{"cached_at":"2026-10-19T10:50:22.938161+00:00","cl_docket_id":"70575762","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","id":70575762,"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/892/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2025-06-18T10:35:10.053923-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:00:38.151533-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"James Donato","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":"2025-06-18","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-10-09","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Tamraz, Jr v. Reddit, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc","docket_number":"3:25-cv-05144","docket_number_core":"2505144","docket_number_raw":"3:25-cv-05144","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"3","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"JD","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"451450","cause":"15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"850 Securities/Commodities","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":"2025-06-18T10:35:10.045129-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16900704/","id":16900704,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982168/","attorney_id":10982168,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"name":"Interested Party","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-23T00:58:15.222970-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-23T00:58:15.222982-08:00","name":"Ryan Pak","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16900703/","id":16900703,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982167/","attorney_id":10982167,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-23T00:58:14.909657-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-23T00:58:14.909669-08:00","name":"Ian Hauman","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16900702/","id":16900702,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982165/","attorney_id":10982165,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982166/","attorney_id":10982166,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-23T00:58:14.740380-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-23T00:58:14.740391-08:00","name":"Phlexicon Phlexicon","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16900701/","id":16900701,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982161/","attorney_id":10982161,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982162/","attorney_id":10982162,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982163/","attorney_id":10982163,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982164/","attorney_id":10982164,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-23T00:58:14.654964-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-23T00:58:14.654974-08:00","name":"Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16900700/","id":16900700,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982161/","attorney_id":10982161,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982162/","attorney_id":10982162,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982163/","attorney_id":10982163,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982164/","attorney_id":10982164,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-23T00:58:14.194279-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-23T00:58:14.194289-08:00","name":"Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Pension & Annuity Funds","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16900699/","id":16900699,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10426078/","attorney_id":10426078,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-23T00:58:14.156005-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-23T00:58:14.156017-08:00","name":"Danish Iqbal","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15645985/","id":15645985,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982158/","attorney_id":10982158,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982159/","attorney_id":10982159,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13588561/","attorney_id":13588561,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982160/","attorney_id":10982160,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-06-18T12:56:26.649779-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-18T12:56:26.649786-07:00","name":"Jennifer Wong","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15645984/","id":15645984,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982158/","attorney_id":10982158,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982159/","attorney_id":10982159,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13588561/","attorney_id":13588561,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982160/","attorney_id":10982160,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-06-18T12:56:26.642462-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-18T12:56:26.642470-07:00","name":"Andrew Vollero","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15645983/","id":15645983,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982158/","attorney_id":10982158,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982159/","attorney_id":10982159,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13588561/","attorney_id":13588561,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982160/","attorney_id":10982160,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-06-18T12:56:26.634761-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-18T12:56:26.634768-07:00","name":"Steven Huffman","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15645982/","id":15645982,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982158/","attorney_id":10982158,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982159/","attorney_id":10982159,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13588561/","attorney_id":13588561,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10982160/","attorney_id":10982160,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-06-18T12:56:26.625848-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-18T12:56:26.625858-07:00","name":"Reddit, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15645981/","id":15645981,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10426078/","attorney_id":10426078,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","docket_id":70575762,"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":"2025-06-18T12:56:26.587884-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-18T12:56:26.587891-07:00","name":"Anthony Joseph Tamraz, Jr","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481167828/","id":481167828,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496892852/","id":496892852,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/61/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-09T16:01:43.158752-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-09T16:01:43.166217-07:00","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":"61","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027772987","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Stipulation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-09T16:01:43.131083-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:00:38.457312-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-09","time_filed":"15:38:20","entry_number":61,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":195,"description":"Order by Judge James Donato granting 60 Stipulation re Second Amended Complaint. (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2026) (Entered: 10/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/480983631/","id":480983631,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496704540/","id":496704540,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/60/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-08T12:33:57.260689-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-08T12:33:57.292858-07:00","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":"60","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027763597","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation and Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-08T12:33:57.236163-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:00:38.479364-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-08","time_filed":"12:16:16","entry_number":60,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":193,"description":"STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Second Amended Complaint filed by Phlexicon Phlexicon. (Tyre-Karp, Daniel) (Filed on 10/8/2026) (Entered: 10/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478514298/","id":478514298,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494141745/","id":494141745,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/59/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-18T08:34:57.423993-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-18T08:34:57.430705-07:00","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":"59","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027669595","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-18T08:34:57.403125-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:00:38.531714-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-18","time_filed":"08:14:29","entry_number":59,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":188,"description":"TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on August 13, 2026 before Judge James Donato for Court Reporter Kendra Steppler (Steppler, Kendra) (Filed on 9/18/2026) (Entered: 09/18/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475907879/","id":475907879,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491454617/","id":491454617,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/58/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-26T13:37:30.492936-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-26T13:37:30.501552-07:00","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":"58","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027560423","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-26T13:37:30.446497-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:00:38.558681-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-26","time_filed":"13:00:16","entry_number":58,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":182,"description":"Transcript of Proceedings held on August 13, 2026, before Judge James Donato. Court Reporter Kendra Steppler, email at kendra_steppler@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 55 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/24/2026. (Related documents(s) 55 ) (Steppler, Kendra) (Filed on 8/26/2026) (Entered: 08/26/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475033477/","id":475033477,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490552502/","id":490552502,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/57/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-19T09:04:49.484293-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-19T09:04:49.501964-07:00","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":"57","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027528358","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-19T09:04:49.453290-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:00:38.588719-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-19","time_filed":"08:36:57","entry_number":57,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":180,"description":"TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on August 13, 2026 before Judge James Donato by Phlexicon Phlexicon, for Court Reporter Kendra Steppler. (Tyre-Karp, Daniel) (Filed on 8/19/2026) (Entered: 08/19/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474909892/","id":474909892,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490425073/","id":490425073,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/56/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-18T13:01:50.171818-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-18T13:01:50.183722-07:00","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":"56","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027524577","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion Hearing AND ~Util - Terminate Motions","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-18T13:01:50.109631-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:00:38.654341-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":56,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":177,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James Donato: Motion Hearing held on 8/13/2026. Total Time in Court: 12 minutes. Court Reporter: Kendra Steppler. (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/13/2026) (Entered: 08/18/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474561634/","id":474561634,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490066233/","id":490066233,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/55/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-14T16:35:18.987589-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T16:35:18.999568-07:00","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":"55","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027514422","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-14T16:35:18.951286-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:00:38.615363-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-14","time_filed":"16:00:33","entry_number":55,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":175,"description":"TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 08/13/2026 before Judge James Donato by Steven Huffman, Reddit, Inc., Andrew Vollero, Jennifer Wong, for Court Reporter Kendra Steppler. (Blake, Stephen) (Filed on 8/14/2026) (Entered: 08/14/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474148095/","id":474148095,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489639474/","id":489639474,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/54/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-12T08:16:15.147945-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-12T08:16:15.147966-07:00","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":"54","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":"2026-08-12T08:16:15.029140-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-12T08:16:15.073462-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-18","time_filed":null,"entry_number":54,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER. The hearing on the motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 50, is continued to August 13, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor. Signed by Judge James Donato on 5/18/2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2026) (Entered: 05/18/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464453385/","id":464453385,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479627052/","id":479627052,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-05-18T14:05:40.927555-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-18T14:05:40.934573-07:00","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":"1 - Terminate Deadlines and Hearings AND Order AND Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-18T14:05:40.909802-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-18T14:05:40.909814-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-18","time_filed":"13:34:19","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464348801/","id":464348801,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479519311/","id":479519311,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/53/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-17T22:19:19.745330-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:19.769464-07:00","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":"53","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":"2026-05-17T22:19:19.706121-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:19.716902-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":53,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance filed by Sarah Forbes on behalf of Steven Huffman, Reddit, Inc., Andrew Vollero, Jennifer Wong (Forbes, Sarah) (Filed on 5/4/2026) (Entered: 05/04/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462909912/","id":462909912,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478035802/","id":478035802,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-05-04T13:32:21.259616-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-04T13:32:21.267263-07:00","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":"Notice of Appearance/Substitution/Change/Withdrawal of Attorney","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-04T13:32:21.229993-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-04T13:32:21.230014-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-04","time_filed":"13:08:15","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462449235/","id":462449235,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477564442/","id":477564442,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/52/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-29T19:34:58.632889-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-18T07:52:59.576665-07:00","sha1":"b1d82939ff7b8f550dea77e390913ac570c6be97","page_count":15,"file_size":784070,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.451450/gov.uscourts.cand.451450.52.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.451450/gov.uscourts.cand.451450.52.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 STEPHEN P. BLAKE (SBN 260069)\n sblake@stblaw.com\n 2 LAURA K. LIN (SBN 281542)\n laura.lin@stblaw.com\n 3 SARAH G. FORBES (SBN 347635)\n sarah.forbes@stblaw.com\n 4 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP\n One Market Plaza, Suite 3800\n 5 San Francisco, California 94105\n 6 Telephone: (415) 426-7210\n Facsimile: (415) 426-7301\n 7\n JONATHAN K. YOUNGWOOD (SBN 350373)\n 8 jyoungwood@stblaw.com\n SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP\n 9 425 Lexington Avenue\n New York, New York 10017\n10 Telephone: (212) 455-2000\n Facsimile: (212) 455-2502\n11\n Attorneys for Defendants Reddit, Inc., Steven\n12 Huffman, Andrew Vollero, and Jennifer Wong\n13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n14\n15 ANTHONY JOSEPH TAMRAZ, JR., Case No. 3:25-cv-05144-JD\n Individually and on Behalf of All Others\n16 Similarly Situated,\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF\n17 Plaintiff, MOTION TO DISMISS LEAD\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S AMENDED CLASS\n18 v. ACTION COMPLAINT FOR\n VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL\n19 REDDIT, INC., STEVEN HUFFMAN, SECURITIES LAWS\n ANDREW VOLLERO, and JENNIFER\n20 WONG, Judge: Hon. James Donato\n\n21 Defendants. Date: May 21, 2026\n Time: 11:00 a.m.\n22 Courtroom: 11\n\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n Page\n 2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1\n 3 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2\n 4\n I. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT PLEAD AN ACTIONABLE\n 5 MISREPRESENTATION ....................................................................................... 2\n\n 6 A. The Statements About General and Specific Q4 Google Updates Are\n Inactionable ................................................................................................. 2\n 7\n B. The Statements About Google Searchers Seeking Reddit Are\n 8 Inactionable ................................................................................................. 4\n\n 9 C. Defendants\u2019 Motion Does Not Rely Upon a \u201cTruth on the Market\n Defense\u201d ...................................................................................................... 5\n10\n II. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLEAD A STRONG INFERENCE OF\n11 SCIENTER .............................................................................................................. 6\n\n12 A. Plaintiff\u2019s \u201cCore Operations\u201d Theory Fails ................................................. 7\n\n13 B. Defendants Did Not \u201cKnow Or Have Access To\u201d Contrary\n Information .................................................................................................. 8\n14\n C. The Balance of Inferences Supports a Finding of No Scienter ................... 9\n15\n III. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLEAD LOSS CAUSATION .......................................... 9\n16\n IV. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 20(A) .............. 10\n17\n CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 10\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n -i-\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n Page(s)\n 2\n CASES\n 3\n AMI \u2013 Gov\u2019t Emps. Provident Fund Mgmt. Co. v. Alphabet Inc.,\n 4 2025 WL 899959 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025) ............................................................................ 7\n 5 Berson v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc.,\n 527 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................... 7\n 6\n Brody v. Transitional Hosps. Corp.,\n 7 280 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................................... 5\n 8 Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko Inc.,\n 166 F.4th 805 (9th Cir. 2026) .................................................................................................... 8\n 9\n Dolly v. GitLab Inc.,\n10 2025 WL 2372965 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) .......................................................................... 