u201cdevelop, train and promote\u201d AI models was preempted).?? The Court dismisses that\nclaim against both defendants. \u2014\n\nb. Unfair Competition\n\n\u201c(T]he essence of unfair competition under New York common law is \u2018the bad faith\nmisappropriation of the labors and expenditures of another.\u201d Jeffrey Milstein, Inc. v. Greger,\nLawlor, Roth, Inc., 58 F.3d 27, 34 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Rosenfeld v. W.B. Saunders, A\n\nDivision of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 236, 249-50 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)).\n\nfound a well-pled \u201cimplied-in-fact contract,\u201d under which the defendant had been obliged to\n\u201ccomply with various contractual, technical, and privacy duties under the User Agreement.\u201d Jd.\nat 1066. The alleged breach of that contract was the basis for sustaining the unjust enrichment\nclaim as distinct from the Copyright Act. See id. at 1068 (\u201cReddit\u2019s unjust enrichment theory is\nnot simply that Anthropic copied content without paying for it. As stated above, the Court finds\nthat an implied-in-fact contract exists.\u201d). The FAC does not plead, and Reddit has not argued,\nthat such an implied contract exists (or was breached) here.\n\n33 These cases and others cited below were brought under section 1202 of the DMCA (which,\ninter alia, prohibits removal of copyright management information). They are relevant because\nthe allegations underlying the unjust enrichment and unfair competition claims are analogous to\nthe allegations here.\n\n57\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 59 of 62\n\nGenerally, \u201cunfair competition and misappropriation claims grounded solely in the copying of a\nplaintiff\u2019 s protected expression are preempted by [the Copyright Act].\u201d Altai, 982 F.2d at 717;\nsee also Kregos v. Associated Press, 3 F.3d 656, 666 (2d Cir. 1993) (unfair competition does not\nrequire proof of any element \u201cin excess of those elements necessary to establish a copyright-\ninfringement action\u201d). An unfair competition claim may escape preemption, however, where the\ncomplaint alleges an extra element such as \u201cbreach[] of confidential relationships, breach[] of\nfiduciary duties and trade secrets.\u201d Red Apple Media, Inc. v. Batchelor, 729 F. Supp. 3d 350,\n370 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (citation omitted).\n\nReddit\u2019s unfair competition claim is within the general scope of copyright. The FAC\nalleges that, by circumventing SearchGuard to access and scrape Reddit data, defendants have\nmisappropriated content by Reddit and its users for defendants\u2019 own commercial gain. FAC\n4 139. The gravamen of the unfair competition claim is thus defendants\u2019 misappropriation of\ncopyrighted content. As with unjust enrichment, that defendants allegedly achieved such\nmisappropriation through circumvention does not add an extra element to Reddit\u2019s claim.**\n\nPhilips North America LLC v. Image Technology Consulting, LLC, 2022 WL 17168372\n(N.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2022), on which Reddit relies, is not to the contrary. That case considered\nan unfair competition claim under Texas law, which, unlike New York law, provides that \u201ca\nclaim for unfair competition cannot stand on its own; rather, liability must be premised on some\n\nother independent substantive tort or illegal conduct.\u201d Jd. at *3. The DMCA claim had been\n\n34 The FAC\u2019s unfair competition allegation pleads that defendants acted in bad faith in that they\n\u201cknowingly\u201d engaged in circumvention, and continued to do so \u201cafter having been blocked from\naccess or otherwise requested to cease their activities.\u201d FAC J 143. The claim of bad faith,\nhowever, does not add an \u201cextra element\u201d to Reddit\u2019s unfair competition claim. See, e.g.,\nBriarpatch, 373 F.3d at 306 (\u201cAwareness or intent . . . are not extra elements that make a state\nlaw claim qualitatively different.\u201d); see also Altai, 982 F.2d at 717 (awareness or intent . . . alter\n\u201cthe action\u2019s scope but not its nature\u2019\u201d (quoting Mayer, 701 F. Supp. at 1535)).\n\n58\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmment4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 59 of 64\n\npled to be the \u201cindependent\u201d illegal conduct on which the unfair competition claim was\npremised. In these circumstances, the court did not find preemption by the Copyright Act. Jd.\nat *7. Here, in contrast, a violation of the DMCA is not an essential element of Reddit\u2019s unfair\ncompetition claim. The analysis in Phillips does not displace the analysis in the precedents\nabove.\n\nAccordingly, Reddit\u2019s unfair competition claim is preempted by the Copyright Act. See,\ne.g., N.Y. Times Co., 777 F. Supp. 3d at 322 (DMCA case, finding unfair competition claim that\ndefendants misappropriated plaintiff's content by using it to train AI models and produce outputs\n\u201cfall[s] squarely within the general scope and subject matter of the Copyright Act\u201d); Ez-Tixz,\nInc. v. Hit-Tix, Inc., 919 F. Supp. 728, 738 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (unfair competition claim preempted\nwhere \u201cgist\u201d of cause of action \u201cis simply that the defendants continued to use the program\nwithout paying a licensing fee\u201d); Zuma Press, Inc. v. Getty Images (US), Inc., No. 16 Civ. 6110,\n2017 WL 2829517, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2017) (same, where claim was \u201c[a]t its core...a\nclaim for copyright infringement\u201d). The Court dismisses that claim against both defendants.\n\n\u00a2. Civil Conspiracy\n\nUnder New York law, a claim of civil conspiracy is available only to a plaintiff who can\nestablish \u201can underlying, actionable tort.\u201d Sepenuk v. Marshall, No. 98 Civ. 1569, 2000\nWL 1808977, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2000). The Court has dismissed the FAC\u2019s state law\nclaims, which as pled were among the objects of the civil conspiracy. But the FAC also pleads\nthat violating the DMCA was an object of that conspiracy. And, the parties agree, a civil\nconspiracy claim may be based on the violation of a federal statute. See Tr. at 25, 50; see also\nVarela v. Flintlock Const., Inc., No. 1 Civ. 2736, 2002 WL 342657, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5,\n\n2002) (court found \u201cno case law\u201d establishing civil conspiracy \u201cmay not be linked to an\n\n59\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmment4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 60 of 62\n\nunderlying tort having a statutory basis\u201d). Because the Court has found DMCA violations\nplausibly pled with respect to both defendants, the FAC has plausibly pled the existence of an\nunderlying tort to support Reddit\u2019s civil conspiracy claim.\n\nIn light of this finding, the civil conspiracy claim is not preempted by the Copyright Act.\nBecause the DMCA is the tort on which that claim is predicated, defendants\u2019 agreement to\nengage in prohibited circumvention is required for Reddit\u2019s civil conspiracy claim. It therefore\nconstitutes an \u201cextra element,\u201d such that the civil conspiracy claim is not the equivalent of a\nclaim for copyright infringement. The DMCA\u2019s legislative history confirms as much. Congress\nenacted section 1201(a)(1)(A), which prohibits the act of circumvention, because \u201cprior to this\nAct\u201d\u2014i.e., under the Copyright Act\u2014\u201cthe conduct of circumvention was never before made\nunlawful.\u201d S. Rep. 105-190, at 12. Because the Copyright Act does not prohibit circumvention,\nthat element \u201cmakes the claim[] qualitatively different from a claim of copyright infringement.\u201d\nBriarpatch, 373 F.3d at 307. This common law claim is thus outside the realm of copyright.\nSee, e.g., Forest Park Pictures y. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424, 431 (2d\nCir. 2012) (breach of contract claim not preempted because \u201cplaintiff suing for failure to pay\nunder a contract must prove extra elements beyond use or copying, including mutual assent and\nvalid consideration\u201d); Altai, 982 F.2d at 717 (trade secret claims \u201cgrounded upon a defendant\u2019s\nbreach of a duty of trust\u201d were \u201cdifferent in kind from copyright infringement\u201d (citation\nomitted)); Sleppin v. Thinkscan.com, LLC, 55 F. Supp. 3d 366, 374 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (breach of\nfiduciary duty contained extra element because it \u201crequire[d] that the defendant owe the plaintiff\na fiduciary duty and breached that duty\u201d).\n\nThe balance of the civil conspiracy claim is also plausibly pled. A viable such claim\n\nmust plead, in addition to an underlying tort: \u201c(1) an agreement between two or more parties;\n\n60\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 62 of 62\n\n(2) an overt act in furtherance of the agreement; (3) the parties\u2019 intentional participation in the\nfurtherance of a plan or purpose; and (4) resulting damage or injury.\u201d Treppel y. Biovail Corp.,\nNo. 3 Civ. 3002, 2005 WL 2086339, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2005). The FAC does so. First, it\nalleges that Perplexity is an \u201cadvertised client of SerpApi,\u201d making it plausible that there is an\nagreement between the parties. FAC \u00a7 6; SerpApi Website at 9. Second, it alleges, each\ndefendant has taken steps in furtherance of that agreement\u2014SerpApi, by providing a\ncircumvention tool, and Perplexity, by paying for and using it. FAC \u00a7 155. Third, the FAC\nalleges that each party was an intentional participant, insofar as SerpApi markets itself as a tool\nfor the purpose of circumvention, and Perplexity received a cease-and-desist letter from Reddit\nyet continued to access and scrape Reddit data to fuel its answer engine. Jd. J{ 81-82, 93-94,\n96. Fourth, as discussed at length, the FAC alleges damage to Reddit in the form of lost\nlicensing fees, reputational injury, and infringement of its copyright in its own authored works.\nId. Jf 102-11.\n\nPerplexity\u2019s reliance on Kitchen Winners NY Inc. v. Rock Fintek LLC, 668 F. Supp.\n3d 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (Engelmayer, J.) is unavailing. See Perplexity Mot. at 25. There, the\ncomplaint did \u201cnot contain any non-conclusory allegations\u201d related to the parties\u2019 agreement or\nthe acts committed in furtherance of the wrong. Kitchen Winners NY Inc., 668 F. Supp. 3d\nat 299-300. The FAC, in contrast, alleges that the purpose of SerpApi\u2019s tool is to circumvent\nTPMs to access and scrape data, that SerpApi holds Perplexity out as its customer, and that\nPerplexity has accessed and scraped copyrighted content in Google SERPs. FAC {[f 6, 81-83,\n155. At the motion to dismiss stage, Reddit is not required to allege the particulars of an\nagreement between defendants to plausibly allege the existence of such. See Schottenstein v.\n\nCapla, No. 22 Civ. 10883, 2024 WL 4135303, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2024) (\u201ccomplaint\n\n61\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 08/85/26 Page 62 of 62\n\nmust allege some factual basis for a finding of a conscious agreement among the defendants,\u201d\nbut \u201cdoes not need to satisfy the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b)\u201d (quoting Hecht v. Com.\nClearing House, Inc., 897 F.2d 21, 26 n.4 (2d Cir. 1990))).\n\nAccordingly, the Court finds the civil conspiracy claim plausibly pled. See, e.g.,\nFairstein v. Netflix, Inc., 553 F. Supp. 3d 48, 82 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (although \u201cquestion of whether\ndefendants actually agreed to defame [plaintiff] is properly subject to discovery,\u201d complaint\nalleged sufficient facts to support \u201cthat the defendants collaborated\u201d); 1567 56th St., LLC v.\nSpitzer, 774 F. Supp. 3d 476, 497 (E.D.N.Y. 2025) (denying motion to dismiss where complaint\nalleged defendants \u201call played discrete and necessary roles in perpetuating the mortgage fraud\nscheme\u201d); Varela, 2002 WL 342657, at *3 (denying motion to dismiss where civil conspiracy\nclaim predicated on statutory violation). The Court denies the motion to dismiss that claim\nagainst both defendants, although, for the reasons above, the Court prunes its unjust enrichment\nand unfair competition objects.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, the Court predominantly denies the motions to dismiss. It\nsustains the claims (1) brought against both defendants under section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the\nDMCA, (2) against SerpApi under 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA, and (3) against both defendants for\ncivil conspiracy under New York law. The Court, however, dismisses the claim under\nsection 1201(b) of the DMCA against SerpApi, and the state-law unjust enrichment and unfair\ncompetition claims brought against both defendants.\n\nThe Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at dockets 58\n\nand 61. An order will issue shortly as to next steps in this litigation.\n\n62\n\fCase 4:25-cv-08936-PAE Drmument4io4 Filed 02/85/26 Page 64 of 62\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nFoul A Engclnane\n\nUnited States District Judge\n\nDated: July 31, 2026\nNew York, New York\n\n63\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-05T13:33:25.194554-07:00","document_number":"47","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027470025","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A - Reddit Opinion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-05T09:06:19.376566-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-05T11:01:22.862789-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-05","time_filed":"08:49:37","entry_number":47,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":158,"description":"STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d filed byNicole Chmura, Matt Fisher, Golfholics, Inc., Chris Rice, Ted Entertainment, Inc., Devin Youngblood. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Reddit Opinion)(Related document(s) 37 ) (Edelman, William) (Filed on 8/5/2026) (Entered: 08/05/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473090806/","id":473090806,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488546844/","id":488546844,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/46/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-03T14:02:56.077157-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-04T18:46:13.806295-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":5,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"46","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027460158","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-03T14:02:56.054936-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-05T11:01:22.823910-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-03","time_filed":"13:36:30","entry_number":46,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":153,"description":"MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 328, receipt number ACANDC-22290670.) filed by Matt Fisher, Golfholics, Inc., Ted Entertainment, Inc.. (Ellzey, Jarrett) (Filed on 8/3/2026) (Entered: 08/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472590327/","id":472590327,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488029508/","id":488029508,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/45/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-29T16:18:30.596350-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-29T16:18:30.596364-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"45","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-29T16:18:30.567910-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-29T16:18:30.576807-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-27","time_filed":null,"entry_number":45,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING MOTION HEARING. Before the Court is 33 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Meta Platforms, Inc. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. The hearing on this matter that is currently scheduled for 08/06/2026 at 2:00PM PST is hereby VACATED. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (dms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2026) (Entered: 07/27/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472285256/","id":472285256,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487714051/","id":487714051,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-27T13:35:02.341150-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-27T13:35:02.341166-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-27T13:35:02.325263-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-27T13:35:02.325277-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-27","time_filed":"13:19:09","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471166605/","id":471166605,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486563419/","id":486563419,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-16T15:36:26.422020-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:36:26.446043-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Set Deadlines/Hearings AND ~Util - Teleconference Zoom","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-16T15:36:26.352988-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:36:26.353010-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-16","time_filed":"15:25:19","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471165786/","id":471165786,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486562594/","id":486562594,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-16T15:34:54.409907-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:22.346997-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-16T15:34:54.391272-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:22.305915-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-16","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Set Deadline/Hearing re: ECF No. 44 ORDER. Joint Case Management Statement due by 11/10/2026. Initial Case Management Conference set for 11/17/2026 at 02:00 PM - Videoconference Only. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jst Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. One list of names of all counsel appearing for all parties must be sent in one email to the CRD at jstcrd@cand.uscourts.gov no later than 11/16/2026 at 2:00PM PST.Civ LR 77-3(d). Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://cand.uscourts.gov/zoom. (dms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471165785/","id":471165785,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486562593/","id":486562593,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/44/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-16T15:34:54.367037-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:22.278183-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"44","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-16T15:34:54.330344-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:22.173931-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":44,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting in part 43 Stipulation. The parties' joint request to continue the case management conference is granted. The initial case management conference is continued to November 17, 2026, with a joint case management statement due by November 10, 2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jstlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2026) (Entered: 07/15/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471014205/","id":471014205,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486407205/","id":486407205,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-15T18:04:00.213739-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-15T18:04:00.220557-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Stipulation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-15T18:04:00.198363-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-15T18:04:00.198378-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-15","time_filed":"17:58:01","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470838005/","id":470838005,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486227017/","id":486227017,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/43/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-14T15:02:00.737912-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:22.116790-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":6,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"43","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027379432","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation and Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486562603/","id":486562603,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/43/1/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-16T15:35:14.388826-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-27T12:46:02.627715-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":180787,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"43","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027379433","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Declaration of Joseph R. Wetzel","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-14T15:02:00.701337-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:22.085613-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-14","time_filed":"14:39:43","entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":144,"description":"STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Case Management Conference filed by Meta Platforms, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joseph R. Wetzel)(Wetzel, Joseph) (Filed on 7/14/2026) (Entered: 07/14/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470319702/","id":470319702,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485693004/","id":485693004,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/42/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-09T14:33:39.850571-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:22.044573-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"42","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027359942","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-09T14:33:39.809512-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:21.980233-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-09","time_filed":"14:07:07","entry_number":42,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":139,"description":"ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Edelman, William) (Filed on 7/9/2026) (Entered: 07/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470179097/","id":470179097,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485543626/","id":485543626,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/41/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-08T16:32:30.963562-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:21.939413-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"41","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027355572","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-08T16:32:30.909659-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:21.906373-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-08","time_filed":"16:00:05","entry_number":41,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":137,"description":"ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Filed on 7/8/2026) (Entered: 07/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470045438/","id":470045438,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485403643/","id":485403643,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/40/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-07T20:05:16.471685-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:21.860906-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"40","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027351272","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-07T20:05:16.430129-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:21.822417-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-07","time_filed":"19:43:43","entry_number":40,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":135,"description":"ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Wetzel, Joseph) (Filed on 7/7/2026) (Entered: 07/07/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/468966964/","id":468966964,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484281103/","id":484281103,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/39/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-26T16:02:01.711516-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:21.777787-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":16,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"39","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027308638","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Opposition/Response","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-26T16:02:01.462936-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:21.746398-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-26","time_filed":"15:47:23","entry_number":39,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":132,"description":"REPLY (re 33 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) filed byMeta Platforms, Inc.. (Wetzel, Joseph) (Filed on 6/26/2026) (Entered: 06/26/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467322989/","id":467322989,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482583320/","id":482583320,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/37/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-12T15:05:10.135176-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:21.579723-07:00","sha1":"c2595341fa9cba176164b97803fc8d685b9ff153","page_count":31,"file_size":807307,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.461720/gov.uscourts.cand.461720.37.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.461720/gov.uscourts.cand.461720.37.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 1 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 Rom Bar-Nissim (SBN 293356)\n Rom@HeahBarNissim.com\n 2\n HEAH BAR-NISSIM LLP\n 3 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400\n Los Angeles, CA 90067\n 4 Telephone: (310) 432-2836\n 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class\n 6 Additional Counsel on signature page\n\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n11 OAKLAND DIVISION\n\n12\n\n13 TED ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MATT Case No. 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n FISHER, GOLFHOLICS, INC., each\n14 individually and on behalf of all others similarly Honorable Jon S. Tigar\n situated,\n15 PLAINTIFFS\u2019 OPPOSITION TO\n Plaintiffs, META\u2019S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST\n16 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR\n vs. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER\n17 FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n META PLATFORMS, INC.,\n18 Date: August 6, 2026\n Defendant. Time: 2:00 PM PT\n19 Place: Videoconference\n\n20 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL\n\n21 Complaint Filed: December 23, 2025\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 2 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n 2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1\n 3 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 4\n 4 I. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Section 1201(a). ................................. 4\n 5 II. Exemptions to Section 1201(a). ............................................................................... 5\n 6 III. YouTube and Access Restrictions. .......................................................................... 6\n 7 IV. Meta\u2019s Circumvention of YouTube\u2019s Access Restrictions. ..................................... 8\n 8 LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................................................... 9\n 9 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 10\n10 V. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Alleged Article III Standing ...................................... 10\n11 VI. Plaintiffs Have Statutory Standing Under Section 1203(a) ................................... 14\n12 VII. Plaintiffs\u2019 State a Claim Under DMCA \u00a7 1201(a) ................................................. 