9\n11 Fleming v. Impax Lab\u2019ys Inc.,\n 2018 WL 4616291 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2018)............................................................................ 5\n12\n Glazer Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Forescout Techs., Inc.,\n13 63 F.4th 747 (9th Cir. 2023) ...................................................................................................... 6\n14 Graves v. AECOM,\n 2017 WL 5502774 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2017)......................................................................... 10\n15\n Hampton v. Aqua Metals, Inc.,\n16 2020 WL 6710096 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2020) .......................................................................... 6\n17 Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,\n 87 F. Supp. 3d 1149 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................................................... 4\n18\n Hayes v. Enphase Energy, Inc.,\n19 2025 WL 986469 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2025) ............................................................................ 1\n20 In re Apollo Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 2010 WL 5927988 (9th Cir. June 23, 2010) ........................................................................... 10\n21\n In re Daou Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n22 411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 3\n23 In re Fibrogen, Inc., Sec. Litig.,\n 2022 WL 2793032 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2022) .......................................................................... 9\n24\n In re Kalobios Pharms., Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n25 258 F. Supp. 3d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................... 5\n26 In re PG&E Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n 806 F. Supp. 3d 962 (N.D. Cal. 2025) ...................................................................................... 8\n27\n In re SentinelOne, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n28 2025 WL 2807321 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2025) ............................................................................. 9\n - ii -\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 4 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 In re Synchrony Fin. Sec. Litig.,\n 988 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................................... 6\n 2\n Institutional Invs. Grp. v. Avaya, Inc.,\n 3 564 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................... 9\n\n 4 Mangino v. LUCID Grp., Inc.,\n 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179157 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2022) ....................................................... 1\n 5\n Police Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,\n 6 2012 WL 1868874 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2012) .......................................................................... 8\n\n 7 Police Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,\n 759 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................... 6, 9\n 8\n Prodanova v. H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC,\n 9 993 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................... 7\n\n10 SEB Inv. Mgmt. AB v. Align Tech., Inc.,\n 485 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................... 3\n11\n Sec. & Exch. Comm\u2019n v. Life Wealth Mgmt., Inc.,\n12 2012 WL 12919299 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012) .......................................................................... 6\n\n13 Sneed v. Talphera, Inc.,\n 147 F.4th 1123 (9th Cir. 2025) .................................................................................................. 5\n14\n Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Ret. Sec. Funds v. Extreme Networks, Inc.,\n15 2026 WL 817221 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2026) ............................................................................ 8\n\n16 Tyler v. Travelers Com. Ins. Co.,\n 499 F. Supp. 3d 693 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................................... 1\n17\n York Cnty. ex rel. Cnty. of York Ret. Fund v. HP Inc.,\n18 738 F. Supp. 3d 1182 (N.D. Cal. 2024) .................................................................................... 4\n\n19 Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.,\n 552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................... 7\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n - iii -\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 5 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 INTRODUCTION\n\n 2 Defendants\u2019 opening brief (Dkt. 50; \u201cMotion\u201d or \u201cMot.\u201d)1 carefully analyzed each statement\n\n 3 quoted by Plaintiff and demonstrated that none is actionable. See id. \u00a7 I; Dkt. 50-1 (\u201cEx. A\u201d).2\n\n 4 Plaintiff largely ignores these arguments and does not bother to address Defendants\u2019 points that:\n\n 5 \uf0b7 block-quoted alleged misstatements and lumped-together falsity allegations do not\n satisfy the pleading standards of the PSLRA (Mot. \u00a7 I.A);\n 6\n \uf0b7 accurate earnings reports and quarterly forecasts are inactionable (id. \u00a7 I.B);\n 7\n \uf0b7 the AC fails to state with particularity how any of the challenged statements\n 8 concerning general Google changes or Q4 Algorithm Updates \u201cdownplayed\u201d the\n effect of such changes (id. \u00a7\u00a7 I.C.2-3);\n 9\n \uf0b7 portions of the challenged statements concerning addressable market opportunities\n10 for growth and ARPU, or statements consisting of corporate optimism and/or\n puffery, are inactionable (id. \u00a7 I.D);\n11\n \uf0b7 Plaintiff fails to allege motive and opportunity or circumstantial evidence of scienter\n12 (id. \u00a7\u00a7 II.A-B); and\n\n13 \uf0b7 the alleged corrective disclosures do not correct misinformation with respect to the\n challenged statements because they reported on new information, and the cited\n14 portions of the analyst reports are opinion statements. Id. \u00a7 III.\n Failing to address these arguments even in passing, Plaintiff concedes them. 3\n15\n Instead, Plaintiff weaves a new generalized narrative of \u201cdownplay[ing]\u201d AI risks and\n16\n catastrophizing developments which bear little connection to Reddit\u2019s actual disclosures or reported\n17\n results. Plaintiff now claims for the first time that Defendants repeatedly failed to answer \u201cspecific\u201d\n18\n questions about the effect of AI Overviews on Reddit, which in turn rendered their statements\n19\n regarding a different topic\u2014the effect of Google algorithm changes, both generally and as to its Q4\n20\n Algorithm Changes\u2014\u201cmisleading.\u201d4 E.g., Opp. at 4, 5, 12-13. Plaintiff also argues that statements\n21\n22 1\n Abbreviations shall have the meaning defined in the Motion.\n 2\n23 Plaintiff attacks Ex. A as \u201cimproper.\u201d Dkt. 51 (\u201cOpp.\u201d) at n.3. But this Court has ordered parties\n to file charts like Ex. A as attachments \u201cfor the sake of clarity and efficient case management[.]\u201d\n24 Hayes v. Enphase Energy, Inc., 2025 WL 986469, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2025) (Donato, J.); see\n also, e.g., Mangino v. LUCID Grp., Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179157, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 30,\n25 2022) (Donato, J.).\n 3\n See, e.g., Tyler v. Travelers Com. Ins. Co., 499 F. Supp. 3d 693, 701 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (\u201cPlaintiff\n26 concedes these arguments by failing to address them in her opposition.\u201d).\n 4\n27 AI Overviews is a Google search feature that provides AI-generated responses to user queries.\n AC \u00b6 23. \u201c[C]hanges in Google Search\u2019s algorithm,\u201d which include a specific Google algorithm\n28 change that occurred in December 2024 (the \u201cQ4 Algorithm Update\u201d), and \u201cfeatures like AI\n Overview[s]\u201d (id. \u00b6 28) (emphasis added) are distinct concepts.\n -1-\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 6 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1\n by Defendants commenting on Google volatility generally, Reddit\u2019s recovery from a Google Q4\n 2\n Algorithm Update, and a Q4 2024 increase in the number of Google users adding \u201cReddit\u201d to the\n 3\n end of their search queries failed to highlight the impact of AI Overviews on Reddit\u2019s search traffic.\n 4\n But Plaintiff\u2019s account requires the Court to ignore the context of Defendants\u2019 statements, the\n 5\n allegations as pled, Reddit\u2019s existing AI-related disclosures, how Reddit performed in the wake of\n 6\n the challenged statements (indeed, there is no evidence of the \u201cmaterially reduced\u201d click-through\n 7\n rate Plaintiff cites; at most, there was a slight dip in DAUq growth in Q1 2025), and to imagine the\n 8\n contents of confidential witness (\u201cCW\u201d) reports and assume that Reddit had access to detailed\n 9\n information enabling it to prognosticate about Google\u2019s AI implementation plans. No matter\n10\n Plaintiff\u2019s posturing, Defendants\u2019 statements were straightforward recognitions of the effect of\n11\n Google changes, inactionable opinion/puffery, factual recitations of financial or other key\n12\n performance data (which itself cannot support Plaintiff\u2019s allegations), or are otherwise inactionable\n13\n for the reasons described in Ex. A. Accordingly, Plaintiff\u2019s previously unpled theories all fail.\n14 ARGUMENT\n15 I. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT PLEAD AN ACTIONABLE MISREPRESENTATION\n16 A. The Statements About General and Specific Q4 Google Updates Are\n17 Inactionable\n Defendants\u2019 Motion established that Reddit\u2019s statements concerning both Google changes\n18\n generally and the effects of a specific Google Q4 Algorithm Update on Reddit were not misleading\n19\n but instead measured acknowledgements of Google\u2019s impact on Reddit traffic, accompanied by\n20\n true statements regarding a Q4 2024 dip and Q1 2025 recovery in Reddit\u2019s search traffic (AC \u00b6 42).\n21\n See Mot. \u00a7 I.C; Ex. A. Unable to stand by its original allegations on reply, Plaintiff now portrays\n22\n Defendants\u2019 responses to specific questions as \u201cminimiz[ing]\u201d the effect of AI Overviews on\n23\n Reddit. Opp. at 4. This new argument also fails.\n24\n Plaintiff cites portions of five challenged statements to suggest Defendants \u201cdownplay[ed]\u201d\n25\n the effect of AI Overviews in response to \u201cconfront[ation]\u201d by investors and analysts,\u201ccreating the\n26\n false impression that AI Overviews was a mere routine tweak to Google\u2019s search algorithm\u201d and\n27\n \u201cconflat[ing] changes to Google\u2019s search algorithm with its implementation of AI Overviews.\u201d Id.\n28\n -2-\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 7 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 at 3-5, citing AC \u00b6\u00b6 33, 35, 38, 42, 43. The questions and statements themselves show Defendants\n\n 2 did nothing of the sort.5 The statements identified by Plaintiff in the Opposition did not downplay\n\n 3 Google\u2019s potential impact on Reddit\u2014which was repeatedly acknowledged by Reddit and is the\n\n 4 subject of an explicit risk factor\u2014nor did any questions about Google relate to AI Overviews or a\n\n 5 lower click-through rate from AI. See, e.g., Ex. A at 9 (\u201cWhat exactly did Google change in the\n\n 6 algorithm? . . . [H]ow do you get . . . confidence that future changes are not going to be more\n\n 7 problematic than this one?\u201d); id. at 11 (\u201c[Y]ou mentioned sort of some insights or some changes in\n\n 8 Google Search algorithm [sic] [in Q4 2024]. Would love to hear any thoughts on what the change\n\n 9 was. Was there any impact to engagement, maybe revenue?\u201d). 6 Plaintiff cannot \u201cemphasize\u201d\n\n10 portions of a statement while \u201cignoring the context\u201d of the question posed. SEB Inv. Mgmt. AB v.\n\n11 Align Tech., Inc., 485 F. Supp. 3d 1113, 1126 (N.D. Cal. 2020).\n\n12 Plaintiff also points to three post hoc sources\u2014the May 2 Deutsche Bank Report, a Pew\n\n13 Research Study conducted in March and April 2025, and the May 20 Baird Report\u2014to make a\n\n14 fraud-by-hindsight argument that Defendants should have known in October 2024 and February\n\n15 2025 that Google\u2019s accelerating AI rollout was not just a source of \u201cvolatility\u201d but represented a\n\n16 fundamental shift for Reddit. Opp. at 4; AC \u00b6\u00b6 27, 52, 59. This type of Monday-morning\n\n17 quarterbacking is impermissible in the securities fraud context. See In re Daou Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n\n18 411 F.3d 1006, 1021 (9th Cir. 2005) (\u201cCongress enacted the PSLRA to put an end to . . . pleading\n\n19 fraud by hindsight.\u201d) (cleaned up). And Reddit\u2019s actual performance further eviscerates Plaintiff\u2019s\n\n20 theory: it outperformed revenue projections in Q4 2024 and Q1 2025, beat market expectations for\n\n21 DAUq in Q1, and only narrowly missed market expectations for DAUq in Q4. See Mot. at 4-5.\n\n22 In addition, the reports Plaintiff cites undermine its point: each of Plaintiff\u2019s three sources\n\n23 discusses the impact of AI Overviews months after the October 2024 and February 2025 remarks,\n\n24 at a time when AI was rapidly evolving. The Deutsche Bank Report specifically discusses the effect\n\n25\n 5\n Plaintiff has now clarified that it does not allege that Defendants made \u201comissions\u201d\u2014only that\n26 Defendants \u201cdownplay[ed] . . . risks[.]\u201d Id. at 5 n.4.\n 6\n27 The absence of analyst questions regarding AI impact is further evidence that Google\u2019s rollout of\n AI Overviews was not a focal point until later in 2025. Plaintiff repeatedly conflates remarks\n28 addressing observable volatility from Q4 Algorithm Changes with the growing prominence of AI\n Overviews in the spring of 2025.\n -3-\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 8 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 of AI on Reddit\u2019s Q2 2025 DAUq (Mot. \u00a7 III.B; infra \u00a7 III); the Pew Study was not conducted until\n\n 2 March and April 2025, and the results of the study concerning a lower \u201cclick-through\u201d rate\n\n 3 attributable to AI Overviews was not published until July 2025; 7 and Plaintiff does not explain the\n\n 4 provenance of the data cited in the May 20 Baird Report (issued after the challenged statements),\n\n 5 or why Defendants would have had access to that data in October 2024 and February 2025. 8\n\n 6 B. The Statements About Google Searchers Seeking Reddit Are Inactionable\n\n 7 As established at Motion \u00a7 I.C.3, Plaintiff failed to plead any basis for the allegation that\n\n 8 Huffman\u2019s statements were misleading when he said that an increase in the query term \u201cReddit\u201d\n\n 9 reflected searchers\u2019 intent to end up on Reddit. Plaintiff now pivots, arguing that Huffman\u2019s\n\n10 statements at AC \u00b6\u00b6 30-31, 38, and 43 downplayed that Googlers who added \u201cReddit\u201d to the end\n\n11 of their search queries could view Reddit content in AI Overviews without navigating to Reddit.\n\n12 This new approach fails. Plaintiff alleges Huffman\u2019s statements at AC \u00b6\u00b6 30-31, 38, 43 are\n\n13 misleading in their totality, but the data cited by Huffman in his statements about an increase in the\n\n14 query term \u201cReddit\u201d is verifiably true.9 Further, Huffman\u2019s statement in AC \u00b6 43 was distinctly not\n\n15 (as the Opposition claims) \u201c[i]n response to [a] question concerning AI Overviews[].\u201d 10 And,\n\n16 critically, Plaintiff still presents no allegations to show users were adding \u201cReddit\u201d to their search\n\n17 7\n See Declaration of Stephen Blake in Further Support of the Mot., Exs. 22-23 (Athena Chapekis,\n18 et al., What Web Browsing Data Tells Us About How AI Appears Online, Pew Research Center,\n (May 23, 2025), https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-\n19 content/uploads/sites/20/2025/05/pl_2025.05.23_metered-data-ai_report.pdf; Athena Chapekis &\n Anna Lieb, Google Users Are Less Likely to Click on Links When an AI Summary Appears in the\n20 Results, Pew Research Center, (July 22, 2025), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-\n reads/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-when-an-ai-summary-appears-in-\n21 the-results/). These studies are referenced in the AC (see id. \u00b6 27) and are incorporated by reference.\n See Dkt. 50-2 (Request for Judicial Notice) at 2-3, 5-6.\n22 8\n Plaintiff\u2019s sole case on \u201cdownplaying,\u201d Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., is inapposite.\n 87 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2015). There, the \u201cdownplay[ing]\u201d statements directly\n23 discussed that which was downplayed: yield.\n24 Plaintiff also insinuates that Reddit had information about the effect of AI Overviews, or that this\n information was somehow \u201cwithin Defendants\u2019 control,\u201d by virtue of the Reddit-Google licensing\n25 agreement. Opp. at 5 (citing York Cnty. ex rel. Cnty. of York Ret. Fund v. HP Inc., 738 F. Supp. 3d\n 1182, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 2024)). But there is not one allegation in the AC indicating Reddit received\n26 any non-public information from Google regarding AI Overviews by virtue of that agreement.\n 9\n Plaintiff ignores the other reasons these statements are inactionable. See Ex. A at 1, 4, 11.\n27 10\n See Ex. A at 11 (Question: \u201c[Y]ou mentioned sort of some insights or some changes in Google\n28 Search algorithm [sic]. Would love to hear any thoughts on what the change was. Was there any\n impact to engagement, maybe revenue?\u201d) (emphasis added).\n -4-\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 9 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 queries without \u201cthe specific intent of reaching Reddit,\u201d or that Huffman believed otherwise. AC\n\n 2 \u00b6\u00b6 30-31, 38, 43; Fleming v. Impax Lab\u2019ys Inc., 2018 WL 4616291, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2018)\n\n 3 (no falsity in absence of facts demonstrating \u201c[d]efendants \u2018did not hold the belief [they] professed\n\n 4 and that the belief is objectively untrue.\u2019\u201d (citations omitted)); Brody v. Transitional Hosps. Corp.,\n\n 5 280 F.3d 997, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002) (in order for a statement to be misleading, \u201cit must affirmatively\n\n 6 create an impression of a state of affairs that differs in a material way from the one that actually\n\n 7 exists.\u201d (cleaned up)).\n\n 8 C. Defendants\u2019 Motion Does Not Rely Upon a \u201cTruth on the Market Defense\u201d\n\n 9 Reddit proactively disclosed risks associated with Google changes before the Class Period\n\n10 and within the challenged misstatements.11 The Court should consider Reddit\u2019s disclosures because\n\n11 the entirety of a defendant\u2019s statements, in context, are relevant to the threshold inquiry of whether\n\n12 any material misstatement occurred. Mot. at 8; Sneed v. Talphera, Inc., 147 F.4th 1123, 1132-33\n\n13 (9th Cir. 2025).\n\n14 Recognizing that viewing the alleged misstatements in the context of all relevant disclosures\n\n15 would be fatal to their theory, Plaintiff now argues that Defendants assert a \u201ctruth on the market\u201d\n\n16 defense. Opp. at 6-7. Not so. A \u201ctruth on the market\u201d defense refers typically to third-party\n\n17 statements that informed the market of whatever relevant information was needed to \u201ceffectively\n\n18 counterbalance any misleading impression created by the [alleged misrepresentations].\u201d In re\n\n19 Kalobios Pharms., Inc. Sec. Litig., 258 F. Supp. 3d 999, 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (analyzing\n\n20 widespread media reporting counteracting alleged misstatements). \u201cTruth on the market\u201d is not the\n\n21 appropriate lens to analyze a defendant\u2019s own contemporaneous statements. Rather, reading\n\n22 Reddit\u2019s statements and disclosures in full is appropriate at the motion to dismiss stage to prevent\n\n23\n24\n25\n 11\n26 See, e.g., Mot. at 3-4 (\u201cRedditors may choose to find information using LLMs instead of visiting\n Reddit directly\u201d; \u201c[s]ome users are also turning to LLMs such as Gemini\u201d; \u201c[c]hanges in internet\n27 search engine algorithms could have a negative impact on traffic for our website and, ultimately,\n our business\u201d (cleaned up)); id. \u00a7 I.C (\u201cIt\u2019s true, the algorithm does kind of give [to] us and take []\n28 away\u201d; \u201cwe\u2019ve seen their algorithm change a lot over the years, and of course, it always will[.] Some\n [changes] help, some hurt\u201d; \u201cwe see volatility from Google all the time\u201d (cleaned up)).\n -5-\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 10 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 Plaintiff from \u201ccherry pick[ing]\u201d statements \u201cand divorc[ing] them from the universe of disclosed\n\n 2 information.\u201d In re Synchrony Fin. Sec. Litig., 988 F.3d 157, 171 (2d Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).12\n\n 3 Plaintiff also claims Defendants \u201cdisavowed\u201d Reddit\u2019s risk disclosures via Huffman\u2019s\n\n 4 statements at AC \u00b6 42 (Huffman had \u201czero concern\u201d about Reddit-Google relationship in wake of\n\n 5 Q4 Algorithm Change, see Ex. A) and \u00b6 50 (\u201cIs there a long-term risk to Reddit here [from LLMs]?\n\n 6 . . . [I]n my view, the answer is no.\u201d). 13 Opp. at 7. But Plaintiff mischaracterizes Huffman\u2019s remark\n\n 7 at AC \u00b6 50, ignoring that he warned investors to expect \u201cbumps\u201d ahead in the same response and\n\n 8 offering no explanation as to how this warning could have misled investors to believe the opposite,\n\n 9 particularly in the context of Reddit\u2019s other warnings. Mot. at 5; id. \u00a7 I.C.1 & n.8.14 And Plaintiff\n\n10 identifies no information supporting that Huffman believed his \u201czero concern\u201d statement was false,\n\n11 or that he had information in February 2025 that AI Overviews did pose a concern. The \u201czero\n\n12 concern\u201d statement is also, despite Plaintiff\u2019s assertion otherwise, inactionable puffery. 15\n\n13 II. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLEAD A STRONG INFERENCE OF SCIENTER\n\n14 The AC\u2019s allegations fall far short of the standard required to plead scienter. See Mot. \u00a7 II.\n\n15 Plaintiff\u2019s jumbled Opposition does not alter this conclusion because it cannot: there are no specific\n\n16 allegations in support of scienter, no stock sales supporting a motive, and no contrary internal data\n\n17 suggesting Defendants knew any statements were wrong. Instead, Plaintiff asks for extraordinary\n\n18\n 12\n Defendants cited three articles (Dkts. 50-8\u201310 (Exs. 5-7 to the Blake Decl. ISO the Mot.)) for the\n19 proposition that it was \u201cwidely recognized\u201d that \u201cupdates by Google may have downstream effects\n on Reddit traffic,\u201d Mot. at 3\u2014a statement echoed by an external source Plaintiff itself cited (Dkt.\n20 50-7 (Ex. 4 to the Blake Decl. ISO the Mot.)) and Reddit\u2019s own statements.\n 13\n21 AC \u00b6 50 is not a challenged statement, but if it were, it would be an inactionable opinion.\n 14\n Glazer Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Forescout Techs., Inc., 63 F.4th 747, 764 (9th Cir. 2023) does not\n22 help Plaintiff. Opp. at 7. There, the company\u2019s \u201cassurances\u201d about its sales pipeline did not \u201cfairly\n align\u201d with the company\u2019s disclosures, based on statements from over 15 knowledgeable CWs that\n23 planned deals (the basis of misstatements) were \u201cillusory.\u201d Plaintiff here has not provided similar\n evidence showing that Huffman \u201cknew\u201d or should have known his characterization of the Reddit-\n24 Google relationship was incorrect.\n 15\n25 See Hampton v. Aqua Metals, Inc., 2020 WL 6710096, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2020) (\u201cI don\u2019t\n have a single thing that we\u2019re worried about\u201d inactionable puffery); c.f. Sec. & Exch. Comm\u2019n v.\n26 Life Wealth Mgmt., Inc., 2012 WL 12919299, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012) (\u201cno concern[]\u201d\n statement not puffery where plaintiff showed that defendant had \u201cknowledge of the . . . many risks\u201d\n27 associated with the subject). The statement is also forward-looking, see Police Ret. Sys. of St. Louis\n v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 759 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2014) (statement that defendant wasn\u2019t\n28 \u201chear[ing] anything that causes us any significant concern\u201d forward-looking), and an expression of\n Huffman\u2019s opinion.\n -6-\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 11 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 inferences inconsistent with its specific pleading obligations.\n\n 2 A. Plaintiff\u2019s \u201cCore Operations\u201d Theory Fails\n\n 3 Plaintiff primarily argues for application of the so-called \u201ccore operations\u201d doctrine,\n\n 4 claiming it is \u201cabsurd to suggest that [Defendants] were unaware of the materially reduced click-\n\n 5 through rate caused by . . . AI Overviews\u201d because a large percentage of Reddit\u2019s traffic comes\n\n 6 from Google. Opp. at 8-10. These general assertions do not support Plaintiff\u2019s proffered inference.\n\n 7 The \u201ccore operations\u201d doctrine is a \u201cnarrow\u201d theory of scienter, available without pleading\n\n 8 particularized facts only \u201cin the \u2018rare circumstances\u2019 [where] \u2018the nature of the relevant fact is of\n\n 9 such prominence that it would be absurd to suggest that management was without knowledge of\n\n10 the matter.\u2019\u201d Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1000 (9th Cir. 2009);\n\n11 Prodanova v. H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, 993 F.3d 1097, 1111 (9th Cir. 2021) (emphasis added)\n\n12 (citations omitted). But it is not absurd to suggest that Reddit\u2019s executives lacked knowledge in\n\n13 late 2024 and early 2025 of how the rollout of AI Overviews\u2014the bleeding-edge technology of a\n\n14 competitor16\u2014would affect Reddit\u2019s outlook. Nor was the impact of Google algorithm changes or\n\n15 AI Overviews as \u201cprominen[t]\u201d or \u201cexistential\u201d in Q4 2024 and Q1 2025 as in the cases Plaintiff\n\n16 cites. Opp. at 10. And the AC contains no evidence of what Plaintiffs now spin as a \u201cmaterially\n\n17 reduced click-through rate,\u201d id. at 8\u2014indeed, Reddit beat internal forecasts for revenue in both\n\n18 quarters, only narrowly missed market expectations for DAUq growth in Q4 2024, and surpassed\n\n19 expectations for the same in Q1 2025 (that is, user engagement continued to grow in both\n\n20 quarters\u2014hardly evidence of a \u201cmaterially reduced click-through rate\u201d). See Mot. at 4-5.\n\n21 None of the cases Plaintiff cites at Opposition 9-10 concerns a similar scenario; indeed, all\n\n22 concern misstatements related to information about which the Company possessed definitive\n\n23 internal knowledge.17 Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko Inc., 166\n\n24 16\n See Mot. at 3 (citing 10-K at 13, 16, 17).\n25 17\n See, e.g., AMI \u2013 Gov\u2019t Emps. Provident Fund Mgmt. Co. v. Alphabet Inc., 2025 WL 899959, at\n *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025) (executive\u2019s scienter assumed as to features of agreement which he\n26 reviewed where the subject of the agreement posed an \u201cexistential threat\u201d to the company); Berson\n v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc., 527 F.3d 982, 987-89 (9th Cir. 2008) (assuming executive\u2019s\n27 knowledge of stop-work orders which \u201chalted tens of millions of dollars of the company\u2019s work\u201d);\n Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Ret. Sec. Funds v. Extreme Networks, Inc., 2026 WL 817221, at\n28\n -7-\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 12 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 F.4th 805 (9th Cir. 2026), for example, concerned a company\u2019s mismanagement of its own\n\n 2 inventory and management\u2019s implied knowledge of the \u201cchaos\u201d ongoing internally. There, the\n\n 3 company\u2019s distribution systems and inventory were so \u201ccritical\u201d that scienter could be assumed.\n\n 4 Funko, 166 F.4th at 831. This is a far cry from Reddit executives\u2019 lack of foreknowledge regarding\n\n 5 rapid advancements in Google\u2019s AI Overviews. Application of the doctrine here requires the Court\n\n 6 to assume Defendants knew as early as October 2024 and February 2025 that their statements about\n\n 7 volatility\u2014which correlated with Q4 Algorithm Changes\u2014were \u201cdownplaying\u201d the effect of a\n\n 8 competitor\u2019s brand-new technology that at the time had no outsized effect on Reddit\u2019s traffic or\n\n 9 revenue. See supra n.8.\n\n10 B. Defendants Did Not \u201cKnow Or Have Access To\u201d Contrary Information\n\n11 Plaintiff makes the inferential leap that because of Defendants\u2019 \u201cdetailed statements\u201d\n\n12 concerning traffic and Huffman\u2019s access to a \u201cdashboard\u201d showing Google traffic, Defendants\n\n13 \u201cknew or had access to\u201d information contradicting their alleged misstatements. Opp. at 10-11.\n\n14 Plaintiff is wrong for at least two reasons. First, as discussed supra, none of the Defendants\n\n15 made \u201cdetailed statements concerning . . . Google\u2019s implementation of AI Overviews.\u201d See Ex. A;\n\n16 supra \u00a7 I.A. And even if they had, none of the information pled indicates Defendants did have\n\n17 access to contrary information. The AC does not even allege what information the \u201csearch\n\n18 dashboard\u201d displayed, nor how it contradicted Defendants\u2019 statements that (1) Reddit experienced\n\n19 both Q4 volatility and volatility generally related to Google algorithm changes, or (2) searchers\n\n20 sought to end up on Reddit by adding \u201cReddit\u201d to their search queries. Plaintiff simply fails to\n\n21 show Defendants \u201cknew or had access to\u201d contrary information. See Police Ret. Sys. of St. Louis\n\n22 v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 2012 WL 1868874, at *19 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2012) (particularity\n\n23 requirement not satisfied by \u201cconclusory assertion[s] that Defendants had \u2018access to, and use of the\n\n24 information\u2019 collected by [company\u2019s] tracking software\u201d) (citations omitted); id. (\u201cfailure to\n\n25 include any specific internal . . . data [and] particularized allegations about each [d]efendants\u2019\n\n26\n *13-14 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2026) (scheme created by the defendants which \u201caccounted for more\n27 than 50% [of the company\u2019s] revenues\u201d); In re PG&E Corp. Sec. Litig., 806 F. Supp. 3d 962, 1000\n (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2025) (utility\u2019s knowledge of its failure to comply with regulations and orders\n28 imposed by government, where additional violations posed \u201cexistential threat\u201d of billions in\n liability). The same proposition applies to the remaining cases cited by Plaintiff.\n -8-\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 13 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 access to [the] data\u201d was \u201cfatal\u201d to core operations theory) (citations omitted).\n\n 2 Second, none of the information the CWs proffer\u2014that executives could view traffic from\n\n 3 Google, or that sales managers were told to communicate that users searched with the query\n\n 4 \u201cReddit\u201d because they wanted to end up on Reddit\u2014contradicts Defendants\u2019 Class Period\n\n 5 statements or indicates they had undisclosed information about specific risks posed by AI\n\n 6 Overviews. The cases Plaintiff cites are consistent: here, too, none of the CWs \u201cdetail[ed] [the]\n\n 7 contents of . . . reports\u201d Defendants allegedly had access to, Police Ret. Sys. of St. Louis, 759 F.3d\n\n 8 at 1063, nor does Plaintiff \u201cidentif[y] particularized facts\u201d Defendants \u201cknew [] would undermine\n\n 9 the truth of any challenged statement.\u201d Opp. at 11 (citing Dolly v. GitLab Inc., 2025 WL 2372965,\n\n10 at *14 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025)).\n\n11 C. The Balance of Inferences Supports a Finding of No Scienter\n\n12 There is but one cogent explanation for the challenged statements: Defendants made candid\n\n13 disclosures about the rapidly-evolving AI-search ecosystem while remaining optimistic about\n\n14 Reddit\u2019s growth prospects. Mot. at 13-14. Plaintiff disagrees, regurgitating arguments already\n\n15 addressed herein: that (i) Defendants \u201cdisavowed\u201d their \u201crisk warnings\u201d; (ii) Defendants \u201cnever\n\n16 addressed . . . that AI Overviews materially reduced the click-through rate for Google users\u201d; and\n\n17 (iii) Defendants\u2019 \u201cdownplaying of the effect of AI Overviews in response to specific\n\n18 questions . . . contributes to a strong inference of scienter.\u201d Opp. at 12-13. Those arguments are\n\n19 entirely circular, relying on purported falsity to satisfy scienter. See In re SentinelOne, Inc. Sec.\n\n20 Litig., 2025 WL 2807321, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2025). Defendants did not disavow their previous\n\n21 disclosures (supra \u00a7 I.C), nor were there \u201cspecific questions\u201d about AI Overviews. See supra \u00a7 I.A;\n\n22 Ex. A. And Defendants\u2019 candid responses to questions about Google algorithm changes did not\n\n23 downplay the effect of AI Overviews. See id; supra \u00a7 I.B. Plaintiff\u2019s cases\u2014Institutional Invs.\n\n24 Grp. v. Avaya, Inc., 564 F.3d 242, 270 (3d Cir. 2009) and In re Fibrogen, Inc., Sec. Litig., 2022\n\n25 WL 2793032, at *24 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2022)\u2014both of which address misstatements in response\n\n26 to \u201cspecific[] . . . questions\u201d about the subject of the misstatement\u2014are inapposite.\n\n27 III. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLEAD LOSS CAUSATION\n\n28 Plaintiff fails to overcome the facts that (i) the purported corrective disclosures were not\n\n -9-\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 14 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 corrective because they conveyed or reacted to new information, and (ii) the analyst reports were\n\n 2 not corrective because they merely aggregated public information. Mot. at 14-15 & n.11. 18\n\n 3 Plaintiff acknowledges that two of the purported corrective disclosures address new\n\n 4 information, quoting the portion of the Wells Fargo Report that makes Defendants\u2019 argument:\n\n 5 \u201c[R]ecent user disruptions Reddit observed in March/April are different from prior periodic search\n\n 6 algorithm changes.\u201d Opp. at 14 (emphasis added). Plaintiff also concedes that Huffman\u2019s May 1\n\n 7 earnings call statements disclosed \u201cdisappointing DAUq growth for Reddit in April 2025.\u201d Id.\n\n 8 (emphasis added). Even the Deutsche Bank Report, which stated that Reddit faced a \u201cbigger\n\n 9 impact\u201d from AI features, expressly established that it addressed Reddit\u2019s \u201c2Q . . . pacing\u201d for\n\n10 DAUq growth. AC \u00b6 52.\n\n11 Rather than respond to the foregoing, Plaintiff attacks the general proposition that analyst\n\n12 reports which repackage public information are not corrective, instead arguing that such reports\n\n13 may be corrective where they provide \u201cadditional or more authoritative fraud-related\n\n14 information[.]\u201d Opp. at 15 (citing In re Apollo Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 2010 WL 5927988, at *1 (9th\n\n15 Cir. June 23, 2010)); Mot. at 15. But Apollo is inapplicable here, where the information conveyed\n\n16 in the analyst reports was either communicated by the most \u201cauthoritative\u201d source\u2014Reddit itself\u2014\n\n17 or, as discussed supra, was entirely new information. See Graves v. AECOM, 2017 WL 5502774,\n\n18 at *12 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2017).19\n\n19 IV. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 20(A)\n\n20 Plaintiff\u2019s Section 20(a) claim fails without a Section 10(b) violation. See Mot. at 15.\n\n21 CONCLUSION\n\n22 For the reasons discussed above, and in the Motion and Ex. A thereto, Defendants\n\n23 respectfully request that the Court dismiss the AC with prejudice.\n\n24\n25 18\n Plaintiff ignored Defendants\u2019 arguments that the cited portions of the analyst reports were opinion\n statements, which cannot form the basis of a corrective disclosure. Mot. \u00a7 III.B.\n26 19\n Plaintiff also complains that Defendants did not sufficiently identify what information from the\n27 analyst reports was public. Opp. at 15. That public information includes, at minimum, information\n disclosed by Huffman in the May 1 earnings call and Apptopia data cited in the Baird report.\n28 Plaintiff gives no reason why Baird\u2019s republication of the Apptopia data rendered it \u201cmore\n authoritative\u201d or revealed any \u201cfraud-related information.\u201d See Apollo, 2010 WL 5927988, at *1.\n - 10 -\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52 Filed 04/29/26 Page 15 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 Dated: April 29, 2026 By: /s/ Stephen P. Blake\n STEPHEN P. BLAKE (Bar. No. 260069)\n 2 sblake@stblaw.com\n SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP\n 3 One Market Plaza, Suite 3800\n 4 San Francisco, California 94105\n Telephone: (415) 426-7210\n 5 Facsimile: (415) 426-7301\n\n 6 Attorneys for Defendants Reddit, Inc., Steven Huffman,\n Andrew Vollero, and Jennifer Wong\n 7\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n - 11 -\n REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-15T01:19:28.516420-07:00","document_number":"52","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027065569","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Opposition/Response","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479327450/","id":479327450,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/52/1/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-15T01:19:29.297316-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:56:13.383394-07:00","sha1":"3310ab05ee43d45bdabc46a4aa7fcf014efa843c","page_count":2,"file_size":353435,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.451450/gov.uscourts.cand.451450.52.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.451450/gov.uscourts.cand.451450.52.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-1 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n 1 STEPHEN P. BLAKE (SBN 260069)\n sblake@stblaw.com\n 2 LAURA K. LIN (SBN 281542)\n laura.lin@stblaw.com\n 3 SARAH G. FORBES (SBN 347635)\n sarah.forbes@stblaw.com\n 4 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP\n One Market Plaza, Suite 3800\n 5 San Francisco, California 94105\n 6 Telephone: (415) 426-7210\n Facsimile: (415) 426-7301\n 7\n JONATHAN K. YOUNGWOOD (SBN 350373)\n 8 jyoungwood@stblaw.com\n SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP\n 9 425 Lexington Avenue\n New York, New York 10017\n10 Telephone: (212) 455-2000\n Facsimile: (212) 455-2502\n11\n Attorneys for Defendants Reddit, Inc., Steven\n12 Huffman, Andrew Vollero, and Jennifer Wong\n13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n14\n15 ANTHONY JOSEPH TAMRAZ, JR., Case No. 3:25-cv-05144-JD\n Individually and on Behalf of All Others\n16 Similarly Situated,\n DECLARATION OF STEPHEN BLAKE\n17 Plaintiff, IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n18 v. THE AMENDED CLASS ACTION\n COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF\n19 REDDIT, INC., STEVEN HUFFMAN, THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS\n ANDREW VOLLERO, and JENNIFER\n20 WONG, Judge: Hon. James Donato\n\n21 Defendants. Date: May 21, 2026\n Time: 11:00 a.m.\n22 Courtroom: 11\n\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n BLAKE DECLARATION ISO REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-1 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n 1 DECLARATION OF STEPHEN BLAKE\n 2 I, Stephen Blake, declare as follows:\n\n 3 1. I am a partner at the law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and counsel for\n\n 4 Defendants Reddit, Inc., Steven Huffman, Jennifer Wong, and Andrew Vollero. I have personal\n\n 5 knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon to do so, I could and would competently\n\n 6 testify thereto.\n\n 7 2. Attached as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of the Pew Research Center report\n\n 8 titled \u201cWhat Web Browsing Data Tells Us About How AI Appears Online,\u201d dated May 23, 2025 and\n\n 9 authored by Athena Chapekis, Anna Lieb, Sono Shah, and Aaron Smith.\n\n10 3. Attached as Exhibit 23 is a true and correct copy of the Pew Research Center article\n\n11 titled \u201cGoogle Users Are Less Likely to Click on Links When an AI Summary Appears in the Results,\u201d\n\n12 dated July 22, 2025 and authored by Athena Chapekis and Anna Lieb.\n\n13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\n14 foregoing is true and correct.\n\n15 Executed this 29th day of April 2026, in San Francisco, California.\n\n16\n By: __________________________\n17 Stephen Blake\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n -1-\n BLAKE DECLARATION ISO REDDIT\u2019S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-15T01:19:42.798014-07:00","document_number":"52","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027065570","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479327451/","id":479327451,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/52/2/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-15T01:19:29.311071-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:56:13.425157-07:00","sha1":"8eba72c31c0aa5b988c2efc8a7be16ea41efb297","page_count":22,"file_size":727715,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.451450/gov.uscourts.cand.451450.52.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.451450/gov.uscourts.cand.451450.52.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 22\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 22\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 22\n\n\n\n\nFOR RELEASE MAY 23, 2025\n\n\n\n\nBY Athena Chapekis, Anna Lieb, Sono Shah and Aaron Smith\n\n\n\n\n FOR MEDIA OR OTHER INQUIRIES:\n\n\n Aaron Smith, Director, Data Labs\n Sogand Afkari, Communications Manager\n\n 202.419.43\n\n www.pewresearch.org\n\n\n RECOMMENDED CITATION\n 72\n Pew Research Center, May 2025, \u201cWhat Web Browsing\n Data Tells Us About How AI Appears Online\u201d\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 22\n 1\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\nAbout Pew Research Center\nPew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the\nissues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center\nconducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research\nand other data-driven research. It studies politics and policy; news habits and media; the\ninternet and technology; religion; race and ethnicity; international affairs; social, demographic\nand economic trends; science; research methodology and data science; and immigration and\nmigration. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary\nfunder.\n\n\u00a9 Pew Research Center 2025\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 4 of 22\n 2\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\nHow we did this\nThe goal of this study is to better understand how, where and in what context Americans are\nencountering artificial intelligence as they browse the web. For this analysis, we purchased the\nMarch 2025 web browsing data of 900 U.S. adults. Each respondent is a member of\nKnowledgePanel Digital, an online survey panel whose respondents agree to install an app that\ntracks their online browsing behavior.\n\nFor each respondent, we received a list of all the URLs they visited using a web browser on a\ntracked device during the March 1-31, 2025, study period. For each of these approximately 2.5\nmillion visits to 1.1 million unique URLs, we ran an automated script that retrieved the text a\nvisitor to that URL might see, along with the page title and description.\n\nFirst, we wanted to see how many of these URLs mention AI anywhere on the page. To do that,\nwe checked if the page text included any on a long list of AI-related terms (refer to Appendix A\nfor the full list of terms).\n\nThis is our broadest possible measure of whether a page mentions AI or offers some sort of AI\nfunctionality. It captures anything from a website for a generative AI tool like chatgpt.com, to a\nwebsite with a single reference to AI on the page.\n\nIn addition to this broad read on how many webpages mention AI at all, we also wanted to see\nhow many mention AI more prominently or indicate an active interest in AI on the part of the\nvisitor. Some examples might include searches for AI-related terms on a search engine, or visits\nto sites like:\n\n\u25aa A generative AI tool such as chatgpt.com\n\u25aa A news article that focuses on or extensively discusses AI-related issues\n\u25aa A page for a product or service that extensively discusses its AI features\n\nTo identify these pages, we trained a model to indicate whether each page that mentioned AI did\nso in an incidental context or in a more substantive context along the lines of those listed above.\n\nAlthough this study is based on the actual webpages respondents visited, it does have limitations\nthat should be taken into consideration when interpreting its findings. First, the respondents\nwere required to download a VPN to register personal devices for use in this study. As such,\nbrowsing on work devices or other untracked devices they might use to access the internet may\nnot be captured. Second, the data only covers activity in web browsers, not other applications.\nThird, it does not include real-time algorithmically curated content (like the \u201cFor You\u201d pages on\nX or TikTok) or pages that require a login to access.\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 5 of 22\n 3\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\n\n\nAs artificial intelligence (AI) advances rapidly and becomes increasingly commonplace in online\nspaces, the American public has shown a clear wariness about its potential impact on individuals\nand society.\n\nPublic opinion polling can help us understand\nAmericans\u2019 broad usage patterns and attitudes Most respondents visited at least 1\nabout AI, but we have less insight into what\n page that mentioned AI, but they did\n not often visit pages focused on AI\nthey see and read about this technology as they\n % of respondents who ___ in March 2025\ngo about their daily online lives. To help shed\nlight on this, we examined roughly 2.5 million\nwebpage visits to 1.1 million unique URLs\nfrom a group of 900 U.S. adults who agreed to\nshare their March 2025 browsing data.\n\nHere are our main findings about how\nordinary internet users are crossing paths with\nAI-related tools and content in their online\nbrowsing habits:\n\nMost respondents encountered at least\nsome AI-related content during the\nmonth \u2013 although most references were\nnot especially prominent or in-depth.\n Note: Shares may not total 100% due to rounding.\nThe vast majority (93%) visited at least one\n Source: Pew Research Center analysis of online browsing activity\npage that mentioned AI, even if that mention from 900 U.S. adults. Analysis includes URLs that respondents\n accessed March 1-31, 2025, using a web browser on a personal\nwas brief or unrelated to the main focus of the desktop, laptop or mobile device. Webpage data was collected\npage. April 7-17, 2025.\n \u201cWhat Web Browsing Data Tells Us About How AI Appears Online\u201d\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\nThis share drops substantially for the subset of\npages that primarily focus on AI \u2013 like the\nwebsite of an AI chatbot, or a news article that extensively discusses AI-related issues. Around\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 6 of 22\n 4\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\nhalf of all respondents (49%) visited one such page during the month, though the typical person\nwho looked at this type of content did so only a handful of times.\n\nThis pattern is found across several different types of web browsing activity, including querying\nsearch engines, reading the news and shopping online.\n\nA small share of respondents used\nsearch engines to get information Around 6 in 10 respondents visited a\nabout AI. One-in-ten conducted an AI- search result page with an AI-generated\nrelated query on a search engine during the summary\n % of respondents who ___ in March 2025\nmonth.\n\nBut more often, search engines were a\nsource for material generated by AI.\nThe vast majority of respondents conducted\na search using a search engine like Google.\nAnd for 58% of respondents, at least one of\nthese searches produced an AI-generated Note: Findings for AI-generated summaries include only searches on\n google.com.\nsummary along with the traditional search Source: Pew Research Center analysis of online browsing activity\nresults.1 from 900 U.S. adults. Analysis includes URLs that respondents\n accessed March 1-31, 2025, using a web browser on a personal\n desktop, laptop or mobile device. Webpage data was collected\n April 7-17, 2025.\nSome 13% of respondents visited a\n \u201cWhat Web Browsing Data Tells Us About How AI Appears Online\u201d\nwebsite for an AI tool like a chatbot, PEW RESEARCH CENTER\nimage generator or other generative AI tool.\n\nTo the extent that respondents visit news pages mentioning AI, such pages don\u2019t\ntypically discuss the technology at length. Around half of all respondents (52%) visited at\nleast one page from a news outlet that contained an AI-related term. But most of these articles\nonly mentioned AI in passing \u2013 for example, a brief reference to an AI company in a story about\nthe stock market, or an AI-related term in a sidebar to the main article.\n\nA far smaller share of respondents (8%) visited a news article in which AI was discussed in\ndepth or was the primary focus of the story.\n\nRespondents tended to visit pages that describe AI using generic terms, brand\nnames, marketing language and product descriptions. The most common AI-related\nterms were broad references like \u201cAI\u201d or \u201cartificial intelligence.\u201d Other relatively common terms\n\n\n1 Due to technical limitations in identifying the presence of AI-generated summaries on other search engines, findings for AI summaries\n\ninclude only searches on google.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 7 of 22\n 5\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\nincluded \u201cChatGPT\u201d and \u201cOpenAI;\u201d references to products \u201cpowered,\u201d \u201cassisted\u201d or \u201cenhanced\u201d\nby AI; and \u201cAI images\u201d or \u201cAI image generator.\u201d\n\nTo be sure, these findings paint only a partial picture of all the ways Americans\nmight encounter references to AI in their daily lives. Notably, our analysis does not\ncapture things like content in mobile apps or web browsing on untracked devices \u2013 to say\nnothing of the AI references people might come across on TV or in their day-to-day interactions\nwith others. But these findings help add context to how the public is learning about this complex\nand rapidly changing topic.\n\n\n\n\nThe 900 respondents in this study visited a very large number of webpages during the month of\nMarch: 2,457,176 in total. Of these roughly 2.5 million page visits, 7% were to a page that\ncontained at least one AI-related term.\n\nNearly every member of the study (93%) visited at least one page that mentioned an AI-related\nterm. Among this group, the typical (median) respondent visited this type of page 60 times\nduring the month.2 And as is true of many online behaviors, some respondents visited these\npages far more than others: The top 20% of respondents by browsing activity visited pages that\nmention AI about 300 times, on average.3\n\nRespondents across a range of demographic groups are equally likely to see this sort of content,\nwith no major differences by age, educational attainment or gender.\n\nIn-depth mentions of AI\nSome pages that mention AI may further:\n\n\u25aa Highlight AI as a central focus of the page. Examples include an article that discusses\n new developments in AI technology and their implications for the global economy, or a story\n that talks extensively about a controversial AI-generated viral video.\n\n\u25aa Indicate an active interest in AI on the part of the person visiting the page. This\n could include things like a search query for an AI-related topic, or a visit to an AI tool like\n chatgpt.com.\n\nVisits to these kinds of pages accounted for fewer than 0.05% of all page visits in this analysis.\nAlthough these visits are a tiny share of respondents\u2019 web browsing overall, around half of\n\n2 Page visits include instances where respondents visited the same URL more than once.\n3 Overall browsing activity is measured by the total number of page visits.\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 8 of 22\n 6\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\nrespondents (49%) visited at least one such page over the course of the month. However, this\nwas not a central part of most respondents\u2019 web browsing activity. The typical respondent who\nvisited at least one of these pages went to just three in total during the study period.\n\n\n\n\nThe roughly 2.5 million page visits in this study encompass a wide range of web browsing habits.\nHere are some of the ways that AI appears in specific corners of the web, based on the browsing\ndata in this analysis. Read the methodology for more details about the specific sites that were\nincluded in each category.\n\nNews websites\n Relatively few respondents visited a news article that\nAround half of the discussed AI in a meaningful context\nrespondents in this study % of respondents who visited at least one webpage on the following types\n(52%) visited a news webpage of sites that ___ in March 2025\n\nthat mentioned AI. By and\nlarge, these pages tend to\nmention AI only in ways that\nare incidental to the main\nstory or article. This might\ninclude a single mention of AI\nin an otherwise unrelated Source: Pew Research Center analysis of online browsing activity from 900 U.S. adults.\nstory, or an AI-related term in Analysis includes URLs that respondents accessed March 1-31, 2025, using a web\n browser on a personal desktop, laptop or mobile device. Webpage data was collected\na recommended headline on April 7-17, 2025.\n \u201cWhat Web Browsing Data Tells Us About How AI Appears Online\u201d\nthe page\u2019s sidebar.\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\nJust 8% of respondents\nvisited a news webpage that discussed AI in a meaningful context. Some examples actually\nvisited by study participants include:\n\n\u25aa An article about the\n U.S. stock market that discusses how graphics processing units made by the hardware\n company Nvidia are used in modern AI applications\n\n\u25aa An article about Hollywood celebrities petitioning President Donald Trump on potential AI\n copyright regulations\n\n\u25aa A story about a man who filed a complaint because an AI chatbot falsely indicated he had\n committed a serious crime\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 9 of 22\n 7\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\nShopping websites\nAround half of respondents (54%) went to a page on one of 18 major shopping websites that\ncontained a reference to AI. These references were often mentions of AI-powered product\nfeatures or AI-generated summaries of customer reviews.\n\nAmazon.com, a domain visited by 63% of respondents in March, accounts for a large portion of\npages in the latter category. One of the most-visited sites in the world, Amazon has AI-generated\nsummaries of customer reviews for many products.\n\nSocial media\nA great deal of content on social media today is algorithmically curated or requires a login to\naccess it. As such, much of the social media content viewed by respondents was inaccessible to\nour data collection methods. Even so, three-quarters of all respondents visited a social media\npage with an AI reference. Many of these visits were to pages on facebook.com that, during the\nstudy period, contained a link to the company\u2019s Meta AI tool in the sidebar.\n\nSearch results and AI-generated search summaries\nAround six in ten respondents (58%) conducted at least one search engine query that produced\nan AI-generated summary of results.4 Around two-thirds (65%) conducted a search that\nproduced an AI reference anywhere on the results page, regardless of whether the search itself\npertained to AI or not.\n\nOne-in-ten respondents made a search that directly related to AI. The most common queries\ninvolved various combinations of the words \u201cAI\u201d and \u201cChatGPT.\u201d\n\nGenerative AI tools\nSome 13% of respondents \u2013 and 20% of those ages 18 to 29 \u2013 visited the website of an AI\nchatbot at least once during the month of March. This category includes tools like OpenAI\u2019s\nChatGPT, Google Gemini and Perplexity AI.\n\nIn an August 2024 Pew Research Center survey, one-third of U.S. adults reported having ever\nused an AI chatbot.\n\n\n\n\n4 Due to technical limitations in identifying the presence of AI-generated summaries on other search engines, findings for AI summaries\n\ninclude only searches on google.com.\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 10 of 22\n 8\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\n\n\nThe largest shares of\n Respondents tended to visit pages mentioning AI in\nrespondents in this study\n generic terms, marketing language, brand names\nvisited pages that mentioned\n % of respondents who visited a webpage that mentioned ___ in March 2025\nAI using generic descriptors\nlike \u201cAI\u201d or \u201cartificial\nintelligence,\u201d as well as\nmarketing phrases like \u201cAI-\npowered,\u201d \u201cAI-enhanced\u201d or\n\u201cAI-assisted.\u201d And around\none-in-five visited a page that\nmentioned ChatGPT\nspecifically.\n\nAt the page level, the distinct\npages in this collection with\nany mention of AI included\nan average of two unique\nterms and three total terms\nfrom our list. But around Note: Term matches are not mutually exclusive. For example, a page that mentions\n \u201cAI images\u201d also counts as a page that mentions \u201cAI.\u201d\none-in-five of these pages Source: Pew Research Center analysis of online browsing activity from 900 U.S. adults.\n Analysis includes URLs that respondents accessed March 1-31, 2025, using a web\n(22%) only match for the browser on a personal desktop, laptop or mobile device. Webpage data was collected\nsingle term \u201cAI.\u201d April 7-17, 2025.\n \u201cWhat Web Browsing Data Tells Us About How AI Appears Online\u201d\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 11 of 22\n 9\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\nAcknowledgements\nThis report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals:\n\nPrimary researchers\nAthena Chapekis, Computational Social Science Analyst\nAnna Lieb, Computational Social Science Assistant\nSono Shah, Associate Director, Data Labs\nAaron Smith, Director, Data Labs\n\n\nResearch team\nRegina Widjaya, Computational Social Scientist\nGalen Stocking, Senior Computational Social Scientist\nBrian Broderick, Former Senior Data Engineer\nGonzalo Rivero, Former Associate Director, Data Labs\n\n\nEditorial and graphic design\nAlissa Scheller, Senior Information Graphics Designer\nPeter Bell, Associate Director, Design and Production\nAnna Jackson, Editorial Assistant\n\n\nCommunications and web publishing\nSogand Afkari, Communications Manager\nMithila Samak, Communications Associate\nJanakee Chavda, Associate Digital Producer\n\nIn addition, the project benefited greatly from the guidance of Courtney Kennedy, Andrew\nMercer, Arnold Lau, Monica Anderson, Eileen Yam, Colleen McClain, Jeffrey Gottfried and\nHaley Nolan.\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 12 of 22\n 10\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\nMethodology\nThe findings in this report are based on an analysis of the browsing behaviors of 900 U.S. adults\nwho are members of the KnowledgePanel Digital online panel, a subset of Ipsos\u2019\nKnowledgePanel. These panelists qualified for the study because they:\n\n\u25aa Responded to a Pew Research Center pilot survey conducted on KnowledgePanel Digital in\n November 2023 (n=1,254)\n\u25aa Were still active members of both KnowledgePanel (n=1,206) and KnowledgePanel Digital\n (n=1,102) as of March 2025\n\u25aa Consented in 2025 to Ipsos providing their individual-level browsing data to clients (n=992)\n\u25aa Were active on KnowledgePanel Digital at least once between March 1 and March 31, 2025\n (n=900)\n\nAfter the March monitoring period, panelists\u2019 web browsing activity logs were delivered on April\n7, 2025. The dataset containing these logs included 2.5 million visited URLs with metadata,\nincluding an ID for the panelist who visited the URL, device information, the time when the\nURL was accessed and the duration of the visit.\n\nAbout IPSOS KnowledgePanel and KnowledgePanel Digital\nKnowledgePanel is a probability-based online panel designed to be representative of the adult\nU.S. population. The recruitment process employs an addressed-based sampling methodology\nfrom the latest Delivery Sequence File of the USPS, which has been estimated to cover as much\nas 98% of the population, although some studies suggest that the coverage could be in the low\n90% range.5 Additional details about the KnowledgePanel can be found here.\n\nKnowledgePanel Digital consists of members of the broader KnowledgePanel who meet the\nfollowing conditions:\n\n\u25aa Access the internet using an Android smartphone, Apple smartphone, Android tablet, Apple\n tablet, Windows computer or Apple computer.\n\u25aa Have agreed to join KnowledgePanel Digital and have installed the RealityMeter app on at\n least one qualifying device to collect their device usage and internet activity.\n\u25aa Have agreed to the RealityMine Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.\n\n\n\n\n5 AAPOR Task Force on Address-based Sampling. 2016. \u201cAAPOR Report: Address-based Sampling.\u201d\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 13 of 22\n 11\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\nFor households without internet service prior to joining KnowledgePanel, Ipsos provides web-\nenabled devices and free internet service. KnowledgePanel members from these households are\nnot invited to join KnowledgePanel Digital.\n\nWeighting\nThe data was weighted in a process that accounts for multiple stages of sampling and\nnonresponse that occur at different points in the panel survey process. First, each panelist\nbegins with a base weight that reflects both their probability of recruitment into the panel and\ntheir probability of selection for this survey. Base weights for this study were provided by Ipsos.\nNext, these weights were calibrated to align with the population benchmarks in the\naccompanying table and trimmed at the 1st and 99th percentiles to reduce the loss in precision\nstemming from variance in the weights. Sampling errors and tests of statistical significance take\ninto account the effect of weighting.\n\n\n Weighting dimensions\n Variable Benchmark source\n Age (detailed) 2022 American Community Survey\n Age x Gender (ACS)\n Education x Gender\n Education x Age\n Race/Ethnicity x Education\n Born inside vs. outside the U.S. among\n Hispanics and Asian Americans\n Years lived in the U.S.\n Census region x Metropolitan status\n Volunteerism 2021 CPS Volunteering & Civic Life\n Supplement\n Voter registration 2022 CPS Voting and Registration\n Supplement\n Party affiliation x Race/Ethnicity 2023 National Public Opinion Reference\n Party affiliation among registered voters Survey (NPORS)\n Frequency of internet use\n Religious affiliation (Protestant, Catholic,\n Religiously unaffiliated, Other)\n Note: Estimates from the ACS are based on noninstitutionalized adults. Voter registration is\n calculated using procedures from Hur, Achen (2013) and rescaled to include the total U.S. adult\n population.\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 14 of 22\n 12\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\nThe following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling\nthat would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey.\n\n\n Sample sizes and margins of error\n Unweighted\n Group sample size Plus or minus \u2026\n Total sample 900 4.9 percentage points\n Age 18-29 91 13.7 percentage points\n Age 30-49 315 7.9 percentage points\n Age 50-64 290 8.9 percentage points\n Age 65+ 204 10.2 percentage points\n\n Note: Unweighted sample sizes do not account for the sample design or weighting and do not describe a\n group\u2019s contribution to weighted estimates. See the Weighting section above for details.