17\n13 A. The Access-Control Classification Cannot Be Decided on a Motion\n to Dismiss. .................................................................................................. 17\n14\n B. Plaintiffs Adequately Allege Access Controls That Meta\n15 Circumvented. ............................................................................................ 18\n16 C. A TPM Can Be Both an \u201cAccess\u201d and \u201cCopy\u201d Control. ........................... 21\n17 D. Section 1201(a) Protects Access to Copies of a Work. .............................. 22\n18 E. There Is No \u201cEnd-Run\u201d Around the Copyright Act. ................................. 23\n19 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 24\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n i\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 3 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n Cases Page(s)\n 2\n\n 3 Ashcroft v. Iqbal,\n 556 U.S. (2009) ................................................................................................................... 10, 20\n 4\n Cordova v. Huneault,\n 5 817 F. Supp. 3d 819 (N.D. Cal. 2026) ........................................................................... 15, 19, 21\n 6 Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,\n 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018)...................................................................................................... 14\n 7\n\n 8 Diamondback Indus., Inc. v. Repeat Precision, LLC,\n 2019 WL 5842756 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2019) ............................................................................ 13\n 9\n Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc.,\n10 (\u201cVidAngel\u201d), 869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017)....................................................................... passim\n\n11 Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.,\n 672 F. Supp. 3d 837 (N.D. Cal. 2023) ....................................................................................... 14\n12\n Echostar Satellite, L.L.C. v. Viewtech, Inc.,\n13\n 543 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (S.D. Cal. 2008) ................................................................................ 16, 23\n14\n Edland v. Basin Elec. Power Coop.,\n15 2021 WL 3080225 (D.S.D. July 21, 2021) .......................................................................... 18, 19\n\n16 EVOX Prods., LLC v. Leland Stanford Junior Univ.,\n 2025 WL 4690432 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2025) ............................................................................ 11\n17\n Fourth Est. Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC,\n18 586 U.S. 296 (2019) ................................................................................................................... 13\n19\n Green v. United States Dep\u2019t of Just.,\n20 111 F.4th 81 (D.C. Cir. 2024) .......................................................................................... 1, 4, 5, 6\n\n21 Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.,\n 471 U.S. 539 (1985) ................................................................................................................... 13\n22\n Hattler v. Ashton,\n23 2017 WL 11634742 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2017) ......................................................................... 19\n24\n Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs,\n25 556 U.S. 163 (2009) ................................................................................................................... 15\n\n26 Jimenez v. Quarterman,\n 555 U.S. 113 (2009) ................................................................................................................... 15\n27\n\n28\n ii\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 4 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 Justice v. Uncharted Labs, Inc.,\n 2026 WL 1430232 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2026)...................................................................... 18, 21\n 2\n Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,\n 3\n 2025 WL 744032 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2025) ................................................................... 10, 11, 12\n 4\n Levitt v. Yelp! Inc.,\n 5 765 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2014)...................................................................................................... 9\n\n 6 Lexmark Intern. Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,\n 572 U.S. 118 (2014) ................................................................................................................... 15\n 7\n London-Sire Recs., Inc. v. Doe 1,\n 8 542 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D. Mass. 2008) ........................................................................................ 23\n 9\n Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,\n10 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008).................................................................................................... 10\n\n11 Matthew Bender & Co. v. W. Pub. Co.,\n 158 F.3d 693 (2d Cir. 1998) ....................................................................................................... 23\n12\n MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Ent., Inc.,\n13 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010)............................................................................................... passim\n14\n Med. Broad. Co. v. Flaiz,\n15 2003 WL 22838094 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2003)........................................................................... 13\n\n16 N.Y.Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp.,\n 777 F. Supp. 3d 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) ........................................................................................ 11\n17\n Perfect 10, Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc.,\n18 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).................................................................................................... 23\n19 Post Univ. Inc. v. Learneo, Inc.,\n20 2025 WL 2702043 (D. Conn. Sept. 23, 2025) ..................................................................... 11, 13\n\n21 RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.,\n 2000 WL 127311 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18, 2000) .......................................................................... 16\n22\n Recif Res., LLC v. Juniper Cap. Advisors, L.P.,\n23 2020 WL 5739138 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2020) .......................................................................... 13\n24 Shah v. Fandom, Inc.,\n 2024 WL 4539577 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2024) ........................................................................ 9, 10\n25\n\n26 Silicon Image, Inc. v. Analogix Semiconductor,\n 642 F. Supp. 2d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ....................................................................................... 14\n27\n\n28\n iii\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 5 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc.,\n 2026 WL 1019199 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2026) .......................................................... 17, 18, 21, 22\n 2\n Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,\n 3\n 578 U.S. 330 (2016) ................................................................................................................... 10\n 4\n The Intercept Media, Inc.v. OpenAI, Inc.,\n 5 767 F. Supp. 3d 18 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) .......................................................................................... 11\n\n 6 Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. Prestige Ent., Inc.,\n 306 F. Supp. 3d 1164 (C.D. Cal. 2018)........................................................................................ 9\n 7\n TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,\n 8 594 U.S. 413 (2021) ............................................................................................................. 10, 14\n 9\n UMG Recordings, v. Kurbanov,\n10 2021 WL 6492907 (E.D. Va. Dec. 16, 2021) ............................................................................ 19\n\n11 Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley,\n 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................. 21, 23\n12\n Viral DRM LLC v. Seven W. Media, Ltd.,\n13 768 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2025) ............................................................................... 16, 23\n14\n Yout, LLC v. RIAA,\n15 633 F. Supp. 3d 650 (D. Conn. 2022) ............................................................................ 18, 19, 21\n\n16 Statutes\n\n17 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 411(a) ......................................................................................................................... 13\n18 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201 ..................................................................................................................... passim\n19 17 U.S.C. \u00a71201(a) ................................................................................................................. passim\n20\n 17 U.S.C. \u00a71201(a)(1) ................................................................................................................ 1, 18\n21\n 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(1)(A) ............................................................................................................. 21\n22\n 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(1)(C).......................................................................................................... 5, 23\n23\n 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(A) ............................................................................................. 5, 18, 19, 20\n24\n 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(B)................................................................................................ 2, 5, 12, 18\n25\n 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(b) ............................................................................................................. 4, 21, 22\n26\n 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(d) ......................................................................................................................... 5\n27\n\n28 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(e)-(j) .................................................................................................................... 5\n iv\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 6 of 31\n\n\n\n 1\n 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1203 ............................................................................................................................ 13\n 2\n 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1203(a) ................................................................................................................. 14, 15\n 3\n Rules\n 4\n\n 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ............................................................................................................................... 9\n\n 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ...................................................................................................................... 9\n\n 7 Regulations\n 8 37 CFR 201.40(b)(1)(i)\u2013(ii) ............................................................................................................. 6\n 9 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 201.40(b)(1)(ii)(A) ....................................................................................................... 6\n10\n 37 CFR 201.40(b)(3) ........................................................................................................................ 6\n11\n 37 CFR 201.40(b)(4)\u2013(5) ................................................................................................................. 6\n12\n Other Authorities\n13\n 89 Fed. Reg. 85,437 ......................................................................................................................... 5\n14\n H.R. Rep. No. 105-551 ................................................................................................................ 1, 5\n15\n\n16 H.R. Rep. No. 105-551(I)........................................................................................................... 4, 22\n\n17 S. Rep. No. 105-190 ................................................................................................................. 1, 4, 6\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n v\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 7 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 INTRODUCTION\n\n 2 The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits circumventing technological measures that\n\n 3 effectively control access to copyrighted works. 17 U.S.C. \u00a71201(a)(1). Congress enacted the\n\n 4 DMCA to \u201ccreate[] the legal platform for launching the global digital online marketplace for\n\n 5 copyrighted works\u201d and to ensure that copyright owners received \u201cadequate[] protect[ion]\u201d against\n\n 6 unauthorized exploitation. S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 8 (1998); H.R. Rep. No. 105-551 (I), at 9 (1998).\n\n 7 Recognizing that \u201ccopyright owners [would] hesitate to make their works readily available on the\n\n 8 Internet\u201d absent such protection, S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 8, Congress passed Section 1201 to\n\n 9 back\u2014\u201cwith legal sanctions\u201d \u2014\u201ccopyright owners\u2019 use of digital walls to protect their copyrighted\n\n10 works from piracy.\u201d Green v. United States Dep\u2019t of Just., 111 F.4th 81, 89 (D.C. Cir. 2024)\n\n11 (cleaned up).