\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\n\n\nBefore collecting webpage content, we processed the dataset of URLs to prevent errors in the\nscraping process and avoid potentially harmful or explicit websites.\n\nTo ensure that each panelist meaningfully viewed each page in the dataset, we removed URL\nvisits where the duration of the visit was zero seconds. We also combined \u201cduplicate\u201d records\nwhere a panelist visited the same URL twice within a one-second window.\n\n For each URL in the dataset, we extracted a domain (for example, the URL\n\u201chttps://www.facebook.com/login\u201d has the domain \u201cfacebook.com\u201d). Based on the URLs and\ntheir domains, we filtered out certain categories of webpages that we were not interested in\nscraping. We excluded the following URL categories from this scraping process:\n\n\u25aa Known malware. To identify malicious websites that are known to be used for malware\n distribution, we used a freely available list of malware URLs. The list is compiled by\n URLhaus, a platform that tracks malware URLs and shares them with security providers.\n\n\u25aa Adult content. Adult content websites were categorized as websites whose main purpose is\n to host pornographic or highly sexualized content, including file-sharing sites that are\n regularly used for pornography distribution. To identify adult websites, we used an open-\n source URL list that is maintained primarily for network administrators at schools and\n workplaces.\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 15 of 22\n 13\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\n\u25aa Popular productivity tools that require a login. Personal productivity tools like email\n and calendar apps were excluded, since the content we would be scraping was almost certain\n not to reflect the page content the panelist had viewed.\n\nWe removed these types of pages from the web scraping pipeline and did not check them for AI\nkeywords. However, these pages were still included in each respondent\u2019s total visit count.\n\nScraping webpage content\nAfter preprocessing the URLs from the web browsing activity logs to remove the pages which\nmatched the criteria above, we used a web scraping pipeline based on the Requests Python\nlibrary to retrieve all HTML and any metadata from each page. We collected this content April 7-\n11, 2025.\n\nIn some cases, the attempt to access a URL would time out or our servers otherwise failed to\nconnect to the given web address. This includes those that returned HTTP error codes, such as\n404 (Not Found) or 403 (Forbidden) errors. These pages were also not included in the AI\nkeyword analysis but included in each respondent\u2019s total visit count.\n\nThere were a handful of pages that returned HTTP 403 (Forbidden) errors that we determined\nwere important to try to retrieve for the analysis, including a number of AI chatbots (such as\nGoogle Gemini and Grok) and pages from Reddit. These URLs were backfilled April 16-17, 2025,\nusing manual HTML download and the Reddit Data API, as applicable.\n\nURLs that did not resolve or redirect to an existing webpage, according to a list of valid top level\ndomains, could not be verified as a valid visit to a page and were excluded from respondents\u2019\ntotal visit count (n=2,402 URLs).\n\nIn addition to pages noted above that we did not scrape, the following types of content may have\nbeen visible to respondents but would have been missed by the automated scraping process:\n\n\u25aa Non-text content like images, audio or video\n\u25aa Content that loads dynamically using JavaScript\n\u25aa Content hidden behind a paywall or login screen\n\nGoogle search result pages are not retrievable through most traditional web scraping methods,\nincluding the one we implemented in this analysis. Because of this, we collected the content of\nGoogle search result pages using a third-party web scraping service.\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 16 of 22\n 14\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\nAfter all data collection and preprocessing was complete, the total number of distinct URLs we\nwere able to retrieve page content for and analyze for AI term matches was 965,136. A total of\n2,457,176 page visits to 1,107,424 URLs were analyzed in the report. This includes 142,288 URLs\nthat we were not able to analyze for AI term matches but included in the analysis of respondents\u2019\ntotal page visits.\n\n\n\n\nPreprocessing\nTo prepare the page content data (n=965,136) for analysis, we removed HTML tags, JavaScript\nand other code from the scraped webpage data using BeautifulSoup. By doing this, we ensured\nthe page content that was analyzed was as close as possible to the content that panelists would\nhave viewed when they visited the webpage.\n\nAny scraped webpages that contained excessively large amounts of data (greater than 1 gigabyte\nor 128,000 tokens) were also excluded from the web content dataset. These websites often\ncontained video data or other non-text content.\n\nAI keyword matching\nTo identify AI content in the webpage data, we started by compiling a list of AI-related terms\n(read Appendix A). These terms included technical AI terminology, as well as the names of\nvarious generative AI tools and well-known AI companies. Keywords were selected based on\ntheir specificity and their prevalence in current discussions of AI. To avoid returning matches\nthat were not truly related to AI, we filter this list to only terms that are exclusively (or nearly\nexclusively) used to describe AI-related concepts.\n\nAll webpages that contained text matching at least one keyword in the list were flagged as a page\nthat mentions AI. Of the roughly 1.1 million distinct pages viewed by panelists over a period of\none month, around 6% of them (71,144 in total) mention an AI keyword.\n\nAI relevance classification\nWhile keyword matching was used to identify pages with any mention of AI-related terms and\nconcepts somewhere on the page, these webpages are extremely diverse in their focus on the\ntopic. Some make only the briefest mention to AI or AI-related topics \u2013 such as a reference to an\nAI tool in a sidebar or footer. Others contain meaningful or substantive discussion of AI or are\nthemselves AI-centric tools or services.\n\nFor this analysis, we used a logistic regression classifier to identify pages that mention AI in a\nsubstantive context. Common examples of \u201csubstantive mentions\u201d might include pages such as:\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 17 of 22\n 15\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\n\u25aa An AI chatbot interface, AI image generation site, AI-focused consulting service or other\n online tool that makes AI a central focus of its functionality\n\u25aa A shopping website that prominently features AI functionality in its product descriptions\n\u25aa An article or story that is about (or extensively discusses) AI or AI-related topics\n\nThe classifier was trained on a dataset of 509 webpages labeled as containing either a\nsubstantive AI mention or a minor AI mention. Two human annotators generated the labels and\nachieved high inter-rater reliability on the training dataset (Cohen\u2019s kappa = 0.877). The\nclassifier took five input variables as features: the number of AI keyword matches, number of AI\nkeyword matches that were not \u201cAI,\u201d number of AI keyword matches in the website\u2019s title,\nnumber of AI keyword matches in the website\u2019s description, and the proportion of all words on\nthe page that are AI keywords.\n\nAfter training the classifier, model performance was measured using a separate evaluation\ndataset of 400 labeled webpages. For this dataset, human annotators again achieved high inter-\nrater reliability (Cohen\u2019s kappa = 0.837). When applied to the evaluation dataset, the classifier\nachieved an F1 score of 0.829. The model was highly reliable for identifying substantive AI\nmentions but was somewhat prone to false positives; the classifier\u2019s performance on the\nevaluation data gave a recall score of 0.970 and a precision score of 0.724. These metrics\nindicate that the model was sufficient for use in this report.\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 18 of 22\n 16\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\n\n\nA page that mentions AI versus one that discusses it in more depth\n\n\n\n\n\u201cWhat Web Browsing Data Tells Us About How AI Appears Online\u201d\nPEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 19 of 22\n 17\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\n\n\nIn this report, we examine how respondents encountered mentions of AI on different types of\nwebsites. Here is how we created the different site categories for that analysis.\n\nNews websites include 2,317 domains categorized as \u201cNews/Information\u201d by the\nmeasurement and audience metrics company comScore.\n\nShopping websites include a list of 18 major shopping and e-commerce domains developed\nby the authors of this study. Researchers consulted two lists of popular shopping and e-\ncommerce domains (via Statista and Semrush) and cross-referenced them against respondents\u2019\nmost-visited domains. Our final list includes aliexpress.com, amazon.com, apple.com,\nbestbuy.com, chewy.com, costco.com, craigslist.com, ebay.com, etsy.com, homedepot.com,\nkohls.com, macys.com, mecari.com, target.com, temu.com, ticketmaster.com, walmart.com, and\nwayfair.com.\n\nSearch websites include google.com/search, bing.com/search, duckduckgo.com and\nsearch.yahoo.com. Analyses of AI-generated summaries include only pages from\ngoogle.com/search.\n\nSocial media websites include Meta sites (facebook.com, instagram.com, threads.net,\nwhatsapp.com), youtube.com, tiktok.com, bsky.app, pinterest.com, linkedin.com, x.com and\nreddit.com.\n\nVisits to generative AI tools include those from OpenAI (openai.com, chatgpt.com,\nchat.openai.com, openai.com/chatgpt, openai.com/dall-e-2), Microsoft (copilot.microsoft.com,\nbing.com/chat), Google (bard.google.com, gemini.google.com), claude.ai, midjourney.com,\nperplexity.ai and character.ai.\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 20 of 22\n 18\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\n\n\nA webpage was classified as containing an AI mention if it had at least one of the following\nkeywords. These keywords were detected using regular expression matching, included common\nvariants and were not case sensitive, unless noted otherwise.\n\n \u2022 AI or A.I. (case sensitive)\n \u2022 BERT or RoBERTa or roBERTa (case sensitive)\n \u2022 GPT (including GPT 3, 4, 4o, 4o1 or 4o3)\n \u2022 LLM(s) or Large Language Model(s) or Language Model(s)\n \u2022 NLP or Nature Language Processing\n \u2022 X.AI or xAI (case sensitive)\n \u2022 Grok (including Grok 1, 1.5, 2 or 3)\n \u2022 AI Assistant\n \u2022 AI Governance or AI Policy\n \u2022 AI-Assisted or AI Assisted\n \u2022 AI-Enhanced or AI Enhanced\n \u2022 AI-Powered or AI Powered\n \u2022 AI Regulation or AI Regulatory Compliance\n \u2022 AI For Good or AI For Social Good\n \u2022 AI Image Generator or AI Image(s)\n \u2022 AI Overview\n \u2022 AI Prompt or Prompt Engineering\n \u2022 AI Summary\n \u2022 AI Solution(s)\n \u2022 Algorithm(s)\n \u2022 Alibaba Cloud AI\n \u2022 Anthropic\n \u2022 Amazon AI or Amazon Alexa\n \u2022 AWS Machine Learning\n \u2022 Apple Machine Learning or Core ML\n \u2022 Apple Intelligence\n \u2022 Artificial Intelligence\n \u2022 AI Translation or Automatic Language Translation\n \u2022 Azure AI\n \u2022 Baidu AI\n \u2022 Bias in AI or Algorithmic Bias\n \u2022 Bing AI\n \u2022 Character.AI or Character AI or CharacterAI\n \u2022 Chatbot(s) or Chat bot(s) or AI Chat\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 21 of 22\n 19\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\n\u2022 ChatGPT or Chat GPT\n\u2022 Claude AI (including Claude 2, 2.1, 3, 3.5, Sonnet, 3.5 Sonnet, Haiku, 3.5 Haiku, Opus or\n 3.7)\n\u2022 Cognitive Computing\n\u2022 Computer Vision\n\u2022 Contextual Embedding\n\u2022 Copilot Answer\n\u2022 Deep Learning\n\u2022 DeepFake(s) or Deep Fake(s)\n\u2022 DeepMind\n\u2022 DeepSeek (including DeepSeek LLM, MoE, Math, V2, V3 or R1)\n\u2022 DALL\u00b7E or DALL-E or DALLE\n\u2022 Ethical Tech or Responsible Tech or Ethical AI or Responsible AI or Ethics in AI\n\u2022 Explainable AI\n\u2022 Facebook AI or Meta AI\n\u2022 Feature Engineering\n\u2022 Fine-tuned Model or Fine-tuning a Model\n\u2022 Generative Model or Generative AI\n\u2022 Generative Adversarial Network(s)\n\u2022 Gemini AI or Google Gemini\n\u2022 Global AI\n\u2022 Google AI or Google Brain Team or Google Brain or TensorFlow\n\u2022 Healthcare AI or AI in Healthcare\n\u2022 Huawei HiAI\n\u2022 Hyperparameter Tuning\n\u2022 IBM Watson (case sensitive)\n\u2022 Intel AI\n\u2022 Knowledge Graph\n\u2022 LLaMA (case sensitive)\n\u2022 Meta Llama or Code Llama (including Llama 2, 3, 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3)\n\u2022 Machine Intelligence or Machine Learning\n\u2022 Microsoft AI or Microsoft Copilot\n\u2022 MidJourney\n\u2022 Neural Network(s)\n\u2022 NotebookLM or Notebook LM\n\u2022 NVIDIA or NVIDIA AI\n\u2022 OpenAI or Open AI (including OpenAI o1, o1-mini, o3 or o3-mini)\n\u2022 Oracle AI\n\u2022 Perplexity.AI or Perplexity AI or PerplexityAI\n\u2022 Pre-trained Model(s)\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-2 Filed 04/29/26 Page 22 of 22\n 20\n PEW RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\n\u2022 Predictive Analytics or Predictive Modeling or Predictive Modelling\n\u2022 Qwen (including Qwen 7B, 72B, 1.8B, 2, 2-Math, 2.5, VL, VL2, Audio or LLM)\n\u2022 QwQ or QwQ-2.5 or QwQ 2.5\n\u2022 Reinforcement Learning\n\u2022 Robotic Process Automation\n\u2022 Retrieval Augmented Generation\n\u2022 Salesforce Einstein\n\u2022 SAP Leonardo or Leonardo AI (case sensitive)\n\u2022 Self-Attention Mechanism\n\u2022 Semantic Analysis\n\u2022 Sequence Modeling\n\u2022 Stable Diffusion\n\u2022 Summary by Copilot\n\u2022 Supervised Learning\n\u2022 Tencent AI\n\u2022 TensorRT or Tensor.Art\n\u2022 Transfer Learning\n\u2022 Unsupervised Learning\n\u2022 Workforce Automation\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-15T01:19:46.740287-07:00","document_number":"52","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"035027065571","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 22 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479327452/","id":479327452,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/52/3/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-15T01:19:29.325110-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:56:13.472596-07:00","sha1":"fce15beebda720a9c7f6b76ca8ccdc5c00938e0c","page_count":5,"file_size":1846147,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.451450/gov.uscourts.cand.451450.52.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.451450/gov.uscourts.cand.451450.52.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-3 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 23\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-3 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n\nSHORT READS | JULY 22, 2025\n\n\n\n\nGoogle users are less likely to click on\n\nlinks when an AI summary appears in\n\nthe results\n\nBY ATHENA CHAPEKIS AND ANNA LIEB\n\n\n\n\n(Press Association via AP Images)\n\n\nLast year, Google introduced \u201cAI Overviews,\u201d a feature that displays an artificial\nintelligence-generated result summary at the top of many Google search pages. This\nfeature is available to millions of U.S. Google users. Online publishers recently have\nattributed declining web traffic to these summaries replacing traditional search results,\nclaiming that many users are relying on the summaries instead of following links to the\npublishers\u2019 websites.\n\n\nA Pew Research Center report published this spring analyzed data from 900 U.S. adults\nwho agreed to share their online browsing activity. About six-in-ten respondents (58%)\nconducted at least one Google search in March 2025 that produced an AI-generated\nsummary. Additional analysis found that Google users were less likely to click on result\nlinks when visiting search pages with an AI summary compared with those without one.\nFor searches that resulted in an AI-generated summary, users very rarely clicked on the\nsources cited.\n\n\nHere\u2019s more of what we learned about Google AI summaries and how users interact with\nthem.\n\n\n How we did this\n\n Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to learn more about AI-generated search summaries and\n how they appear in Google search results. This analysis uses the web browsing data of 900 U.S. adults\n who are members of KnowledgePanel Digital, an online survey panel whose respondents agree to\n install an app that tracks their online browsing behavior.\n\n For each respondent, we received a list of all the URLs they visited on a tracked device during March 1-\n 31, 2025. This allowed us to examine every visit they made to a search engine during that time, the\n actual search terms they submitted on those visits, and what they did next after performing each\n search.\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-3 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 5\n For every web search on google.com in our collection, we used a third-party web scraping service to run\n the same search and collect any text on the first page of the results. This includes standard search\n results and links, the text of any AI summaries that appeared, and up to three source URLs that were\n included in the AI summary. Search results were collected April 7-17, 2025. The AI summary for any\n given search may change over time, and the results of this analysis reflect how search results appeared\n at the time they were collected.\n\n The total dataset used in this analysis contains 68,879 unique Google searches. Some 12,593 of these\n searches produced an AI summary to accompany the standard search results. Due to technical\n limitations in our ability to identify AI-generated summaries on other search engines, this analysis\n includes only Google searches.\n\n To identify the user\u2019s next action after visiting a Google search page, we used the timestamp and URL of\n their next visit. These are the categories we used and how we defined them:\n\n Clicking on a link in the AI summary or from the search results if the next-visited URL matched any\n of the links available on the first page of search results or in the first three links cited in a page\u2019s AI\n summary. If someone followed a link that appeared in both an AI summary and the traditional search\n results, that click was counted towards the AI summary.\n Continuing to search Google if the next-visited URL was a different Google search page.\n Leaving Google to browse a different site if they went to a different page or site other than the ones\n listed above.\n Ending their browsing session if the user exited the web browser for five seconds or more.\n\n For more details, refer to the original report methodology.\n\n\n\n\n1 Google users who encounter an AI summary are less likely to click on\n links to other websites than users who do not see one. Users who\nencountered an AI summary clicked on a traditional search result link in 8% of all visits.\nThose who did not encounter an AI summary clicked on a search result nearly twice as\noften (15% of visits).\n\n\nGoogle users who\nencountered an AI\nsummary also rarely\nclicked on a link in the\nsummary itself. This\noccurred in just 1% of all\nvisits to pages with such a\nsummary.\n\n\n\n2 Google users\n are more likely\nto end their browsing\nsession entirely after\nvisiting a search page\nwith an AI summary than on pages without a summary. This happened on 26%\nof pages with an AI summary, compared with 16% of pages with only traditional search\nresults.\n\n\nRegardless of whether a page had an AI-generated summary or not, the largest share of\nGoogle searches in our study resulted in the user either browsing elsewhere on Google or\nleaving the site entirely without clicking a link in the search results. Around two-thirds of\nall searches resulted in one of these actions.\n\n\n\n3 The most frequently cited sources in both Google AI summaries and\n standard search results are Wikipedia, YouTube and Reddit. These\nthree sites are the most commonly linked sources in AI summaries and standard search\nresults alike. Collectively, they accounted for 15% of the sources that were listed in the AI\n\n 2\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-3 Filed 04/29/26 Page 4 of 5\nsummaries we examined. They made up a similar share (17%) of the sources listed in\nstandard search results.\n\n\nWikipedia links are somewhat more\ncommon in AI summaries than in\nstandard search pages, while YouTube\nlinks are somewhat more common in\nstandard search results than in AI\nsummaries.\n\n\nWhen it comes to the type of websites\nthat are often linked to in Google search\nresults, government websites are more\ncommon in AI summaries than in\nstandard search results. Some 6% of the\nsources that were linked in AI overviews\nwere to .gov websites, compared with just\n2% for standard search results.\nMeanwhile, 5% of AI summaries \u2013 and\n5% of standard search results \u2013 linked to\nnews websites.\n\n\n\n\n4 Overall, around one-in-five Google searches in March 2025 produced\n an AI summary. Some 18% of all the Google searches in our study generated an\nAI summary as part of the search results. The vast majority of these summaries (88%)\ncited three or more sources. Only 1% cited a single source.\n\n\nThe typical (median) AI summary in our study was 67 words long, but this varied widely.\nThe shortest we found was just seven words long, while the longest ran to 369 words.\n\n\n\n5 Google searches that contain more words, ask questions or use full\n sentences tend to produce AI summaries more often. Longer searches\nare more likely to produce an AI summary. Just 8% of one- or two-word searches resulted\nin an AI summary. But that share rose to 53% for searches with 10 words or more.\n\n\nOther types of searches\nthat tend to result in AI\nsummaries include:\n\n\n Searches that form\n questions: 60% of\n search queries that\n began with question\n words such as \u201cwho,\u201d\n \u201cwhat,\u201d \u201cwhen\u201d or\n \u201cwhy\u201d resulted in an AI\n summary.\n Searches that use\n full sentences: 36% of\n searches that include\n both a noun and a verb\n generated an AI\n summary.\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 52-3 Filed 04/29/26 Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n\n Athena Chapekis is a data science analyst at Pew Research Center.\n\n\n\n\n Anna Lieb is a computational social science assistant at Pew Research Center.\n\n\n\n\n901 E St. NW, Suite 300\nWashington, DC 20004\nUSA\n(+1) 202-419-4300 | Main\n(+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax\n(+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries\n\n\nABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take\npolicy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of\nThe Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder.\n\n\n\n\u00a9 2026 Pew Research Center\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-15T01:19:55.729272-07:00","document_number":"52","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"035027065572","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 23 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-29T19:34:58.607742-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:19.590307-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-29","time_filed":"19:05:44","entry_number":52,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":161,"description":"REPLY (re 50 MOTION to Dismiss ) filed bySteven Huffman, Reddit, Inc., Andrew Vollero, Jennifer Wong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 2 Exhibit 22 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 3 Exhibit 23 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake)(Blake, Stephen) (Filed on 4/29/2026) (Entered: 04/29/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459102374/","id":459102374,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474120532/","id":474120532,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/51/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-31T00:05:17.578343-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-18T07:28:41.002065-07:00","sha1":"66ae48006337f63f92cc6b69ad1a6890706950fd","page_count":22,"file_size":301497,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.451450/gov.uscourts.cand.451450.51.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.451450/gov.uscourts.cand.451450.51.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP\n\n 2 Robert V. Prongay (SBN #270796)\n Charles H. Linehan (SBN #307439)\n 3 Pavithra Rajesh (SBN #323055)\n 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100\n 4 Los Angeles, California, 90067\n Telephone: (310) 201-9150\n 5\n Fax: (310) 201-9160\n 6 Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com\n Email: clinehan@glancylaw.com\n 7 Email: prajesh@glancylaw.com\n\n 8 Liaison Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class\n 9\n [Additional Counsel on signature page]\n10\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n12 ANTHONY JOSEPH TAMRAZ, JR., ) Case No. 3:25-cv-05144-JD\n13 Individually and on Behalf of All Others )\n Similarly Situated, ) PLAINTIFF\u2019S OPPOSITION TO\n14 ) DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n Plaintiff, ) THE AMENDED CLASS ACTION\n15 ) COMPLAINT\n v. )\n16 ) CLASS ACTION\n17 )\n REDDIT, INC., STEVEN HUFFMAN, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n18 ANDREW VOLLERO, and JENNIFER )\n WONG, ) Judge: Hon. James Donato\n19 ) Date: May 21, 2026\n Defendants. ) Time: 11:00 a.m.\n20 ) Courtroom: 11\n21 )\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n 2\n I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1\n 3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................1\n 4 A. Reddit\u2019s Business .....................................................................................................1\n 5 B. Google\u2019s AI Overviews ...........................................................................................2\n 6 III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................2\n 7 A. The SAC Adequately Pleads That Defendants Made Material\n 8 Misrepresentations ...................................................................................................3\n 9 1. Defendants Misled Investors Concerning the Impact of Google\u2019s AI\n\n10 Overviews on Reddit\u2019s Business .................................................................3\n\n11 2. Defendants\u2019 Truth on the Market Defense Fails ..........................................6\n\n12 B. Plaintiff Adequately Alleges Scienter ......................................................................7\n\n13 1. Core Operations Establishes Strong Inference of Scienter ..........................8\n\n14 2. Defendants Knew or Had Access to Contrary Information .......................10\n 3. The Inference of Scienter Is At Least As Compelling as\n15\n Defendants\u2019 Suggested Inference ..............................................................12\n16\n C. Plaintiff Adequately Alleges Loss Causation ........................................................13\n17\n 1. The May 1 Earnings Call and May 2 Deutsche Bank Reports are\n18\n Corrective Disclosures ...............................................................................14\n19\n 2. The May 19 Wells Fargo and May 20 Baird Analyst Reports are\n20\n Corrective Disclosures ...............................................................................14\n21\n D. Plaintiff Adequately Alleges Control Person Liability ..........................................15\n22\n IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................15\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n -i-\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n 2 Page(s)\n 3\n Cases\n 4\n\n 5 AMI \u2013 Gov\u2019t Emps. Provident Fund Mgmt. Co. Ltd. v. Alphabet Inc.,\n\n 6 2025 WL 899959 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025) ................................................................................ 9\n 7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal,\n\n 8 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................... 3\n 9 Azar v. Yelp, Inc.,\n\n10 2018 WL 6182756 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2018) ........................................................................... 10\n11 Basic Inc. v. Levinson,\n\n12 485 U.S. 224 (1988) ...................................................................................................................... 7\n13 Berson v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc.,\n\n14 527 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 10, 11\n15 Blake v. Canoo Inc.,\n\n16 2025 WL 2992263 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2025) ............................................................................. 10\n17 Bos. Ret. Sys. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,\n\n18 2020 WL 4569846 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2020) ............................................................................... 7\n19 Connecticut Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds v. Amgen Inc.,\n\n20 660 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................... 7\n21 Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. of Greater St. Louis v. Funko Inc,\n\n22 166 F.4th 805 (9th Cir. 2026) ....................................................................................................... 9\n23 Dolly v. GitLab Inc.,\n\n24 2025 WL 2372965 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) ........................................................................... 12\n25 Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo,\n\n26 544 U.S. 336 (2005) ................................................................................................................ 3, 14\n27 Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co.,\n\n28 228 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000).......................................................................................................... 7\n\n - ii -\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 Glazer Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Forescout Techs., Inc.,\n\n 2 63 F.4th 747 (9th Cir. 2023) ......................................................................................................... 8\n 3 Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,\n\n 4 87 F. Supp. 3d 1149 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................................................... 5\n 5 In re Amgen Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n\n 6 544 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ........................................................................................ 7\n 7 In re Amgen Sec. Litig.,\n\n 8 2014 WL 12585809 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014)............................................................................ 15\n 9 In re Apollo Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n\n10 2010 WL 5927988 (9th Cir. June 23, 2010) ............................................................................... 15\n11 In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig.,\n\n12 886 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir. 1989) ...................................................................................................... 7\n13 In re BofI Holding, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n\n14 2017 WL 2257980 (S.D. Cal. May 23, 2017)............................................................................. 16\n15 In re Fibrogen, Inc.,\n\n16 2022 WL 2793032 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2022)............................................................................. 14\n17 In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.,\n\n18 536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 3, 14\n19 In re Montage Tech. Grp. Ltd. Sec. Litig.,\n\n20 78 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................................................ 10\n21 In re PG&E Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n\n22 2025 WL 2781745 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2025) ........................................................................... 10\n23 In re Quality Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n\n24 865 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 12\n25 In re Thoratec Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n\n26 2006 WL 1305226 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2006) .............................................................................. 7\n27 In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n\n28 704 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 8, 13\n\n - iii -\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 In re Zoom Sec. Litig.,\n\n 2 2022 WL 484974 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2022) .......................................................................... 8, 14\n 3 Institutional Investors Grp. v. Avaya, Inc.,\n\n 4 564 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2009)........................................................................................................ 14\n 5 In re BofI Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n\n 6 977 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................ 14, 15\n 7 Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,\n\n 8 899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................................ 3\n 9 Lloyd v. CVB Fin. Corp.,\n\n10 811 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................... 14\n11 Lopez v. Smith,\n\n12 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................... 15\n13 Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano,\n\n14 563 U.S. 27 (2011) ........................................................................................................................ 4\n15 McGovney v. Aerohive Networks, Inc.,\n\n16 2019 WL 8137143 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2019) ............................................................................... 6\n17 Miller v. Thane Int\u2019l, Inc.,\n\n18 519 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................................ 7\n19 MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Actelion Pharms. US, Inc.,\n\n20 2024 WL 3408221 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2024)............................................................................... 3\n21 New Mexico State Inv. Council v. Ernst & Young LLP,\n\n22 641 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 13\n23 Nursing Home Pension Fund, Loc. 144 v. Oracle Corp.,\n\n24 380 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 11\n25 Ohio Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,\n\n26 2024 WL 4353049 ...................................................................................................................... 11\n27 Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund,\n\n28 575 U.S. 175 (2015) .................................................................................................................. 4, 8\n\n - iv -\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 6 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 Osher v. JNI Corp.,\n\n 2 183 F. App\u2019x 604 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................... 15\n 3 Police Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,\n\n 4 759 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................... 12\n 5 Prodanova v. H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC,\n\n 6 993 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................................... 9\n 7 Roberti v. OSI Sys., Inc.,\n\n 8 2015 WL 1985562 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2015)............................................................................. 11\n 9 S. Ferry LP, No. 2 v. Killinger,\n\n10 542 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................... 13\n11 S.E.C. v. Platforms Wireless Int\u2019l Corp.,\n\n12 559 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (S.D. Cal. 2008) ....................................................................................... 11\n13 Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Life Wealth Mgmt., Inc.,\n\n14 2012 WL 12919299 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012).............................................................................. 8\n15 Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc.,\n\n16 282 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................... 11\n17 Sneed v. AcelRx Pharms., Inc.,\n\n18 2023 WL 4412164 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2023)................................................................................. 7\n19 Steamfitters Local 449 v. Extreme Networks, Inc.,\n\n20 2026 WL 817221 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2026) .............................................................................. 10\n21 Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,\n\n22 551 U.S. 308 (2007) ............................................................................................................ 3, 8, 13\n23 Turocy v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.,\n\n24 2016 WL 4056209 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2016) ............................................................................... 5\n25 Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,\n\n26 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................... 4\n27 York Cnty. on Behalf of Cnty. of York Ret. Fund v. HP Inc.,\n\n28 738 F. Supp. 3d 1182 (N.D. Cal. 2024) ........................................................................................ 5\n\n -v-\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 7 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.,\n\n 2 552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................................ 8\n 3\n Statutes\n 4\n\n 5 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(b)(1)(B) ............................................................................................................... 3\n\n 6\n\n 7\n\n 8\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\n - vi -\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 8 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 I. INTRODUCTION\n\n 2 Defendants Reddit Inc. (\u201cReddit\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d), CEO Steven Huffman, CFO Andrew\n 3 Vollero, and COO Jennifer Wong misled investors throughout the Class Period (October 29, 2024,\n\n 4 to May 20, 2025) by mischaracterizing and downplaying the effect of Google\u2019s AI Overviews on\n\n 5 Reddit\u2019s ability to grow its revenues and profits. Reddit received around 40 percent of its traffic\n\n 6 from Google searches, and it depended on this traffic to grow its user base and advertising revenue.\n\n 7 In 2024, Google began significantly changing its search results page by including an\n 8 artificial intelligence (\u201cAI\u201d) summary of information pulled from relevant search results at the top\n 9 of the page. Analysts and investors peppered Defendants with questions concerning the effect this\n\n10 change would have on Reddit\u2019s business. Despite Reddit\u2019s slowing user growth, Defendants\n\n11 insisted that the changes were mere \u201cvolatility\u201d that happens \u201call the time\u201d and claimed Reddit had\n\n12 \u201czero concern\u201d about the effect of Google\u2019s changes on Reddit because there was \u201cno\u201d long-term\n\n13 risk. Through a series of corrective disclosures, investors learned the truth: AI Overviews was\n\n14 decreasing click-throughs from Google by nearly 50 percent, threatening Reddit\u2019s user and revenue\n\n15 growth. Reddit\u2019s share price fell from $216.47 in February 2025 to $95.85 at the end of the Class\n\n16 Period as analysts downgraded the stock.\n\n17 Plaintiffs adequately allege each element of securities fraud, and the Court should deny\n18 Defendants\u2019 Motion (ECF 50, the \u201cMotion\u201d).\n\n19 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n20 A. Reddit\u2019s Business\n21 Reddit is a social media platform and forum-style website where users share and discuss\n22 content through posts and comments, organized into communities called subreddits. \u00b615. 1 Reddit\u2019s\n\n23 earnings report for first quarter of 2025 showed that $358.6 million out of a total of $392.4 million,\n\n24 or about 91%, of revenue came from advertising. \u00b616. Reddit receives about 40% of its traffic from\n\n25 Google. \u00b634. Reddit\u2019s valuation is largely based on its expected ability to convert logged-out users\n\n26 (most of which come from Google) to registered users. \u00b618.\n\n27 1\n Unless otherwise stated, all paragraph (\u201c\u00b6\u201d) references are to Plaintiff\u2019s Amended Class Action\n28 Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (\u201cAC\u201d), and all internal citations and\n quotations are omitted.\n -1-\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 9 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 B. Google\u2019s AI Overviews\n 2 In February 2024, Reddit announced that it had entered into agreement to allow Google\n\n 3 would be able to use Reddit\u2019s data to train its large language model (\u201cLLM\u201d) AI system. \u00b620. The\n\n 4 deal paid Reddit $60 million per year. Id. Later in 2024, Google began implementing AI Overviews,\n\n 5 a feature in Google search that provides a generative AI summary of information pulled from search\n\n 6 results at the very top of the page. \u00b6\u00b622-23. AI Overviews allows users to find the answer to their\n\n 7 search query directly on Google without needing to click through to any external website. \u00b623.\n\n 8 Pew Research Center found that Google Search users were less likely to click on a link when\n 9 they encounter search pages with AI summaries. \u00b627. When a search page had an AI summary,\n\n10 users clicked on a link from the AI summary 1% of the time and clicked on a link from the search\n\n11 results 8% of the time. Id. On pages without an AI summary, 15% of users clicked on a link from\n\n12 the search results. Id. Other studies showed that outbound clicks from Google were 30-40% lower\n\n13 in AI Overviews compared to traditional search results. \u00b659.\n\n14 As a result of AI Overviews, through the first quarter of 2025, Reddit\u2019s daily active user\n15 (DAU) growth slowed for three consecutive quarters and undershot expectations in three of four\n\n16 quarters. \u00b6\u00b648; ECF 50-16.\n\n17 III. ARGUMENT\n18 Courts assess Rule 12(b)(6) motions by considering the complaint 2 in its entirety,\n\n19 \u201caccept[ing] all factual allegations . . . as true\u201d and construing them in the light most favorable to\n\n20 plaintiff. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). A complaint should\n\n21 not be dismissed if it contains a \u201csufficient factual matter [that], accepted as true, \u2018state[s] a claim\n\n22 to relief that is plausible on its face.