\n\n12 Because of Section 1201, the \u201cthriving electronic marketplace\u201d that Congress envisioned is\n\n13 now a reality\u2014and YouTube is one of its crowning achievements. YouTube deploys a suite of\n\n14 technological protection measures (\u201cTPMs\u201d) that are digital walls designed to prevent anyone from\n\n15 reaching the raw digital files that sit on YouTube\u2019s servers and keep certain users, like bots and\n\n16 scrapers, off of the platform altogether. These measures do not merely prevent copying in the\n\n17 colloquial sense; they prevent access to the digital files themselves. Without circumvention, a user\n\n18 cannot obtain, locate, or retrieve the underlying audiovisual file. Meta knows the value of those\n\n19 walls; it has built them around its own platforms and sued scrapers under Section 1201(a) for tearing\n\n20 them down. See Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Octopus Data, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-03921-YGR (N.D. Cal.)\n\n21 (\u201cOctopus Data\u201d). What was unlawful circumvention of TPMs when Meta was the victim does not\n\n22 become fair game just because Meta is now the scraper.\n\n23 Creators, like Plaintiffs, rely on YouTube to publicly perform their works, trusting that\n\n24 YouTube\u2019s TPMs will protect their content from unauthorized access and exploitation. They upload\n\n25 their original audiovisual works to YouTube, earn revenue through its ad-supported streaming\n\n26 platform, and rely on YouTube\u2019s host of TPMs to ensure that users can view their content without\n\n27 relinquishing control over how that content is accessed and used. Meta used automated\n\n28\n 1\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 8 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 descrambling tools such as yt-dlp that act as a \u201cbootleg key\u201d and IP-rotation infrastructure to\n\n 2 circumvent those protections, millions of times over, and extracted the underlying files so they\n\n 3 could be fed into Meta\u2019s AI training pipeline. ECF No. 31 (the \u201cFAC\u201d) \u00b6\u00b6 6-7, 58, 79-135, 145.\n\n 4 Meta advances three arguments in support of its motion to dismiss. First, Meta contends\n\n 5 that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue damages because: (1) their alleged economic\n\n 6 injuries are implausible and speculative; (2) the injuries alleged require a copyright infringement\n\n 7 claim; and (3) Plaintiffs lack standing to bring injunctive relief.\n\n 8 These arguments fail because Plaintiffs allege concrete, property-based injuries that closely\n\n 9 resemble traditional harms long recognized in copyright law. Courts addressing DMCA claims in\n\n10 the AI context agree, and have repeatedly held that DMCA-related injuries arising from the\n\n11 unauthorized use of monetizable creative works confer Article III standing. Plaintiffs also have\n\n12 standing to allege injunctive relief claims because Meta continues to retain, deploy, and monetize\n\n13 AI models trained on Plaintiffs\u2019 works, creating an ongoing injury.\n\n14 Second, Meta argues that Plaintiffs fall outside Section 1201(a)\u2019s zone of interests. But the\n\n15 plain language of Section 1203(a) authorizes \u201cany person injured\u201d by a violation of Section 1201\n\n16 to bring a civil action. Plaintiffs fall comfortably within the 1201(a)\u2019s zone of interests because the\n\n17 gravamen of the FAC is the loss of control over access to the underlying files\u2014precisely the interest\n\n18 the anticircumvention provision protects. The fact that ordinary users can view Plaintiffs\u2019 material\n\n19 on YouTube also does not eliminate their injury or their statutory right to sue. YouTube\u2019s TPMs\n\n20 protect how Plaintiffs\u2019 works are accessed. By circumventing YouTube\u2019s TPMs and accessing the\n\n21 audiovisual files in a manner that is outside of the \u201cordinary course of [YouTube\u2019s] operation\u201d (see\n\n22 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(B)), Meta violated Plaintiffs\u2019 rights under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a).\n\n23 Third, Meta argues that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for relief because, according to Meta:\n\n24 TPMs must prevent access rather than merely control it \u2013 i.e., \u201caccess controls\u201d and \u201ccopy controls\u201d\n\n25 are mutually exclusive. According to Meta, Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged the existence of\n\n26 an access control(s) or Meta\u2019s circumvention of them. Meta even goes so far as to argue Plaintiffs\u2019\n\n27 reading of the statute threatens fair use.\n\n28\n 2\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 9 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 None of these arguments succeed. Plaintiffs easily state a claim under Section 1201(a)\n\n 2 because the FAC plausibly alleges that: (1) YouTube\u2019s TPMs are access controls on the underlying\n\n 3 audiovisual files; and (2) Meta circumvented those measures to extract permanent copies for AI\n\n 4 training. Nothing in the statute, its legislative history or governing case law supports the theory that\n\n 5 access controls and copy controls are mutually exclusive. To the contrary, they expressly state the\n\n 6 opposite. Further, Plaintiffs more than adequately allege that YouTube\u2019s TPMs\u2014rolling cipher,\n\n 7 session-bound URLs, IP-based controls, CAPTCHA challenges, and proof-of-origin tokens\u2014\n\n 8 function as digital locks that restrict file-level access and automated bulk extraction, as well as\n\n 9 Meta\u2019s circumvention of those controls. Indeed, numerous claims under Section 1201 have\n\n10 survived motions to dismiss by alleging far less than Plaintiffs have alleged in the FAC.\n\n11 Meta knows Plaintiffs have alleged a plausible claim because less than three years ago, in\n\n12 this very District, Meta invoked Section 1201(a) to challenge the circumvention of technological\n\n13 measures designed to restrict automated access to freely viewable online content \u2013 the same theory\n\n14 asserted here. In Octopus Data, Meta sued a data-scraping defendant under Section 1201(a). It\n\n15 alleged access control TPMs identical to those in Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint: IP-address blocking, rate\n\n16 and data limits, reCAPTCHA challenges, and machine-learning bot-detection systems. Meta\n\n17 further alleged that these access control TPMs were implemented on its own websites and apps\n\n18 (Facebook and Instagram) to \u201ceffectively control access to\u201d its own copyright-protected works. See\n\n19 Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 1 (Octopus Data Complaint, ECF No. 35 \u00b6\u00b6 28, 71\u201372). Meta\n\n20 cannot have it both ways and invoke the access control TPMs that Plaintiffs allege when it benefits\n\n21 Meta \u2013 yet deride them as too porous to qualify as an access control TPM when Meta circumvents\n\n22 the exact same TPMs.\n\n23 At this stage, Plaintiffs need only plausibly allege that (1) their works are protected by a\n\n24 \u201ctechnological measure\u201d that \u201ceffectively controls access\u201d to the works, and (2) that Meta\n\n25 circumvented an effective technological measure to access Plaintiffs\u2019 works. The FAC,\n\n26 unambiguously and with specificity, alleges that Meta circumvented YouTube\u2019s TPMs to gain\n\n27\n\n28\n 3\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 10 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 unauthorized access to the files underlying Plaintiffs\u2019 works. Plaintiffs have thus stated a plausible\n\n 2 claim for relief and the Court should DENY Meta\u2019s motion.\n\n 3 BACKGROUND\n\n 4 I. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Section 1201(a).\n\n 5 The DMCA was a response to the Internet\u2019s rapid growth. Congress enacted the DMCA to\n\n 6 \u201ccreate[] the legal platform for launching the global digital online marketplace for copyrighted\n\n 7 works\u201d and to \u201cfacilitate making available quickly and conveniently via the Internet the movies,\n\n 8 music, software, and literary works that are the fruit of the American creative genius.\u201d S. Rep. No.\n\n 9 105-190, at 8; see also H.R. Rep. No. 105-551(I), at 9 (the DMCA is \u201cintended to ensure a thriving\n\n10 electronic marketplace for copyrighted works on the Internet\u201d). However, Congress understood that\n\n11 the Internet\u2019s vast potential as a distribution channel for creative works could not be realized if\n\n12 rightsholders feared that \u201cmassive piracy\u201d would render digital distribution economically unviable.\n\n13 S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 8. Without those assurances, Congress understood, \u201ccopyright owners\n\n14 [would] hesitate to make their works readily available on the Internet.\u201d Id.\n\n15 As a result, Section 1201 was born. The DMCA \u201cbacked with legal sanctions copyright\n\n16 owners\u2019 use of digital walls to protect their copyrighted works from piracy.\u201d Green, 111 F.4th at\n\n17 89 (cleaned up). Those walls, called technological protection measures (\u201cTPMs\u201d), limit both the\n\n18 use of and access to copyrighted works. Id. Section 1201 prohibits (1) circumventing a TPM that\n\n19 \u201ccontrols access\u201d to a copyrighted work (17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)); and (2) trafficking in a technology\n\n20 designed to circumvent a TPM that \u201cprotects a right of a copyright owner\u201d (id. \u00a7 1201(b)). These\n\n21 provisions are not mutually exclusive\u2014Congress did not pass any language rendering them so, and\n\n22 the Ninth Circuit has explicitly stated that they are not. Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc.\n\n23 (\u201cVidAngel\u201d), 869 F.3d 848, 864 (9th Cir. 2017) (\u201c[Section 1201] does not provide that a TPM\n\n24 cannot serve as both an access control and a use control[.]\u201d).\n\n25 The conduct at issue in this case falls under Section 1201(a) (the \u201canticircumvention\n\n26 provision\u201d). To state a claim under Section 1201(a), Plaintiffs need only plead that access to their\n\n27 work is protected by an effective technological measure \u2013 which is defined as a measure that\n\n28\n 4\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 11 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 \u201crequires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the\n\n 2 copyright owner, to gain access to the work.\u201d 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(A). Next, Plaintiffs must\n\n 3 plead that Meta circumvented the relevant technological measure \u2013 which is defined as\n\n 4 \u201cdescrambl[ing] a scrambled work, ... decrypt[ing] an encrypted work, or otherwise ... avoid[ing],\n\n 5 bypass[ing], remov[ing], deactivat[ing], or impair[ing] a technological measure, without the\n\n 6 authority of the copyright owner.\u201d Id. \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(B).\n\n 7 II. Exemptions to Section 1201(a).\n\n 8 In enacting Section 1201(a), Congress implicitly recognized that the First Amendment does\n\n 9 not \u201cguarantee potential fair users unfettered or privileged access to copyrighted works they seek\n\n10 to use in their own expression.\u201d Green, 111 F.4th at 98. At the same time, Congress understood\n\n11 that Section 1201(a) had the potential to prohibit certain noninfringing fair uses of copyrighted\n\n12 material. H.R. Rep. No. 105-551 (II), at 35\u201336. For this reason, the anticircumvention provision is\n\n13 subject to specific statutory and regulatory exemptions. Green, 111 F.4th at 89\u201390.\n\n14 Section 1201 itself provides exemptions, such as an exemption allowing nonprofit libraries\n\n15 to overcome technological controls to gain access to copyrighted works \u201csolely in order to make a\n\n16 good faith determination of whether to acquire a copy of th[e] work\u201d that is not otherwise\n\n17 reasonably available. 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(d). Other exemptions in the statute itself include law\n\n18 enforcement and governmental activities, encryption research, security testing, and circumvention\n\n19 for the sole purpose of preventing collection of a user\u2019s personally identifying information.\n\n20 Id. \u00a7 1201(e)-(j).\n\n21 Congress also created a triennial rulemaking process to accommodate changes in\n\n22 technology. Under Section 1201(a)(1)(C), the Librarian of Congress grants exemptions to those\n\n23 likely to be \u201cadversely affected\u201d by the anticircumvention provision in their ability to make\n\n24 noninfringing uses. Green, 111 F.4th at 90. Current exemptions include, among others, excerpts of\n\n25 motion pictures for criticism and comment and for educational purposes, 89 Fed. Reg. 85,437,\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 5\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 12 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 85,439/1 (Oct. 28, 2024) (codified at 37 CFR 201.40(b)(1)(i)\u2013(ii)) 1; preservation of audiovisual\n\n 2 works on damaged or deteriorating media by libraries, archives, and museums, id. at 85,440/3\n\n 3 (codified at 37 CFR 201.40(b)(3)); and text and data mining of motion pictures and literary works\n\n 4 for scholarly research and teaching, id. at 85,440/4\u20135 (codified at 37 CFR 201.40(b)(4)\u2013(5)).\n\n 5 This rulemaking process enables noninfringing fair use while providing \u201creasonable\n\n 6 assurance\u201d to copyright owners that they will be protected against piracy. S. Rep. No. 105-190, at\n\n 7 8; see also Green, 111 F.4th at 98. Tellingly, Meta does not identify any statutory or regulatory\n\n 8 exemption authorizing mass circumvention of YouTube TPMs for commercial AI training. Instead,\n\n 9 Meta effectively asks this Court to create a judicial exemption for industrial-scale AI scraping\n\n10 whenever the targeted works are viewable through an authorized streaming interface. That request\n\n11 is improper and should be rejected.\n\n12 III. YouTube and Access Restrictions.\n\n13 YouTube, one of the world\u2019s largest online streaming platforms, is perhaps the most potent\n\n14 example of how the careful balance struck by Section 1201(a) has helped foster the \u201cthriving\n\n15 electronic marketplace\u201d that Congress intended. Rightsholders can upload a diverse range of\n\n16 content to YouTube for streaming, including short- and long-form films, music videos, movie clips,\n\n17 livestream content, and news. Once uploaded, rightsholders\u2014ranging from major film studios and\n\n18 music labels to independent creators like Plaintiffs\u2014are then able to rely on YouTube\u2019s ad-\n\n19 supported streaming service for revenue. FAC \u00b6\u00b6 8, 18\u201319, 21\u201325, 36\u201337, 144\u201345.