\u2019\u201d See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Courts must\n\n23 be mindful that \u201ca district court ruling on a motion to dismiss is not sitting as a trier of fact\u201d and\n\n24\n\n25 2 Defendants ask that the Court take judicial notice of certain documents. ECF 50-2. To the extent\n the Court takes notice of these documents, it may only take notice of the fact that statements in\n26 those documents were made, and any attempt by Defendants to use these exhibits to defeat\n Plaintiffs\u2019 adequately pled claims is improper and highly discouraged by the Ninth Circuit. See\n27\n Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018) (recognizing a \u201cconcerning\n28 pattern in securities cases\u201d by defendants to improperly exploit judicial notice \u201cto defeat what\n would otherwise constitute adequately stated claims at the pleading stage\u201d).\n -2-\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 10 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 \u201c[a] well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those\n\n 2 facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.\u201d In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.,\n\n 3 536 F.3d 1049, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008).\n\n 4 A plaintiff asserting claims asserted under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act must plead\n\n 5 six elements: a misrepresentation or omission of material fact, scienter, a connection with the\n\n 6 purchase or sale of a security, reliance, economic loss, and loss causation. Dura Pharm., Inc. v.\n\n 7 Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341\u201342 (2005). Defendants challenge only falsity, scienter, and loss\n\n 8 causation. 3\n 9 A. The SAC Adequately Pleads That Defendants Made Material Misrepresentations\n10 To plead falsity under the PSLRA, a plaintiff must \u201cspecify each statement [or omission]\n11 alleged to have been misleading [and] the reason or reasons why the statement [or omission] is\n\n12 misleading.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(b)(1)(B). The allegations must identify who made the allegedly\n\n13 misleading statements and what statements were misleading, state where and when the statements\n\n14 were made, and explain why the statements were misleading. See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,\n\n15 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003).\n\n16 \u201cDisclosure [of material information] is required\u2026 when necessary \u2018to make\u2026 statements\n17 made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.\u2019\u201d Matrixx\n\n18 Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27, 44 (2011). \u201c[L]iteral accuracy is not enough: An issuer\n\n19 must as well desist from misleading investors by saying one thing and holding back another.\u201d\n\n20 Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund, 575 U.S. 175, 192 (2015).\n\n21 The AC meets these criteria and adequately pleads falsity.\n\n22 1. Defendants Misled Investors Concerning the Impact of Google\u2019s AI\n Overviews on Reddit\u2019s Business\n23\n As investors and analysts became increasingly worried about the negative effects of AI\n24\n Overviews on Reddit\u2019s growth, Defendants repeatedly mischaracterized the changes and\n25\n\n26 3 Defendants improperly attach an 11-page exhibit (ECF 50-1) that makes legal arguments\n\n27 concerning whether each of the alleged misrepresentations is actionable. The Court should\n disregard this end-run around the Court\u2019s page limits. See, e.g., MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC\n28 v. Actelion Pharms. US, Inc., 2024 WL 3408221, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2024).\n -3-\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 11 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 misleadingly downplayed the impact. Confronted by concerns from investors and analysts,\n\n 2 Defendants sought to ease these concerns by minimizing the AI Overviews as normal fluctuations\n\n 3 that occur \u201call the time.\u201d. \u00b633 (Huffman stating, \u201cSo you\u2019ll never hear us celebrate or complain\n\n 4 about an algorithm change here.\u201d). Defendants also repeatedly referred to the decrease in traffic as\n\n 5 \u201cvolatility.\u201d \u00b635 (\u201cthere\u2019s volatility in that traffic\u201d and \u201cyes, volatility on the logged out users\u201d);\n\n 6 \u00b638 (\u201cwe did experience some volatility from Google Search triggered by a periodic algorithm\n\n 7 change\u201d).; \u00b642 (\u201cwe see volatility from Google all the time as does everybody\u201d); Huffman also\n\n 8 stated that \u201c[w]hat happened wasn\u2019t unusual. Referrals from search fluctuate from time to time . . .\n 9 .\u201d \u00b638; see also \u00b643 (\u201cLook, these changes happen. They actually happen all the time I\u2019d say\n\n10 ballpark, twice a year, not the first, not the last\u201d).\n\n11 These statements misled investors by creating the false impression that AI Overviews was\n12 a mere routine tweak to Google\u2019s search algorithm. Rather, AI Overviews was part of a fundamental\n\n13 change in how users search the internet in the age of large language models. Defendants misled\n\n14 investors by conflating changes to Google\u2019s search algorithm with its implementation of AI\n\n15 Overviews. Google\u2019s constantly evolving search algorithm determines the order of the search\n\n16 results displayed to the user. AI Overviews, in contrast, synthesize information from multiple\n\n17 sources to answer a search query directly on Google Search without needing to click through to any\n\n18 external website. As Deutsche Bank noted, \u201cwhile some of this slowdown is due to Google\n\n19 algorithm changes, the bigger impact seems to be from AI features being built into Google\u2019s search\n\n20 product which may be narrowing the need to traverse to Reddit\u2019s site.\u201d \u00b652; ECF 50-16.\n\n21 Google\u2019s implementation of AI Overviews was also not normal \u201cvolatility\u201d or \u201cfluctuation.\u201d\n\n22 It was a significant change to Google\u2019s search results landing page that materially decreased traffic\n\n23 to Reddit. A study by Pew Research showed that users were nearly twice as likely to click on a link\n\n24 from traditional search results as from an AI Overviews landing page. \u00b627. Another study showed\n\n25 outbound clicks from Google were 30-40% lower in AI Overviews than traditional search results.\n\n26 \u00b659. But, despite repeated questions from analysts and investors, Defendants never disclosed this\n\n27 lower click-through rate or explained its effect on Reddit\u2019s traffic or future growth. See, e.g.,\n\n28 Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2015)\n -4-\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 12 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 (\u201cDefendants continued to downplay the existence and effects of the yield problem during a\n\n 2 subsequent earnings call with analysts in October of 2011, although they admitted that there had\n\n 3 been some issues with yield that had impacted revenues to that point, maintained that AMD was\n\n 4 working with its foundry partner, GF, to solve the yield problems\u201d).\n\n 5 Further, while Reddit has no control over Google\u2019s changes to its search algorithm, Reddit\n\n 6 affirmatively entered into the data licensing agreement with Google that allowed Google to train its\n\n 7 AI on Reddit\u2019s data and display that data on Google\u2019s search results. C.f. York Cnty. on Behalf of\n\n 8 Cnty. of York Ret. Fund v. HP Inc., 738 F. Supp. 3d 1182, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 2024), motion to certify\n 9 appeal granted, 2024 WL 4831889 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2024) (finding the defendants\u2019 \u201crepeated\n\n10 references to currency and competitive pricing as the primary causes of decline were materially\n\n11 misleading to a reasonable investor. Currency rates and pricing decisions by competitors are\n\n12 temporary problems outside of HP\u2019s control. The acceleration scheme, in contrast, was within\n\n13 Defendants\u2019 control.\u201d). 4\n\n14 Defendants also misled investors by asserting that Google users using the word \u201cReddit\u201d in\n\n15 their Google searches demonstrated that AI Overviews would not negatively impact Reddit. On\n\n16 October 29, 2024, in response to an investor asking, \u201chow much should we worry about Google\n\n17 diverting traffic in the future,\u201d Huffman stated that \u201cReddit is the sixth most searched word on\n\n18 Google in the U.S. this year. And so those are people literally typing the word Reddit into Google.\n\n19 So they know they\u2019re going to end up on it. They\u2019re using, in this case, Google to navigate Reddit.\u201d\n\n20 \u00b6\u00b630-31. On February 12, 2025, Huffman downplayed Reddit\u2019s reduced search from Google during\n\n21 the 4th quarter, stating that \u201cwe saw a corresponding increase in the query term Reddit, which\n\n22 suggests users are searching with the specific intent of reaching Reddit and this propensity\n\n23 continues to rise.\u201d \u00b638; see also \u00b643 (in response to analyst question concerning AI Overviews\u2019\n\n24 effect on Reddit\u2019s engagement or revenue, Huffman again downplayed the effect by stating: \u201cWe\n\n25\n 4\n The Motion mistakenly relies on inapposite cases concerning omissions, not downplaying of risks.\n26 Motion at 9; see Turocy v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., 2016 WL 4056209, at *10 (C.D. Cal. July\n\n27 25, 2016) (alleged omitted fact was not \u201cat odds with the state of affairs Defendants presented to\n investors\u201d); McGovney v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., 2019 WL 8137143, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7,\n28 2019) (allegation of omission of high turnover fails because it was disclosed).\n -5-\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 13 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 did see an increase in the query term \u2018Reddit\u2019 in our own search dashboard, which says that kind of\n\n 2 despite what happens on the Google side, Internet consumers broadly want to end up on Reddit.\u201d).\n\n 3 These statements misled investors because Google users using the term \u201cReddit\u201d no longer meant\n\n 4 that \u201cthey know they\u2019re going to end up on it\u201d because those users were now being served Reddit\n\n 5 content on Google\u2019s search results page and increasingly did not click through to visit Reddit. \u00b6\u00b627,\n\n 6 36, 46, 58-59. Defendants assert that \u201cPlaintiff pleads no basis for falsity other than its own ipse\n\n 7 dixit\u201d. Motion at 10. Defendants ignore the well-documented allegation that AI Overviews made\n\n 8 Google users significantly less likely to click through to Reddit. \u00b659 (study noting that \u201coutbound\n 9 clicks from Google ~30-40% lower in AI Overviews vs. traditional search results\u201d).\n 2. Defendants\u2019 Truth on the Market Defense Fails\n10\n Defendants claim that the alleged misstatements are not actionable because the risks of\n11\n changes to Google\u2019s search engine to Reddit were \u201cwidely recognized even before the start of the\n12\n Class Period.\u201d Motion at 3; Exs. 4-7. This truth on the market defense fails at the pleading stage.\n13\n \u201c[T]o avoid liability under this theory, \u2019any material information which insiders fail to disclose\n14\n must be transmitted to the public with a degree of intensity and credibility sufficient to effectively\n15\n counterbalance any misleading impression created by the insiders' one-sided representations.\u2019\u201d In\n16\n re Amgen Inc. Sec. Litig., 544 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1025 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting In re Apple\n17\n Computer Sec. Litig., 886 F.2d 1109, 1116 (9th Cir. 1989)). \u201cAs a general rule, the truth-on-the-\n18\n market defense is intensely fact-specific, so courts rarely dismiss a complaint on this basis.\u201d Id.\n19\n Defendants make no attempt to satisfy their heavy burden to show any such information was\n20\n conveyed with the necessary degree of intensity and credibility sufficient to counter-balance\n21\n Defendants\u2019 misstatements. See Sneed v. AcelRx Pharms., Inc., 2023 WL 4412164, at *6 (N.D. Cal.\n22\n July 7, 2023).\n23\n The court\u2019s holding in Bos. Ret. Sys. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2020 WL 4569846, at *6 (N.D.\n24\n Cal. Aug. 7, 2020), rejecting the defendants\u2019 truth on the market defense, is instructive. The\n25\n defendants in Uber attached 26 articles to their motion to dismiss in an attempt to show that \u201cthe\n26\n market was on notice about the risks of investing in it.\u201d Id. The court rejected this defense, noting\n27\n that \u201cit is not available at the motion to dismiss stage\u201d because it is an attack on materiality that \u201cis\n28\n -6-\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 14 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 a matter for trial\u201d. Id. (citing In re Thoratec Corp. Sec. Litig., 2006 WL 1305226, at *4 (N.D. Cal.\n\n 2 May 11, 2006) and Connecticut Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds v. Amgen Inc., 660 F.3d 1170, 1177 (9th\n\n 3 Cir. 2011) and quoting Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 249 (1988); see also Ganino v. Citizens\n\n 4 Utilities Co., 228 F.3d 154, 167 (2d Cir. 2000) (\u201cThe truth-on-the-market defense is intensely fact-\n\n 5 specific and is rarely an appropriate basis for dismissing a \u00a7 10(b) complaint for failure to plead\n\n 6 materiality.\u201d). Further, \u201cinvestors are not generally required to look beyond a given document to\n\n 7 discover what is true and what is not.\u201d Uber, 2020 WL 4569846, at *6 (quoting Miller v. Thane\n\n 8 Int\u2019l, Inc., 519 F.3d 879, 887 (9th Cir. 2008)). The same should hold here.\n 9 Finally, Defendants\u2019 citations to risk disclosures in Reddit\u2019s SEC filings are similarly\n10 unavailing. Motion at 3. Defendants explicitly disavowed those risk warnings in their comments to\n\n11 investors and analysts. \u00b642 (in response to analyst question about Google\u2019s changes being\n\n12 problematic for Reddit, Huffman stated \u201cthere\u2019s zero concern from us in this department\u201d); \u00b650\n\n13 (Huffman stated that LLMs evolving search on the internet poses no long-term threat to Reddit).\n\n14 Even if these statements were opinions, they would still be actionable because they did not \u201cfairly\n\n15 align\u201d with information Defendants possessed at the time they made the statements. Glazer Cap.\n\n16 Mgmt., L.P. v. Forescout Techs., Inc., 63 F.4th 747, 764 (9th Cir. 2023) (\u201cThese concrete assurances\n\n17 did not \u2018fairly align[ ] with the information in [defendant\u2019s] possession at the time\u2019 and are therefore\n\n18 actionable\u201d) (quoting Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund, 575\n\n19 U.S. 175, 188-89 (2015)). Defendants assert that Defendants \u201cdid not downplay or deny risk in any\n\n20 way,\u201d but the Motion fails to address these alleged misstatements. Motion at 8. Further, to the extent\n\n21 the Motion asserts these statements are inactionable puffery (Motion at 11), such argument fails\n\n22 because a CEO stating that the Company has \u201czero concern\u201d over an obvious risk is material to\n\n23 investors. See, e.g., Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Life Wealth Mgmt., Inc., 2012 WL 12919299, at *5\n\n24 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012) (rejecting argument that the defendant\u2019s statement that he had \u201cno\n\n25 concern\u201d regarding the risk of an investment is non-actionable puffery).\n\n26 B. Plaintiff Adequately Alleges Scienter\n\n27 To adequately plead scienter, a complaint must \u201callege that the defendants made false or\n\n28 misleading statements either intentionally or with deliberate recklessness.\u201d In re Zoom Sec. Litig.,\n -7-\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 15 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 2022 WL 484974, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2022) (Donato, J.) (quoting Zucco Partners, LLC v.\n\n 2 Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 991 (9th Cir. 2009). The \u201cinquiry . . . is whether all of the facts\n\n 3 alleged, taken collectively, give rise to a strong inference of scienter, not whether any individual\n\n 4 allegation, scrutinized in isolation, meets that standard.\u201d Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 322\u2013 23. A \u201cstrong\n\n 5 inference\u201d is raised when \u201ca reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at\n\n 6 least as compelling as any plausible opposing inference\u201d of nonfraudulent intent. Id. at 310. The\n\n 7 scienter inference \u201cneed not be irrefutable . . . or even the most plausible,\u201d and no \u201csmoking-gun\u201d\n\n 8 is required. Id. at 324\u201326.\n 9 Crucially, Defendants fail to offer any competing non-fraudulent inference. Instead of\n10 identifying any plausible innocent explanation, Defendants improperly seek to \u201cattack individual\n\n11 allegations in isolation,\u201d which \u201ccannot overcome the overwhelming evidence drawn from a\n\n12 holistic view.\u201d In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., 704 F.3d 694, 710 (9th Cir. 2012).\n\n13 1. Core Operations Establishes Strong Inference of Scienter\n\n14 \u201cThe core operations theory . . . presumes that \u2018corporate officers have knowledge of the\n\n15 critical core operation of their companies.\u201d Prodanova v. H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, 993 F.3d\n\n16 1097, 1111 (9th Cir. 2021). \u201cCore operations allegations support a strong inference of scienter in\n\n17 three circumstances: \u201c(1) when they, along with other allegations, support a cogent and compelling\n\n18 inference of scienter\u201d as part of a court's holistic review of a plaintiff's allegation; \u201c(2) when [the\n\n19 allegations] are themselves particular and suggest that the defendants had actual access to the\n\n20 disputed information; and (3) in the \u2018rare circumstances\u2019 when [the allegations] are not\n\n21 particularized, but \u2018the nature of the relevant fact is of such prominence that it would be absurd to\n\n22 suggest that management was without knowledge of the matter.\u2019\u201dConstr. Laborers Pension Tr. of\n\n23 Greater St. Louis v. Funko Inc, 166 F.4th 805, 831 (9th Cir. 2026) (quoting Prodanova, 993 F.3d\n\n24 at 1111).\n\n25 Here, it would be absurd to suggest that Huffman, Vollero, and Wong were unaware of the\n\n26 materially reduced click-through rate caused by Google\u2019s implementation of AI Overviews. Reddit\n\n27 earns over 90% of its revenue from advertising, and it depends on traffic to generate advertising\n\n28 revenue. \u00b616. At least 40% of Reddit\u2019s traffic comes from Google. \u00b634. Reddit\u2019s valuation is based\n -8-\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 16 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 in large part on its ability to attract logged-out users and convert them to logged-in users. \u00b6\u00b618-19.\n\n 2 Most of Reddit\u2019s logged-out traffic comes from Google, which means the Company is dependent\n\n 3 on traffic from Google for its growth. \u00b6\u00b625, 43, 45, 66. See Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. of Greater\n\n 4 St. Louis v. Funko Inc, 166 F.4th 805, 832 (9th Cir. 2026) (reversing dismissal, in part, and finding\n\n 5 the complaint adequately alleged scienter under core operations doctrine because the company\u2019s\n\n 6 \u201cbusiness model, its ability to effectively manage inventory was critical to its business operations,\n\n 7 and a rational fact finder could find that it would be absurd for [the company\u2019s] CEO or CFO not\n\n 8 to have closely monitored the company\u2019s management of its inventory\u201d). Reddit allows Google to\n 9 train its AI on Reddit\u2019s data \u2013 for which Google pays Reddit $60 million per year.\n\n10 The incoming traffic from Google to Reddit was all well-known facts to Reddit\u2019s\n11 management because it determined the fate of the Company. See AMI \u2013 Gov\u2019t Emps. Provident\n\n12 Fund Mgmt. Co. Ltd. v. Alphabet Inc., 2025 WL 899959, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025) (\u201cBecause\n\n13 the FAN Agreement was \u2018existential\u2019 to Google in 2017, it is a fair inference that the CEO of\n\n14 Google\u2014who admits that he reviews \u2018at a high level [ ] all the important decisions\u2019 Google\n\n15 makes\u2014would have been aware of the basic terms of the FAN Agreement at the time it was being\n\n16 negotiated.\u201d). Courts have found a strong inference of scienter based on the core operations theory\n\n17 in less obvious situations. See Berson v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc., 527 F.3d 982, 987, 989 (9th\n\n18 Cir. 2008) (finding it \u201chard to believe that [the CEO and CFO] would not have known about stop-\n\n19 work orders that allegedly halted tens of millions of dollars of the company\u2019s work\u201d); Steamfitters\n\n20 Local 449 v. Extreme Networks, Inc., 2026 WL 817221, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2026)\n\n21 (magnitude of revenue loss coupled with allegations that defendants reviewed real-time databases\n\n22 sufficient to invoke core operations doctrine); Blake v. Canoo Inc., 2025 WL 2992263, at *16 (C.D.