\n\n20 Central to YouTube\u2019s appeal for rightsholders is the control they retain through the\n\n21 platform\u2019s content-sharing process. Rightsholders can upload content for public streaming via\n\n22 YouTube\u2019s authorized, ad-supported playback mechanism while simultaneously retaining control\n\n23 over the way their content is accessed and used. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 37, 40, 69\u201372. YouTube\u2019s playback\n\n24 1\n This particular exemption, for certain educational uses, involves the circumvention of TPMs\n controlling access to audiovisual works, including circumstances where educators need to obtain\n25 video clips rather than play them directly from YouTube. See 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 201.40(b)(1)(ii)(A).\n26 That exemption makes sense only if circumventing YouTube\u2019s TPMs to access and download\n underlying audiovisual files would otherwise fall within Section 1201(a)\u2019s purview. If YouTube\u2019s\n27 TPMs were outside Section 1201(a), as Meta suggests, there would be no need for this limited\n educator exemption.\n28\n 6\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 13 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 mechanism makes content available for streaming, typically at no cost to the user. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 37, 46.\n\n 2 But while users can stream content on YouTube, their ability to access that content is restricted in\n\n 3 a number of important ways. For example, YouTube users with a free account are required to view\n\n 4 advertisements prior to streaming content, and YouTube\u2019s Terms of Service expressly prohibit\n\n 5 users from \u201caccess[ing], reproduc[ing], download[ing], distribut[ing], transmit[ting],\n\n 6 broadcast[ing], display[ing], sell[ing], licens[ing], alter[ing], modify[ing] or otherwise us[ing] any\n\n 7 part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service; or (b) with\n\n 8 prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holders.\u201d Id. \u00b6\u00b6 74\n\n 9 n.3; 69. YouTube employs a variety of TPMs intended to protect the data files underlying its\n\n10 streaming content. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 39, 44\u201349, 55. These TPMs include, but are not limited to, (1) an\n\n11 obfuscated signature system commonly referred to as a \u201crolling cipher,\u201d (2) IP-based blocking and\n\n12 rate limiting that restrict high-volume automated access, (3) short-lived, session-bound streaming\n\n13 URLs, (4) CAPTCHA human-verification challenges triggered by automated activity, and (5)\n\n14 proof-of-origin tokens that verify requests originating from authorized client environments. Id.\n\n15 \u00b6\u00b6 49, 54-68.\n\n16 Each of these five TPMs independently functions as a gatekeeping mechanism that must be\n\n17 satisfied before the audiovisual file can be retrieved. TPM (1) (i.e., the rolling cipher) controls\n\n18 access to the underlying media file by withholding a usable file location unless the requesting client\n\n19 transforms an obfuscated signature parameter using proprietary logic embedded in the official\n\n20 YouTube player. Unless a requesting client performs this decryption, the server will not return the\n\n21 audiovisual file. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 54-56. This ensures that users only access content through YouTube\u2019s\n\n22 authorized playback mechanism. Id. \u00b6 37.\n\n23 TPM (2) (i.e., IP-based blocking and rate limiting) monitors network behavior and curtails\n\n24 access to YouTube\u2019s servers upon detecting excessive or abusive request patterns. Requests from\n\n25 an IP address that exceeds defined thresholds may be throttled, denied, or blocked entirely, cutting\n\n26 off access altogether. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 57-58.\n\n27\n\n28\n 7\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 14 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 TPM (3) (i.e., session-bound short-lived URLs) restricts access by issuing URLs that are\n\n 2 temporary, cryptographically signed, and tied to a particular playback session and client context.\n\n 3 Once the authorization window expires or the session ends, the server will refuse to deliver the\n\n 4 audiovisual file. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 59-60. Because these URLs expire automatically, automated systems\n\n 5 attempting to gain access to videos outside of ordinary playback are unable to rely on a static link\n\n 6 and instead must repeatedly obtain fresh authorization parameters and regenerate valid media\n\n 7 URLs. Id. \u00b6 60.\n\n 8 TPM (4) (i.e., CAPTCHA challenges) conditions continued access on verification that the\n\n 9 requester is human rather than an automated system. Until the challenge is successfully completed,\n\n10 the requesting client cannot obtain the data necessary to retrieve the audiovisual file. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 61-62.\n\n11 Finally, TPM (5) (i.e., proof-of-origin tokens) requires that requests for video segments\n\n12 include cryptographic tokens demonstrating that the request originates from an authorized client\n\n13 environment and requests lacking valid tokens are denied or degraded. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 65-68. This prevents\n\n14 unauthorized software from directly requesting audiovisual files unless it possesses credentials\n\n15 proving it is an approved client. Id.\n\n16 IV. Meta\u2019s Circumvention of YouTube\u2019s Access Restrictions.\n\n17 Meta deliberately circumvented YouTube\u2019s TPMs to gain unauthorized access to the\n\n18 underlying data files that are otherwise inaccessible to the public. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 4\u20137, 47\u201353, 80, 119\u201324.\n\n19 Meta used several tools and methods to do so, such as yt-dlp and IP rotation. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 6, 62\u201364, 67,\n\n20 98, 124\u201332. Yt-dlp is an open-source tool commonly used for \u201cstream ripping,\u201d a process that\n\n21 involves automatically accessing audio and video files directly from a website\u2019s servers rather than\n\n22 viewing content through the provider\u2019s authorized playback environment. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 119\u201320, 124\u201327.\n\n23 Specifically, yt-dlp automates stream ripping by deciphering YouTube\u2019s rolling cipher and\n\n24 extracting the underlying media files directly from YouTube\u2019s servers. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 54-56, 124-27. IP\n\n25 rotation involves the use of virtual machines to intentionally rotate IP addresses to bypass IP\n\n26 blocking and monitoring systems. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 6, 62-64, 128-32. By employing measures such as these,\n\n27\n\n28\n 8\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 15 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 Meta circumvented YouTube\u2019s TPMs and gained unauthorized access to Plaintiffs\u2019 and the putative\n\n 2 Class\u2019s content. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 5\u20137, 51\u201353, 80, 119\u201324, 127\u201332.\n\n 3 The effectiveness of YouTube\u2019s IP-based monitoring, rate limiting, and blocking is openly\n\n 4 acknowledged within the AI research community. For example, researchers who compiled the \u201cYT-\n\n 5 Temporal-180M\u201d and \u201cYT-Temporal-1B\u201d datasets, drawn from approximately six and twenty\n\n 6 million YouTube videos to train multimodal AI models, publicly posted on GitHub the bulk-\n\n 7 downloading tools they used, including a \u201cdownload_youtube.py\u201d script built around \u201cYouTube-\n\n 8 DL\u201d and its successor \u201cyt-dlp,\u201d the same tool Defendant used to access Plaintiffs\u2019 and Class\n\n 9 Members\u2019 audiovisual files. FAC \u00b6 98. The accompanying instructions expressly warn that\n\n10 YouTube detects and blocks bulk downloading: \u201cif you don\u2019t wait enough between videos, you\n\n11 might get blocked by YouTube.\u201d Id.\n\n12 These instructions corroborate Plaintiff\u2019s allegations: YouTube monitors the volume and\n\n13 frequency of download requests, refuses those exceeding its thresholds, and blocks offending IP\n\n14 addresses. That measure is effective in the ordinary course of its operation. Even the researchers\n\n15 who assembled the YT-Temporal datasets could not bulk-download YouTube videos without\n\n16 building their tooling around YouTube\u2019s blocking. A sophisticated AI developer, such as the\n\n17 Defendant, would be able to deduce that its high-volume activity would be detected and blocked\n\n18 unless it deliberately defeated YouTube\u2019s technological guards.\n\n19 LEGAL STANDARD\n\n20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to include \u201ca short and plain\n\n21 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see\n\n22 Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. Prestige Ent., Inc., 306 F. Supp. 3d 1164, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (\u201c[T]here\n\n23 are no heightened pleading requirements for a DMCA circumvention claim \u2026. [Plaintiffs] only\n\n24 need[] to allege facts that, accepted as true, state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.\u201d)\n\n25 (cleaned up). To overcome a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint need only\n\n26 \u201csuggest that the claim has at least a plausible chance of success.\u201d Shah v. Fandom, Inc., 2024 WL\n\n27 4539577, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2024) (quoting Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1135 (9th\n\n28\n 9\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 16 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 Cir. 2014)). \u201cA claim has facial plausibility when [it contains] \u2018factual content that allows the court\n\n 2 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.\u2019\u201d Id.\n\n 3 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678 (2009)). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court\n\n 4 accepts the facts in the complaint as true and construes the pleadings \u201cin the light most favorable\n\n 5 to the nonmoving party.\u201d Id. (quoting Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025,\n\n 6 1031 (9th Cir. 2008))\n\n 7 ARGUMENT\n\n 8 V. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Alleged Article III Standing\n\n 9 Standing under Article III requires a plaintiff to allege an injury in fact that is fairly traceable\n\n10 to the defendant\u2019s challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Spokeo,\n\n11 Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). An injury in fact must be concrete and particularized, but\n\n12 concrete injuries include both tangible and intangible harms. Id. at 339\u201340. \u201cArticle III standing\n\n13 requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.\u201d See TransUnion LLC v.\n\n14 Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 426 (2021). To satisfy Article III\u2019s concrete-harm requirement, a plaintiff\n\n15 must allege that the injury bears a \u201cclose relationship\u201d to a harm traditionally recognized as\n\n16 actionable in American courts. Id. at 424\u201315.\n\n17 Here, Meta\u2019s Article III standing arguments fail because Plaintiffs\u2019 injuries are akin to\n\n18 traditional property-based harms recognized in copyright law. Indeed, Meta\u2019s main argument\n\n19 attacks an injury theory Plaintiffs need not rely on at all to establish Article III standing. Plaintiffs\u2019\n\n20 injury is not, as Meta suggests, that Meta failed to sit through ads like an ordinary viewer; it is that\n\n21 Meta allegedly broke through file-level access restrictions to take the works into its own systems\n\n22 for commercial AI training, eliminating Plaintiffs\u2019 ability to control, license, or exclude that use.\n\n23 Courts addressing DMCA claims in the AI context have accordingly repeatedly found\n\n24 Article III standing. In Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2025 WL 744032 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2025),\n\n25 Meta argued that the plaintiffs\u2019 DMCA Section 1202(b) injuries, for interference with copyright-\n\n26 management information, were not sufficiently analogous to traditional copyright harms because\n\n27 the DMCA protects different statutory interests. Id. at *1. Judge Chhabria rejected Meta\u2019s framing\n\n28\n 10\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 17 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 there (the same argument Meta rehashes here), and found Article III standing because the harm\n\n 2 alleged was closely related to harms actionable in copyright. Id. (\u201cArticle III standing requires that\n\n 3 the injury to the plaintiff\u2014not their cause of action or the statute under which it arises\u2014have a\n\n 4 close relationship to a traditional harm.\u201d).\n\n 5 In The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., the court rejected the argument that a DMCA\n\n 6 injury was too abstract under TransUnion, explaining that even though \u201cthe specific right created\n\n 7 by the DMCA may be comparatively new,\u201d the injury caused by violation of that right \u201csounds in\n\n 8 the same kind of harm long recognized in copyright suits.\u201d 767 F. Supp. 3d 18, 28 (S.D.N.Y. 2025).\n\n 9 The court reasoned that copyright has long protected an author\u2019s property rights in creative works\n\n10 and that the DMCA \u201cadds another stick to the bundle of property rights already guaranteed to an\n\n11 author in her work under traditional copyright law.\u201d Id. at 26\u201328 (explaining harm traditionally\n\n12 actionable in copyright has been \u201cgrounded in notions of property rights\u201d since the \u201cFounding\n\n13 Era.\u201d)\n\n14 In N.Y. Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., the court held that DMCA-based injuries in an AI-\n\n15 training case were concrete because traditional copyright law supplies the necessary historical\n\n16 analogue. 777 F. Supp. 3d 283, 312 (S.D.N.Y. 2025). The court explained that, for both DMCA\n\n17 and traditional copyright claims, the relevant harm involves injury to \u201can author\u2019s property right in\n\n18 his original work of authorship.\u201d Id. (quoting The Intercept, 767 F. Supp. 3d at 23); see also Post\n\n19 Univ. Inc. v. Learneo, Inc., 2025 WL 2702043, at *5 (D. Conn. Sept. 23, 2025) (finding Article III\n\n20 injury where plaintiff presented evidence of monetary harm and injuries analogous to copyright\n\n21 infringement arising from defendant\u2019s alleged DMCA violations).\n\n22 The same result is warranted here. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs\u2019 videos are\n\n23 economically valuable assets monetized through advertising, sponsorships, and licensing. See FAC\n\n24 \u00b6\u00b6 18\u201324. Meta allegedly bypassed technological access controls to obtain and exploited those\n\n25 works for monetary gain without permission or compensation. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 10, 140\u201341, 144\u201350. Through\n\n26 its actions, Meta deprived Plaintiffs of revenue generating opportunities, including the ability to\n\n27 license or otherwise monetize their original works. See EVOX Prods., LLC v. Leland Stanford\n\n28\n 11\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 18 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 Junior Univ., 2025 WL 4690432, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2025) (confirming that monetary harm\n\n 2 from uncompensated use of licensable works is sufficient for Article III standing). This is monetary\n\n 3 harm, a paradigmatic concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III standing.\n\n 4 Meta\u2019s \u201chypothetical views\u201d argument improperly asks the Court to resolve factual disputes\n\n 5 and draw inferences against Plaintiffs at the pleading stage. Meta says it is implausible that, absent\n\n 6 circumvention, it would have watched Plaintiffs\u2019 videos millions of times through YouTube\u2019s\n\n 7 authorized player and thereby generated incremental advertising revenue. Mot. at 12. First, Meta\u2019s\n\n 8 position reinforces the theory that it was not interested in viewing the videos through YouTube\u2019s\n\n 9 authorized player, i.e., Meta was operating outside of \u201cthe ordinary course of [YouTube\u2019s TPMs\u2019]\n\n10 operation.\u201d See 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(B). Indeed, Meta confirms that it could not accomplish its\n\n11 AI-training objective through proper access and that it sought and obtained a different form of\n\n12 access than the access Plaintiffs authorized. See FAC \u00b6\u00b6 4, 37, 41\u201348. Second, as described above,\n\n13 Plaintiffs\u2019 injury is not limited to lost revenue from views, it also includes Plaintiffs being deprived\n\n14 of control over, and compensation for, their revenue-generating works.\n\n15 Meta\u2019s next argument that Plaintiffs\u2019 injuries are not compensable through the DMCA\n\n16 because they are copyright injuries, and that Plaintiffs do not claim to be the correct party to assert\n\n17 those rights, is similarly unpersuasive. Mot. at 13. 2 Plaintiffs allege that \u201c[c]ontent creators invest\n\n18 time, skill, and resources into producing their works, and they rely on YouTube\u2019s technological\n\n19 protection measures to safeguard their files from unauthorized access.\u201d FAC \u00b6 13. In addition,\n\n20 \u201cPlaintiffs and Class Members are owners of YouTube channels that uploaded copyrighted\n\n21 audiovisual works that they own and/or license and are publicly performed through the YouTube\n\n22 platform\u2026\u201d Id. \u00b6 169; see also id. at \u00b6\u00b6 19, 22, 24 (alleging Plaintiffs derive value from their\n\n23 YouTube hosted videos \u201cvia viewership, advertising, sponsorships, licensing, and related\n\n24 monetization.\u201d) Therefore, contrary to Meta\u2019s assertions, the Complaint contains detailed\n\n25 2\n Meta cites (Mot. at 13) MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Ent., Inc., 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010), for\n support, but MDY Indus., did not address standing at all. That case was about the interpretation and\n26 construction of the DMCA\u2019s subsections and their purpose. As the court stated in Kadrey, on the\n27 standing inquiry, \u201c[t]he DMCA\u2019s purpose \u2026 is irrelevant to whether the plaintiffs have suffered a\n concrete injury.\u201d Kadrey, 2025 WL 744032, at * 1.\n28\n 12\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 19 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 allegations about Plaintiffs\u2019 rights to the materials and therefore their ability to pursue damages for\n\n 2 how those works are accessed.\n\n 3 To the extent Meta suggests that only the owner of a registered copyright can bring a\n\n 4 DMCA claim, that argument has been rejected by courts. See Post Univ. Inc. v. Learneo, Inc., 2025\n\n 5 WL 2702043, at *5 (D. Conn. Sept. 23, 2025) (\u201cLimiting actions to only the copyright owner finds\n\n 6 no footing in the unambiguous text of the DMCA providing that any person injured by a DMCA\n\n 7 violation may bright a civil action.\u201d) (emphasis in original). Similarly, that lack of formal copyright\n\n 8 registration is similarly unpersuasive; accord Diamondback Indus., Inc. v. Repeat Precision, LLC,\n\n 9 2019 WL 5842756, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2019); Recif Res., LLC v. Juniper Cap. Advisors, L.P.,\n\n10 2020 WL 5739138, at *11 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2020); Med. Broad. Co. v. Flaiz, 2003 WL\n\n11 22838094, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2003). 3\n\n12 The argument is also not supported by the Copyright Act itself. The Copyright Act expressly\n\n13 stated that \u201cno civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be\n\n14 instituted until preregistration or registration\u201d \u2013 i.e., claims for copyright infringement under\n\n15 Section 501. 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 411(a). No such requirement exists for claims made under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n16 1201(a). Indeed, the remedies provisions of Copyright Act emphasizes the distinction between: (1)\n\n17 an \u201cinfringement\u201d of copyright; and (2) a \u201cviolation\u201d of the DMCA. For remedies of a violation of\n\n18 Section 501 (i.e., copyright infringement), the Copyright Act consistently refers to the unlawful\n\n19 conduct as \u201cinfringement.\u201d Id. \u00a7 504. In contrast, the Copyright Act describes violations of Sections\n\n20 1201 and 1202 of the DMCA as a \u201cviolation,\u201d and does not mention \u201cinfringement\u201d at all. 17 U.S.C.\n\n21 \u00a7 1203.\n\n22 Finally, Meta argues that Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief because the\n\n23 conduct in the Complaint is in the past tense. Mot. at 14. Not so. Here, Plaintiffs allege that Meta\n\n24 3\n Meta\u2019s musings about whether Plaintiffs could seek alternative redress via copyright infringement\n claims have no bearing on whether Plaintiffs have adequately alleged standing for their DMCA\n25 claims. For example, the holding in Fourth Est. Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586\n26 U.S. 296 (2019) was that a copyright claimant may file a copyright infringement suit only after the\n Copyright Office has acted on the application and registered the copyright\u2014but the case has\n27 nothing to do with the DMCA. Similarly, Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471\n U.S. 539 (1985) is a copyright infringement case that was decided before the DMCA was enacted.\n28\n 13\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 20 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 used their works to build, train, improve, and commercialize AI models; that Meta\u2019s business model\n\n 2 includes mass acquisition and ingestion of creators\u2019 videos; and that once AI ingests content,\n\n 3 creators cannot claw their works back from the model. FAC \u00b6\u00b6 12, 15\u201317, 80\u201385, 90\u2013102, 140\u201355.\n\n 4 Specifically, the Complaint alleges that: (1) Meta scraped Plaintiffs\u2019 and Class Members\u2019 videos to\n\n 5 \u201cbuild and train Meta AI Video\u201d (id. \u00b6\u00b6 1, 7\u20138); and (2) used Plaintiffs\u2019 works to train V-JEPA 2\n\n 6 and Meta AI Video\u2019s foundational models (id. \u00b6\u00b6 18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 30). Importantly, Meta\u2019s\n\n 7 conduct is ongoing because it continues to benefit from that training and Plaintiffs\u2019 works cannot\n\n 8 be clawed back from the models which Meta continues to deploy and monetize. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 12, 15\u201317,\n\n 9 102, 181\u201382. Plaintiffs therefore allege ongoing and threatened future harm. See Doe 1 v. GitHub,\n\n10 Inc., 672 F. Supp. 3d 837, 851\u201352 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (finding plaintiffs had standing to seek\n\n11 injunctive relief where they plausibly alleged a realistic danger that defendants\u2019 AI coding tools\n\n12 would reproduce plaintiffs\u2019 licensed code as output without required license text, attribution, or\n\n13 copyright notices). \u201c[A] person exposed to a risk of future harm may pursue forward-looking,\n\n14 injunctive relief to prevent the harm from occurring, at least so long as the risk of harm is\n\n15 sufficiently imminent and substantial.\u201d See TransUnion LLC, 594 U.S. at 435.\n\n16 Meta\u2019s reference to Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018),\n\n17 actually supports Plaintiffs. The full quote from Davidson is: \u201c[p]ast wrongs, though insufficient\n\n18 by themselves to grant standing, are evidence bearing on whether there is a real and immediate\n\n19 threat of repeated injury.\u201d Id. at 967 (citation omitted). Here, the allegations of Meta\u2019s past conduct,\n\n20 coupled with the forward-looking allegations of wrongful retention and use of Plaintiffs\u2019 works,\n\n21 are more than sufficient for standing to pursue injunctive relief. 4\n\n22 VI. Plaintiffs Have Statutory Standing Under Section 1203(a)\n\n23 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1203(a) is a straight-forward civil remedy provision, which states: \u201c[a]ny\n\n24 person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate\n\n25 4\n Meta\u2019s citation to Silicon Image, Inc. v. Analogix Semiconductor, 642 F. Supp. 2d 957 (N.D. Cal.\n 2008) is likewise unavailing. There, the defendant moved for summary judgment on plaintiff\u2019s\n26 injunctive relief claim and the court rejected the bid to rule out injunctive relief finding \u201csufficient\n27 evidence that injunctive relief might be warranted.\u201d The case addressed the merits of injunctive\n relief, not standing.\n28\n 14\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 21 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 United States district court for such violation.\u201d 5 As described above, Plaintiffs adequately alleged\n\n 2 violations of Section 1201(a) by Meta\u2019s circumvention of the five TPMs that protected their works.\n\n 3 See \u00a7\u00a7 III-IV. Likewise, Plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring this action. See \u00a7 V.\n\n 4 Meta attempts to champion an inappropriately narrow interpretation of Section 1203(a).\n\n 5 This interpretation is contradicted by the text of the statute, which allows any individual that has\n\n 6 been injured by a violation of Section 1201 to bring an action for civil remedies. See Cordova v.\n\n 7 Huneault, 817 F. Supp. 3d 819, 833 (N.D. Cal. 2026) (\u201cBecause [Plaintiff] alleges injury based on\n\n 8 defendants\u2019 alleged circumvention of technological measures protecting his copyrighted work, he\n\n 9 has plausibly alleged statutory standing.\u201d)\n\n10 The doctrine of statutory standing aims to ensure that \u201ca statutory cause of action extends\n\n11 only to plaintiffs whose interests fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.\u201d\n\n12 Lexmark Intern. Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 130 (2014). To determine\n\n13 whether a plaintiff comes within a statute\u2019s \u201czone of interest,\u201d courts look to whether \u201c[Plaintiff]\n\n14 falls within the class of plaintiffs whom Congress has authorized to sue under [the statute]\u201d. Id. at\n\n15 128. \u201cIn other words, we ask whether [Plaintiff] has a cause of action under the statute.\u201d Id.\n\n16 Citing no direct authority to uphold its narrow view, Meta merely repackages its prior\n\n17 arguments to frame statutory standing as a highly restrictive analysis that somehow prevents\n\n18 Plaintiffs, creators of copyright-protected works, from asserting claims for Meta\u2019s \u201ccircumvention\n\n19 of copyright protection systems.\u201d 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201. Meta\u2019s arguments fail. Plaintiffs assert injuries\n\n20 covered by the DMCA and not just Section 106 (see \u00a7 V); Plaintiffs properly allege violations of\n\n21 1201(a) by Meta\u2019s circumvention of YouTube\u2019s TPMs (see \u00a7\u00a7 III-IV, VII); and the fact Plaintiffs\n\n22 make their videos available for viewing on YouTube, but restrict access to the underlying video\n\n23 files, does not defeat a 1201(a) claim. None of these arguments relate to the zones of interest\n\n24 analysis, which merely confirms that an individual is among those intended to utilize a statutory\n\n25 5\n \u201cWe begin, as always, with the text of the statute.\u201d MDY Indus., 629 F.3d at 943 (quoting Hawaii\n v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 556 U.S. 163 (2009)); see also See Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S.\n26 113, 118 (2009) (a court\u2019s interpretation of a statute should start with the \u201cplain language of the\n27 statute\u201d).\n\n28\n 15\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 22 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 cause of action. Here, the statute provides that any person injured by a violation of Section 1201\n\n 2 may bring a civil action, and Plaintiffs have amply alleged such injury (see \u00a7 V).\n\n 3 Courts within this Circuit have found that the broad language of the statute enables even\n\n 4 non-copyright holders to have statutory standing under the DMCA, as it allows for \u201cany person\n\n 5 injured by a violation\u201d to seek redress under the statute. See Viral DRM LLC v. Seven W. Media,\n\n 6 Ltd., 768 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1031-32 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (agreeing that \u201cany person injured by a\n\n 7 violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring an action for such violation, even where that person\n\n 8 was not the copyright owner or holder\u201d) (quotations omitted) (citing Echostar Satellite, L.L.C. v.\n\n 9 Viewtech, Inc., 543 F. Supp. 2d 1201, 1205 (S.D. Cal. 2008); RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox,\n\n10 Inc., 2000 WL 127311, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18, 2000)).\n\n11 Meta\u2019s \u201cmaximize access\u201d argument conflates two different things that the FAC carefully\n\n12 distinguishes: (1) public viewing through YouTube\u2019s authorized service, which Plaintiffs plainly\n\n13 wanted; versus (2) unauthorized file-level retrieval outside that service, which Plaintiffs plainly did\n\n14 not. The FAC alleges that Plaintiffs uploaded their works to YouTube so users could watch them\n\n15 through YouTube\u2019s controlled streaming environment, and because YouTube \u201cnever provides\n\n16 access to the underlying video files,\u201d authorizes only access through its own playback systems, and\n\n17 does not authorize automated extraction, direct retrieval, or reconstruction outside that controlled\n\n18 environment. FAC \u00b6\u00b6 4, 41\u201348.\n\n19 The FAC further alleges that YouTube\u2019s Terms of Service reinforces that distinction. It\n\n20 achieves this by authorizing users to view content solely through YouTube\u2019s service\u2014while\n\n21 making clear that users receive no right to use the content independent of the service and expressly\n\n22 prohibiting scraping, unauthorized downloading, bulk extraction, and other data-mining of\n\n23 audiovisual content. FAC \u00b6\u00b6 69\u201371, 74. Consequently, Plaintiffs\u2019 decision to publish videos on\n\n24 YouTube for broad audience reach does not mean they surrendered the distinct interest protected\n\n25 by \u00a7 1201(a): to prevent access to their works outside \u201cthe ordinary course of YouTube\u2019s operation\u201d\n\n26 by bypassing YouTube\u2019s technological gates. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 47\u201350, 51\u201353, 170\u2013177. That is exactly what\n\n27 the FAC alleges Meta did here. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 80, 82, 103\u2013104, 119\u2013122, 174\u2013179.\n\n28\n 16\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 23 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 This is an important distinction because the Ninth Circuit has held measures controlling the\n\n 2 manner of access are access controls even where the work may be viewed by different, authorized\n\n 3 means. In VidAngel, the defendant argued that it did not violate the DMCA because consumers who\n\n 4 purchased DVDs and Blu-ray discs could already view the movies through authorized players.\n\n 5 VidAngel, 869 F.3d at 863\u201365. The Ninth Circuit held that TPMs still controlled access because\n\n 6 only authorized players had the keys needed to access the works in the protected format. Id. at 864\u2013\n\n 7 65. The court held that VidAngel\u2019s use of software to decrypt the TPMs and obtain a digital copy\n\n 8 of the movie was \u201cexactly like \u2018breaking into a locked room in order to obtain a copy of a [movie].\u2019\u201d\n\n 9 Id. at 865. The same principle applies here. YouTube permits authorized streaming, just as the DVD\n\n10 owners in VidAngel could watch the movies. But YouTube\u2019s TPMs still control access to the\n\n11 underlying audiovisual files because they prevent the type of access Meta is alleged to have\n\n12 accomplished here.\n\n13 VII. Plaintiffs State a Claim Under DMCA \u00a7 1201(a)\n\n14 A. The Access-Control Classification Cannot Be Decided on a Motion to Dismiss.\n\n15 Meta asks the Court to hold, at the pleading stage, that the five TPMs described in the FAC\n\n16 are categorically \u201ccopy controls,\u201d which Meta insists are distinct from \u201caccess controls\u201d covered\n\n17 by \u00a7 1201(a). Mot. at 16-21. Meta\u2019s argument is premature. Whether the alleged TPMs function as\n\n18 access controls, copy controls, or both depends on the operation of YouTube\u2019s technical measures\n\n19 and cannot be resolved against Plaintiffs on a motion to dismiss.\n\n20 Two courts recently agreed and declined to dismiss materially identical allegations. In Sony\n\n21 Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., 2026 WL 1019199, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2026),\n\n22 an artificial-intelligence developer that stream-ripped YouTube videos argued that YouTube\u2019s\n\n23 rolling cipher was a copy control and that the plaintiffs had not pleaded circumvention of an access\n\n24 control. The court denied dismissal, holding that the complaint \u201cplausibly alleges that YouTube\n\n25 employs technological measures that regulate access to its content and that Defendant circumvented\n\n26 them under the pleading standard set by Rule 8(a).\u201d Id. Further, the Court held it \u201ccannot resolve\n\n27 the statutory question at this stage\u201d because the pleadings did not \u201cestablish how those measures\n\n28\n 17\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 24 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 function sufficiently to determine their legal classification.\u201d Id. \u201cWhether YouTube\u2019s measures\n\n 2 ultimately constitute access controls within the meaning of \u00a7 1201 requires a greater factual record\n\n 3 than the pleadings contain.\u201d Id.6 The court reached the same result on the same theory in Justice v.\n\n 4 Uncharted Labs, Inc., 2026 WL 1430232, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2026).\n\n 5 B. Plaintiffs Adequately Allege Access Controls That Meta Circumvented.\n\n 6 To the extent the Court decides to engage with the (false) distinctions offered by Meta at\n\n 7 the pleading stage, the FAC diligently identifies five separate TPMs at issue, explains how they are\n\n 8 \u201caccess controls,\u201d and alleges how Meta circumvented them. FAC \u00b6\u00b6 49, 54\u201368. 7\n\n 9 Section 1201(a) prohibits circumventing a technological measure that \u201ceffectively controls\n\n10 access to a work protected under this title.\u201d 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(1) (emphasis added). A\n\n11 technological measure effectively controls access when, \u201cin the ordinary course of its operation,\u201d\n\n12 it requires \u201cthe application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the\n\n13 copyright owner, to gain access to the work.\u201d Id. \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(B). Circumvention includes\n\n14 \u201cdescrambl[ing] a scrambled work,\u201d \u201cdecrypt[ing] an encrypted work,\u201d or otherwise \u201cavoid[ing],\n\n15 bypass[ing], remov[ing], deactivat[ing], or impair[ing] a technological measure, without the\n\n16 authority of the copyright owner.\u201d Id. \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(A).\n\n17 The phrase \u201ccontrols access\u201d is markedly different than Meta\u2019s preferred phrase: \u201cprevents\n\n18 access.\u201d See Yout, LLC v. RIAA, 633 F. Supp. 3d 650, 664 (D. Conn. 2022) appeal pending, No.\n\n19 22-2760 (2d Cir.) (\u201c[T]he plain meaning of a measure that \u2018controls access\u2019 to a protected work\n\n20 appears to be broader than a measure that \u2018prevents\u2019 access to a copyrighted work.\u201d). That YouTube\n\n21 permits users to stream videos for free and that the works may be viewed by the public see e.g.,\n\n22 FAC \u00b6 37, does not establish that access is unfettered and uncontrolled. The statute does not require\n\n23 6\n The motion rejected in Sony, which addressed the same YouTube TPMs, was litigated by the same\n Latham & Watkins attorneys who sign Meta\u2019s motion here.\n24\n 7\n To be clear, Plaintiffs do not need to identify which particular measure Meta circumvented or\n25\n detail the mechanics of circumvention to state a plausible claim. See Edland v. Basin Elec. Power\n26 Coop., 2021 WL 3080225, at *6 (D.S.D. July 21, 2021) (holding that plaintiff need not identify the\n specific TPM that was circumvented as that would require specificity beyond what is needed at the\n27 motion to dismiss stage). However, Plaintiffs do so here, in great detail, as laid out below.\n28\n 18\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 25 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 absolute exclusion from every possible encounter with the work. See MDY Indus., 629 F.3d at 954\n\n 2 n.17 (the statute \u201cdoes not require that an access control measure be strong or circumvention-\n\n 3 proof\u201d; it requires only that the measure provide \u201csome degree of control over access to a\n\n 4 copyrighted work.\u201d). Courts addressing virtually identical TPM allegations have rejected the\n\n 5 argument that they cannot qualify as access controls merely because videos are viewable by the\n\n 6 public. See Yout, 633 F. Supp. 3d at 664\u201372; Edland v. Basin Elec. Power Coop., 2021 WL\n\n 7 3080225, at *6 (D.S.D. July 21, 2021). See Cordova, 817 F. Supp. 3d at 832\u201335 (where a valid\n\n 8 access control is alleged to have been circumvented then \u201cwhether the videos may be viewed by\n\n 9 the public is immaterial.\u201d)8\n\n10 Plaintiffs sufficiently detail these access controls in the complaint. See supra. Background\n\n11 \u00a7III. Plaintiffs allege that the rolling cipher acts as a \u201cdigital lock\u201d that withholds a usable file URL\n\n12 absent proprietary decryption. FAC \u00b6\u00b6 54\u201356. That the lock can be defeated does not disqualify it,\n\n13 because the measure \u201cprovide[s] some degree of control over access.\u201d MDY, 629 F.3d at 954.\n\n14 Moreover, Courts have found this specific TPM to be an access control. See Cordova, 817 F. Supp.\n\n15 3d at 832\u201335 (finding YouTube\u2019s rolling cipher an access control); Yout, 633 F.Supp.3d at 665,\n\n16 670; UMG Recordings, v. Kurbanov, 2021 WL 6492907, *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 16, 2021). The session-\n\n17 bound URLs expire and then cause the server to \u201crefuse to deliver the audiovisual file,\u201d which Meta\n\n18 defeated by \u201cprogrammatically renewing expired credentials.\u201d FAC \u00b6\u00b6 59\u201360. The proof-of-origin\n\n19 tokens are a classic authentication measure conditioning delivery on credentials generated only\n\n20 within an authorized session. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 65\u201368.\n\n21 On IP rotation tools, Meta argues that Plaintiffs\u2019 allegations show that Meta used this\n\n22 measure to avoid triggering IP block and CAPTCHA evidencing (in Meta\u2019s view) that those\n\n23 measures were \u201cnever imposed\u201d and so were not ever \u201ccircumvented.\u201d Mot. at 18-19. A burglar\n\n24 who slips past the alarm has still circumvented it; \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(A) reaches avoiding and bypassing\n\n25 8\n Meta cites (Mot. at 21) a single contrary authority, Hattler v. Ashton, 2017 WL 11634742 (C.D.\n Cal. Apr. 20, 2017), but that case pre-dates key contrary Ninth Circuit authority. Hattler dismissed\n26 a 1201(a) claim on the premise that the measure permitted access but restricted copying, the very\n27 reading the Ninth Circuit in VidAngel rejected. See VidAngel, 869 F.3d at 864\u201365.\n\n28\n 19\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 26 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 a measure, not only defeating one after full engagement. Circumvention expressly includes to\n\n 2 \u201cavoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair\u201d a measure, 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(A), and an access\n\n 3 control may both \u201cblock initial access\u201d and \u201crevoke access\u201d after a secondary check. See MDY, 629\n\n 4 F.3d at 944. Plaintiffs allege Meta defeated the IP blocking and CAPTCHA TPMs by \u201csubstituting\n\n 5 a new IP address before the block can be enforced.\u201d FAC \u00b6\u00b6 57, 62\u201363. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege\n\n 6 that Meta\u2019s \u201c[l]arge-scale scraping operations\u201d would \u201cnecessarily generate request patterns that\n\n 7 trigger CAPTCHA challenges,\u201d and that Meta circumvented these challenges by using \u201crotating IP\n\n 8 addresses.\u201d Id. \u00b6\u00b6 61-63. Given this, the Court may reasonably infer that Meta circumvented\n\n 9 YouTube\u2019s CAPTCHA challenges to gain unauthorized access to Plaintiffs\u2019 works. That is\n\n10 precisely the kind of reasonable inference the Court must draw in Plaintiffs\u2019 favor at this stage.\n\n11 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).\n\n12 In sum, Plaintiffs allege that the TPMs at issue prevented unauthorized users, bots, and\n\n13 scrapers from reaching and extracting the underlying audiovisual files hosted on YouTube\u2019s\n\n14 servers. See FAC \u00b6\u00b6 7, 47, 53-68, 128-29, 173, 178. Plaintiffs allege that YouTube\u2019s TPMs prohibit\n\n15 file-level retrieval, restrict access to content outside the playback environment, and prevent\n\n16 automated bulk extraction. See id. \u00b6\u00b6 46, 55, 59\u201365, 70, 72, 103, 119, 124, 149. Meta is alleged to\n\n17 have used tools and methods to circumvent these technical restrictions and obtain access to the\n\n18 works in a form not available to ordinary users. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 5\u20137, 51\u201353, 62\u201368, 80, 121\u201332, 134\u201339.\n\n19 Meta\u2019s reliance (Mot. at 17) on YouTube\u2019s Terms of Service for the proposition that\n\n20 Plaintiffs granted users a license to access their work is also not persuasive. First, YouTube\u2019s Terms\n\n21 of Service independently confirm that Meta\u2019s alleged conduct here is unauthorized: they prohibit\n\n22 scraping, unauthorized downloading, bulk extraction, and data mining of audiovisual content, and\n\n23 YouTube\u2019s CEO has publicly stated that downloading video bits for AI training violates YouTube\u2019s\n\n24 Terms. FAC \u00b6\u00b6 69, 73\u201374. Second, even if Plaintiffs authorized users to access their material, this\n\n25 does not equate to authorization to circumvent the measures controlling access, as \u00a7 1201(a)(3)(A)\n\n26 \u201cexempts from circumvention liability only those whom a copyright owner authorizes to\n\n27 circumvent an access control measure, not those whom a copyright owner authorizes to access the\n\n28\n 20\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 27 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 work.\u201d VidAngel, 869 F.3d at 865 (quoting MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Ent., Inc., 629 F.3d 928\n\n 2 n.16 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended on denial of reh\u2019g (Feb. 17, 2011), opinion amended and\n\n 3 superseded on denial of reh\u2019g,, 2011 WL 538748 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2011)).\n\n 4 Further, even if the Court were swayed by Meta\u2019s criticisms of Yout\u2014that the parties there\n\n 5 did not fully develop the access-control/copy-control distinction\u2014the most recent and most\n\n 6 factually analogous post-Yout decisions have still refused to dismiss materially similar \u00a7 1201(a)\n\n 7 claims. Compare Yout, 633 F.Supp.3d at 662\u201372 with Sony Music Ent., 2026 WL 1019199, at *3\n\n 8 (denying dismissal because the complaint plausibly alleged that YouTube employs technological\n\n 9 measures that regulate access to its content and that defendant circumvented them, and holding that\n\n10 whether those measures ultimately qualify as access controls requires a fuller factual record);\n\n11 Justice, 2026 WL 1430232, at *3 (following Sony and again denying dismissal of a\n\n12 YouTube/stream-ripping \u00a7 1201 claim); Cordova, 817 F.Supp.3d at 832\u201335 (holding that the\n\n13 plaintiff plausibly alleged statutory standing, effective technological measures controlling access,\n\n14 and circumvention of those measures). In other words, even after Yout and even with the\n\n15 access/copy distinction squarely in view, courts confronting YouTube-based anti-circumvention\n\n16 claims have declined to foreclose them at the pleading stage.\n\n17 C. A TPM Can Be Both an \u201cAccess\u201d and \u201cCopy\u201d Control.\n\n18 Meta\u2019s argument that a TPM is either an access control under \u00a7 1201(a) or a copy control\n\n19 under \u00a7 1201(b) has been squarely rejected as a false dichotomy. \u201c[T]he statute does not provide\n\n20 that a TPM cannot serve as both an access control and a use control,\u201d and a defendant \u201ccould \u2026\n\n21 violate both \u00a7 1201(a)(1)(A) \u2026 and \u00a7 106.\u201d VidAngel, 869 F.3d at 865. Nothing conditions\n\n22 \u00a7 1201(a) on the circumventor\u2019s purpose or post-circumvention conduct; the DMCA \u201ctargets the\n\n23 circumvention of digital walls \u2026 but does not concern itself with the use of those materials after\n\n24 circumvention has occurred,\u201d and reaches piracy \u201cbefore the work was even copied.\u201d Universal\n\n25 City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 443, 435 (2d Cir. 2001).\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 21\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 28 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 Meta\u2019s reliance on MDY\u2019s statement that \u00a7\u00a7 1201(a) and (b) are \u201cnot interchangeable\u201d is\n\n 2 misplaced. (Mot. at 23.)9 That language describes the two statutory provisions and \u201cclasses of\n\n 3 devices,\u201d but articulates no bar on one measure satisfying both. 629 F.3d at 945\u201346. Indeed, the\n\n 4 MDY court acknowledged the possibility of a measure serving as both stating: \u201cif a copyright owner\n\n 5 puts in place an effective measure that both (1) controls access and (2) protects against copyright\n\n 6 infringement, a defendant who traffics in a device that circumvents that measure could be liable\n\n 7 under both \u00a7 1201(a) and (b).\u201d MDY, 629 F.3d at 946. The Sony court agreed and applied that\n\n 8 principle to YouTube\u2019s TPMs, accepting as plausible that a measure \u201ccan qualify as both an access\n\n 9 control and a copy control.\u201d 2026 WL 1019199, at *3. Meta\u2019s e-book hypothetical (Mot. at 23)\n\n10 proves the distinction. There Meta is hypothesizing about a measure that blocks copying after\n\n11 authorized access has been obtained, which is a post-access copy control. YouTube\u2019s TPMs are\n\n12 different: they allegedly control whether a user can reach the underlying audiovisual files in the\n\n13 first place. FAC \u00b6 48.\n\n14 D. Section 1201(a) Protects Access to Copies of a Work.\n\n15 Meta\u2019s fallback, that \u201caccess to a work\u201d means access only to disembodied expression, not\n\n16 to any file embodying it, finds support in neither the text of the statute nor its legislative history.\n\n17 The House Report explains that \u00a7 1201(a) \u201capplies when a person has not obtained\n\n18 authorized access to a copy or a phonorecord of a work.\u201d H.R. Rep. No. 105-551(I). The VidAngel\n\n19 case likewise described circumventing disc encryption as \u201cthe electronic equivalent of breaking\n\n20 into a locked room in order to obtain a copy,\u201d even though the films were viewable on licensed\n\n21 players, treating access to the copy as tantamount to access to the work. 869 F.3d at 865.\n\n22 Meta\u2019s reading would prove too much: if a \u201cwork\u201d meant only expression perceivable\n\n23 through some authorized channel, virtually no internet access control would qualify, because most\n\n24 9\n This is not the only example of Meta overreading MDY. Meta also cites MDY for the proposition\n that Congress enacted the DMCA, in part, to encourage creators to make their works available in\n25 digital formats that allow consumers to \u201cborrow\u201d them for a limited time or limited number of uses.\n26 Mot. at 3. To be clear, Meta is not alleged to have \u201cborrowed\u201d anything, Meta bypassed YouTube\u2019s\n TPMs to download permanent copies of the underlying audiovisual files to be retained in perpetuity\n27 and used for AI training. FAC \u00b6\u00b6 72, 98, 108, 111, 144\u201347.\n\n28\n 22\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 29 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 content can be streamed, previewed, or sampled somewhere. Further, the work/copy cases Meta\n\n 2 marshals are not Section 1201(a) cases. See Mot. at 22 (citing Matthew Bender & Co. v. W. Pub.\n\n 3 Co., 158 F.3d 693, 702 (2d Cir. 1998); London-Sire Recs., Inc. v. Doe 1, 542 F. Supp. 2d 153, 170\n\n 4 (D. Mass. 2008); Perfect 10, Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)). The FAC\n\n 5 alleges Meta \u201caccessed and obtained the audiovisual works themselves not merely \u2018files\u2019 distinct\n\n 6 from those works.\u201d FAC \u00b6 51.\n\n 7 E. DMCA Claims Are Not an \u201cEnd-Run\u201d Around the Copyright Act.\n\n 8 Meta warns that sustaining Plaintiffs\u2019 claim would evade the Copyright Act\u2019s registration,\n\n 9 proof, fair-use, and damages requirements. This argument reveals Meta\u2019s fundamental\n\n10 misunderstanding of \u00a7 1201(a), which Congress created as a right \u201cindependent of traditional\n\n11 copyright infringement,\u201d with its own elements and remedies. MDY, 629 F.3d at 945\u201346.\n\n12 A \u00a7 1201(a) claim therefore requires no copyright registration, because it does not vindicate\n\n13 the \u00a7 106 rights to which \u00a7 411(a) attaches, and the FAC pleads exactly that. FAC \u00b6 13; see Viral\n\n14 DRM, 768 F.Supp.3d at 1031-32; Echostar, 543 F.Supp.2d at 1205. Meta\u2019s point that per-act\n\n15 statutory damages may exceed an infringement award goes to the scope of relief, not the sufficiency\n\n16 of the claim, and cannot be a basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).\n\n17 Nor do Plaintiffs\u2019 claims threaten fair use. Even assuming Meta could assert fair use as a\n\n18 defense to a separate (not asserted) copyright infringement claim, fair use does not give Meta a\n\n19 license to circumvent access controls. In other words, a person might have a fair-use defense to\n\n20 copyright infringement and still violate Section 1201(a) by breaking through access controls to\n\n21 obtain the work. See Corley, 273 F.3d at 459 (\u201cFair use has never been held to be a guarantee of\n\n22 access to copyrighted material in order to copy it by the fair user\u2019s preferred technique or in the\n\n23 format of the original.\u201d) Additionally, as explained above (see supra. \u00a7 II), there already exists a\n\n24 \u201cfail-safe\u201d in the statute via the triennial exemption process, 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(1)(C). A party\n\n25 who believes the right is too broad must pursue that channel, not ask the Court to rewrite the statute.\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 23\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 30 of 31\n\n\n\n 1 CONCLUSION\n\n 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Meta\u2019s motion to dismiss. If it concludes\n\n 3 that Plaintiffs\u2019 claims are insufficiently pleaded, Plaintiffs request leave to amend.\n\n 4\n Dated: June 12, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n 5\n\n 6 /s/ Rom Bar-Nissim\n Rom Bar-Nissim (SBN 293356)\n 7 HEAH BAR-NISSIM LLP\n 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400\n 8 Los Angeles, CA 90067\n Tel: (310) 432-2836\n 9\n Rom@HeahBarNissim.com\n10\n Jarrett Lee Ellzey*\n11 Tom Kherkher**\n Leigh S. Montgomery*\n12 ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD\n MONTGOMERY LLP\n13\n 4200 Montrose Street, Suite 200\n14 Houston, TX 77006\n Tel: 713-244-6363\n15 JEllzey@EKSM.com\n TKherkher@EKSM.com\n16 LMontgomery@EKSM.com\n17\n William J. Edelman (SBN 285177)\n18 MILBERG, PLLC\n 280 South Bevely Drive, Penthouse\n19 Beverly Hills, CA 90212\n Tel: (771) 474-1121\n20 wedelman@milberg.com\n21\n Michael A. Acciavatti*\n22 MILBERG, PLLC\n 405 East 50th Street\n23 New York, NY 10022\n Tel: (212) 594-5300\n24 macciavatti@milberg.com\n25\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class\n26 * pro hac vice forthcoming\n ** admitted pro hac vice\n27\n\n28\n 24\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f Case 4:25-cv-10931-JST Document 37 Filed 06/12/26 Page 31 of 31\n\n\n\n 1\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n 2\n I hereby certify this 12th day of June, 2026, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing\n 3\n to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send\n 4\n notification to the attorneys of record, and is available for viewing and downloading.\n 5\n /s/ Rom Bar-Nissim\n 6\n\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 25\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Opposition to Meta\u2019s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint\n Case No.: 4:25-cv-10931-JST\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-18T17:21:48.480479-07:00","document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027249846","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Opposition/Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-12T15:05:10.101735-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:21.522052-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-12","time_filed":"14:50:15","entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":126,"description":"OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 33 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) filed byTed Entertainment, Inc.. (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Filed on 6/12/2026) (Entered: 06/12/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467322898/","id":467322898,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72074891/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482583229/","id":482583229,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/38/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-12T15:05:06.580013-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:21.708878-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":4,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"38","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027249876","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Request for Judicial Notice","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483379482/","id":483379482,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/38/1/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-18T17:06:05.668703-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-18T17:06:05.668731-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":49,"file_size":10822038,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"38","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027249877","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit 1 to RJN","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483379483/","id":483379483,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72074891/38/2/ted-entertainment-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-18T17:06:05.689733-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-18T17:06:05.689761-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":11,"file_size":212123,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"38","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"035027249878","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit 2 to RJN","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-12T15:05:06.529422-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T15:50:21.675151-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-12","time_filed":"14:51:50","entry_number":38,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-12.002","pacer_sequence_number":129,"description":"Request for Judicial Notice re 37 Opposition/Response to Motion filed byTed Entertainment, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to RJN, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to RJN)(Related document(s) 37 ) (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Filed on 6/12/2026) (Entered: 06/12/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=72074891&page_size=40"}