\n\n23 Cal. Oct. 22, 2025) (core operations pled where \u201callegations regarding the importance of the\n\n24 engineering services pipeline to Canoo\u2019s three-pronged, phased go-to-market strategy, it would be\n\n25 absurd to suggest that the Individual Defendants, Kranz, Balciunas, and Aquila, were not aware of\n\n26 the collapse of the pipeline in December 2020\u201d); In re PG&E Corp. Sec. Litig., 2025 WL 2781745,\n\n27 at *21 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2025) (\u201cthe Officer Defendants must have known of a prominent issue\n\n28 like wildfire regulatory violations that would expose PG&E to severe financial penalties and\n -9-\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 17 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 potentially threaten its viability as a going concern\u201d); Azar v. Yelp, Inc., 2018 WL 6182756, at *20\n\n 2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2018) (allegations showing that local advertising program was \u201ca central\n\n 3 component of Yelp\u2019s operations\u201d and was \u201cprominent enough that it would be absurd to suggest\n\n 4 that top management was unaware of the\u201d adverse facts); In re Montage Tech. Grp. Ltd. Sec. Litig.,\n\n 5 78 F. Supp. 3d 1215, 1227 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (\u201cit would be absurd to suggest\u201d that management did\n\n 6 not know their largest distributor was a related party, where their transactions accounted for 71%\n\n 7 of the company\u2019s revenue).\n\n 8 In short, the impact of losing a significant amount of traffic from Google was \u201cprominent\n 9 enough that it would be absurd to suggest that top management was without knowledge of the\n\n10 matter.\u201d Berson v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc., 527 F.3d 982, 989 (9th Cir. 2008). 5\n 2. Defendants Knew or Had Access to Contrary Information\n11\n \u201cThe most direct way to show both that a statement was false when made and that the party\n12\n making the statement knew that it was false is via contemporaneous reports or data, available to the\n13\n party, which contradict the statement.\u201d Nursing Home Pension Fund, Loc. 144 v. Oracle Corp., 380\n14\n F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2004). In the Ninth Circuit, \u201can assertion that defendants were unaware\n15\n of the alleged issues can be \u2018directly contradicted by the fact that [they] specifically addressed it in\n16\n [their] statement[s].\u2019\u201d Roberti v. OSI Sys., Inc., 2015 WL 1985562, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2015).\n17\n \u201cBy making \u2018detailed factual statement [s], contradicting important data to which [the Individual\n18\n Defendants] had access, a strong inference arises that [they] knowingly misled the public as to its\n19\n clear meaning.\u2019\u201d Id.; see also Ohio Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2024 WL 4353049,\n20\n at *18 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2024 ()Defendants Zuckerberg, Newton, and Davis publicly and directly\n21\n addressed the research on Instagram's harm to young users, suggesting that they had access to the\n22\n relevant information); Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 1115, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2017)\n23\n (scienter adequately pleaded where core operations allegations were accompanied by defendant\u2019s\n24\n statements about DAU that \u201cstrongly imply that he had access to the disputed information\u201d).\n25\n The Complaint details that Huffman and Wong each provided detailed statements\n26\n\n27 5\n The SAC adequately alleges scienter against Sable because \u201c[t]he scienter of a corporation can be\n28 imputed from that of its officers.\u201d S.E.C. v. Platforms Wireless Int\u2019l Corp., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1091,\n 1096 (S.D. Cal. 2008).\n - 10 -\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 18 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 concerning Reddit\u2019s traffic from Google, its importance to the Company, and Google\u2019s\n\n 2 implementation of AI Overviews. \u00b6\u00b624, 26, 31-35, 38-40, 42-43, 49-51, 65-68. Huffman also stated\n\n 3 that he monitors Reddit\u2019s \u201csearch dashboard\u201d showing the provenance of incoming traffic. \u00b643.\n\n 4 The individual defendants\u2019 knowledge of Reddit\u2019s traffic from Google is corroborated by\n\n 5 two confidential witnesses (\u201cCWs\u201d). CW 1, a senior data scientist at Reddit, stated that Reddit\u2019s\n\n 6 internal metrics, including DAUq, were available to senior employees to view via a dashboard in a\n\n 7 platform called Hex. \u00b669. Hex allowed employees to see the volume of traffic coming to Reddit\n\n 8 from Google as compared to other platforms. Id. CW 2, a sales manager at Reddit, stated that sales\n 9 managers were provided with a Google Slides presentation outlining Reddit\u2019s talking points about\n\n10 the impact of Google\u2019s AI Overviews. \u00b670. The deck instructed sales managers to tell clients that\n\n11 users entering \u201cReddit\u201d into Google Searches would ultimately click through to Reddit because\n\n12 they\u2019re \u201cnot looking for non-human answers\u201d and \u201cwant to see what real people are talking about.\u201d\n\n13 Id. Sales managers and representatives would risk getting \u201cdocked points\u201d in their evaluations if\n\n14 they failed to repeat the slide. Id;\n\n15 Defendants\u2019 attempt to ignore the CW allegations fails. In In re Quality Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n16 865 F.3d 1130, 1145 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal, in part, and found a\n\n17 strong inference of scienter pled where \u201cstatements by confidential witnesses establish that\n\n18 members of executive-level management, including individual defendants, had access to and used\n\n19 reports documenting in real time the decline in sales during the Class Period.\u201d The cases cited in\n\n20 the Motion are inapposite. Motion at 12; Police Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 759\n\n21 F.3d 1051, 1063 (9th Cir. 2014) (witnesses did not detail contents of reports); Even if Individual\n\n22 Defendants had knowledge of all of the company's operations, Plaintiff has not identified any\n\n23 particularized facts that Individual Defendants knew that would undermine the truth of any\n\n24 challenged statement. Dolly v. GitLab Inc., 2025 WL 2372965, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025).\n\n25 Defendants were also fully aware that the Company\u2019s data licensing agreement with Google\n\n26 allowed Google to display Reddit\u2019s data on Google\u2019s search result page. See, e.g., ECF 50-11 at 9\n\n27 (Huffman commenting on data licensing deal with Google, stating \u201cwe\u2019re very considerate in the\n\n28 deals about what our data is used for, how it\u2019s displayed\u201d). Indeed, The May 19 Wells Fargo analyst\n - 11 -\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 19 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 report stated that Reddit\u2019s decision to enter into the licensing agreement was short-sighted and\n\n 2 ultimately hurt the Company\u2019s long-term growth. \u00b6\u00b654-55; ECF 50-19 at 1.\n 3. The Inference of Scienter Is At Least As Compelling as Defendants\u2019\n 3 Suggested Inference\n 4 The SAC pleads a strong inference of scienter. However, even if each individual scienter\n 5 allegations are insufficient, the Court must \u201cconduct a \u2018holistic\u2019 review of the same allegations to\n\n 6 determine whether the insufficient allegations combine to create a strong inference of intentional\n\n 7 conduct or deliberate recklessness.\u201d New Mexico State Inv. Council v. Ernst & Young LLP, 641\n\n 8 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2011) (reversing dismissal and finding a strong inference of scienter).\n 9 The holistic review must consider even \u201c[v]ague or ambiguous allegations\u201d because \u201cfederal courts\n\n10 certainly need not close their eyes to circumstances that are probative of scienter viewed with a\n\n11 practical and common-sense perspective.\u201d S. Ferry LP, No. 2 v. Killinger, 542 F.3d 776, 784 (9th\n\n12 Cir. 2008). \u201c[T]he court\u2019s job is not to scrutinize each allegation in isolation but to assess all the\n\n13 allegations holistically.\u201d Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 326. \u201cViewed in isolation, any one allegation may not\n\n14 compel an inference of scienter. However, when we consider the allegations holistically, the\n\n15 inference that [defendants] were deliberately reckless as to the truth of their financial reports and\n\n16 related public statements is at least as compelling as any opposing inference.\u201d VeriFone, 704 F.3d\n\n17 at 698\u201399 (reversing dismissal and finding scienter).\n\n18 Defendants assert that Defendants \u201crepeatedly warned investors about Google update risks\u201d\n19 and \u201caddressed specific Google updates during their earnings calls, providing real-time information\n\n20 to investors.\u201d Motion at 14. But that\u2019s not accurate. Instead, Defendants explicitly disavowed the\n\n21 Company\u2019s own risk warnings in their comments to investors and analysts. \u00b642 (in response to\n\n22 analyst question about Google\u2019s changes being problematic for Reddit, Huffman stated \u201cthere\u2019s\n\n23 zero concern from us in this department\u201d); \u00b650 (Huffman stated that LLMs evolving search on the\n\n24 internet poses no long-term threat to Reddit). During the Class Period, Defendants never addressed\n\n25 the fact that AI Overviews materially reduced the click-through rate for Google users and never\n\n26 acknowledged the effect this change would have on the Company\u2019s growth or revenue. Analysts\n\n27 and investors were obviously concerned about these issues, as evidenced by their repeated questions\n\n28\n - 12 -\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 20 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 on the topic, but Defendants always downplayed these concerns as normal volatility and\n\n 2 fluctuations that \u201chappen all the time.\u201d\n\n 3 Defendants\u2019 constant downplaying of the effect of AI Overviews in response to specific\n 4 questions from analysts and investors contributes to a strong inference of scienter. See Institutional\n\n 5 Investors Grp. v. Avaya, Inc., 564 F.3d 242, 270 (3d Cir. 2009) (\u201cGiven the specificity and\n\n 6 repetition of the analysts' questions, [defendant's] position as Chief Financial Officer, and the\n\n 7 alleged state of [the company\u2019s] business at the time the questions were asked, there is a strong\n\n 8 inference that [defendant\u2019s] behavior reached this threshold of recklessness.\u201d); In re Fibrogen, Inc.,\n 9 2022 WL 2793032, at *24 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2022) (\u201cSuch specific answers to specific questions\n\n10 regarding the non-inferiority margin and analysis plans suggest that Defendants knew their\n\n11 importance yet consciously attempted to give a favorable impression while hiding their\n\n12 manipulation and unfavorable analyses\u201d).\n\n13 C. Plaintiff Adequately Alleges Loss Causation\n14 To plead loss causation, the Supreme Court simply requires \u201csome indication of the loss and\n15 the causal connection\u201d to the alleged fraud. Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 347\n\n16 (2005). \u201cOne way to prove loss causation is to show that the defendant's fraud was revealed to the\n\n17 market through one or more \u2018corrective disclosures\u2019 and that the company\u2019s stock price declined as\n\n18 a result. At the pleading stage, the plaintiff's task is to allege with particularity facts \u2018plausibly\n\n19 suggesting\u2019 that both showings can be made.\u201d In re Zoom Sec. Litig., 2022 WL 484974, at *4 (N.D.\n\n20 Cal. Feb. 16, 2022) (Donato, J.) (quoting In re BofI Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., 977 F.3d 781, 786,\n\n21 791 (9th Cir. 2020)).\n\n22 \u201c[S]o long as the complaint alleges facts that, if taken as true, plausibly establish loss\n\n23 causation, a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is inappropriate.\u201d In re Gilead, 536 F.3d at 1057. In fact, \u201c[t]he\n\n24 misrepresentation need not be the sole reason for the decline in value of the securities, but it must\n\n25 be a \u2018substantial cause.\u2019\u201d Id. at 1055. A corrective disclosure need not be a mirror image of the\n\n26 earlier representation. In re BofI Holding, Inc. Sec. Litig., 977 F.3d 781, 791 n.3 (9th Cir. 2020).\n\n27 \u201cThe ultimate issue is whether the defendant\u2019s misstatement, as opposed to some other fact,\n\n28\n - 13 -\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 21 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 foreseeably caused the plaintiff\u2019s loss.\u201d Lloyd v. CVB Fin. Corp., 811 F.3d 1200, 1210 (9th Cir.\n\n 2 2016).\n\n 3 The Complaint alleges that each of the alleged corrective disclosures are directly tied to the\n\n 4 alleged misstatements and omissions. The Motion fails to undermine these allegations 6.\n 1. The May 1 Earnings Call and May 2 Deutsche Bank Reports are\n 5 Corrective Disclosures\n 6 On the May 1, 2025, earnings call, in response to a question about the effect of Google\u2019s\n 7 changes on Reddit\u2019s user growth, Defendants disclosed that the changes to Google\u2019s search had\n\n 8 caused disappointing DAUq growth for Reddit in April 2025. This disclosure corrected Defendants\u2019\n 9 misleading statements on the October 2024 and February 2025 earnings calls downplaying any\n\n10 concerns about Google\u2019s changes affecting Reddit. \u201c[A] corrective disclosure need not consist of\n\n11 an admission of fraud by the defendant or a formal finding of fraud by a government agency.\u201d In\n\n12 re BofI Holding, Inc. Sec. Litig., 977 F.3d 781, 790 (9th Cir. 2020). The market did not react to\n\n13 Reddit\u2019s general \u201cpoor financial health\u201d (Motion at 14-15); it reacted to corrective information\n\n14 concerning the effect of Google\u2019s search changes on Reddit\u2019s traffic.\n\n15 The May 2 Deutsche Bank report disclosed that \u201cWhile some of this slowdown is due to\n16 Google algorithm changes, the bigger impact seems to be from AI features being built into Google's\n\n17 search product which may be narrowing the need to traverse to Reddit\u2019s site.\u201d This corrected\n\n18 Defendants\u2019 repeated conflation of changes to Google\u2019s search algorithm with Google\u2019s\n\n19 implementation of AI Overviews. Reddit\u2019s share price fell from $118.79 on May 1, 2025, to\n\n20 $113.83 on May 2, 2025, a decline of about 4.2%. \u00b653.\n\n21 2. The May 19 Wells Fargo and May 20 Baird Analyst Reports are\n Corrective Disclosures\n22\n The May 19 Wells Fargo downgrade and May 20 Baird downgrade both corrected\n23\n Defendants\u2019 misleading statements downplaying the effect of AI Overviews on Reddit\u2019s growth\n24\n and revenue. Wells Fargo disclosed that, contrary to Defendants\u2019 assertions, \u201cthe recent user\n25\n disruptions Reddit observed in March / April are different from prior periodic search algorithm\n26\n changes\u201d and \u201cpos[e] serious threats to Reddit's logged-out traffic.\u201d \u00b6\u00b654-55. The Baird report\n27\n\n28 6 The Motion does not challenge the February 12, 2025, corrective disclosure. \u00b644.\n - 14 -\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 51 Filed 03/30/26 Page 22 of 22\n\n\n\n\n 1 disclosed that \u201coutbound clicks from Google ~30-40% lower in AI Overviews vs. traditional search\n\n 2 results.\u201d \u00b659.\n\n 3 The Motion asserts that these reports were merely \u201crepackaging of already-publicly\n\n 4 available information,\u201d (Motion at 15), but Defendants fail to identify what information was already\n\n 5 public. Further, analyst downgrades in the aftermath of public reporting can serve as corrective\n\n 6 disclosures because they provide \u201cadditional or more authoritative fraud-related information that\n\n 7 deflated the stock price.\u201d In re Apollo Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 2010 WL 5927988, at *1 (9th Cir. June\n\n 8 23, 2010).\n 9 D. Plaintiff Adequately Alleges Control Person Liability\n10 Plaintiff has adequately pleaded control person liability under Section 20(a) by alleging\n11 primary violations and that Defendants were in positions of control. \u00b6\u00b621-23; see In re BofI\n\n12 Holding, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 2257980, at *21 (S.D. Cal. May 23, 2017).\n\n13 IV. CONCLUSION\n14 The Motion should be denied in its entirety. Alternatively, if the Court grants any portion\n15 of the Motion, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend. 7\n\n16 Dated: March 30, 2026 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n17 /s/ Daniel Tyre-Karp\n18 Daniel Tyre-Karp (pro hac vice)\n Laurence M. Rosen\n19 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor\n New York, NY 10016\n20 Telephone: (212) 686-1060\n Facsimile: (212) 202-3827\n21\n Email: dtyrekarp@rosenlegal.com\n22 lmrosen@rosenlegal.com\n\n23 Lead Counsel for Plaintiff\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26 7 See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that leave to amend should be\n freely granted unless \u201cthe pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts\u201d);\n27\n Osher v. JNI Corp., 183 F. App\u2019x 604, 605 (9th Cir. 2006) (\u201c[l]eave to amend is to be granted with\n28 extreme liberality in securities fraud cases, because the heightened pleading requirements imposed\n by the PSLRA are so difficult to meet\u201d).\n - 15 -\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO DISMISS\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-15T01:19:47.903458-07:00","document_number":"51","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026938404","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Opposition/Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-31T00:05:17.512787-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:19.519056-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-30","time_filed":"23:50:04","entry_number":51,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":158,"description":"OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 50 MOTION to Dismiss ) filed byPhlexicon Phlexicon. (Tyre-Karp, Daniel) (Filed on 3/30/2026) (Entered: 03/30/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/453906374/","id":453906374,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/468807649/","id":468807649,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-02-13T20:03:59.331687-08:00","date_modified":"2026-08-23T00:33:23.893204-07:00","sha1":"cc819bb2b04ab411ece7183a05a8db9708d1d1cd","page_count":21,"file_size":861381,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.451450/gov.uscourts.cand.451450.50.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.451450/gov.uscourts.cand.451450.50.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 STEPHEN P. BLAKE (SBN 260069)\n LAURA K. LIN (SBN 281542)\n 2 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP\n One Market Plaza, Suite 3800\n 3 San Francisco, California 94105\n Telephone: (415) 426-7210\n 4 Facsimile: (415) 426-7301\n Email: sblake@stblaw.com\n 5\n 6 JONATHAN K. YOUNGWOOD (SBN 350373)\n SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP\n 7 425 Lexington Avenue\n New York, New York 10017\n 8 Telephone: (212) 455-2000\n Facsimile: (212) 455-2502\n 9 Email: jyoungwood@stblaw.com\n\n10 Attorneys for Defendants Reddit, Inc., Steven\n Huffman, Andrew Vollero, and Jennifer Wong\n11\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n13 ANTHONY JOSEPH TAMRAZ, JR., Case No. 3:25-cv-05144-JD\n Individually and on Behalf of All Others\n14 Similarly Situated,\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 NOTICE OF MOTION\n15 Plaintiff, AND MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF\n POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN\n16 v. SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION\n TO DISMISS THE AMENDED CLASS\n17 REDDIT, INC., STEVEN HUFFMAN, ACTION COMPLAINT FOR\n ANDREW VOLLERO, and JENNIFER VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL\n18 WONG, SECURITIES LAWS\n19 Defendants. Judge: Hon. James Donato\n20 Date: May 21, 2026\n Time: 11:00 a.m.\n21 Courtroom: 11\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n Page\n 2\n NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO DISMISS ....................................................................... 1\n 3\n STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED .............................................................................. 1\n 4\n INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1\n 5\n BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 2\n 6\n ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 6\n 7\n I. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT PLEAD AN ACTIONABLE\n 8 MISREPRESENTATION ....................................................................................... 6\n 9 A. Plaintiff\u2019s Scattershot Pleading Is Plainly Deficient ................................... 6\n10 B. Reddit\u2019s Accurate Historical Reporting and Quarterly Forecasts Are\n Not Actionable ............................................................................................ 7\n11\n C. Reddit\u2019s Google-Related Statements Are Not Actionable .......................... 7\n12\n 1. Reddit Did Not Mislead Investors About Google-Related Risks;\n13 It Explicitly Warned of Such Risks, And Investors Were Well\n Aware .............................................................................................. 8\n14\n 2. Reddit\u2019s General Statements About Google Are Not Actionable ... 8\n15\n 3. Reddit\u2019s Specific Statements About Google\u2019s Q4 Algorithm\n16 Updates Are Not Actionable ........................................................... 9\n17 D. Miscellaneous \u201cMisstatements\u201d Challenged by Plaintiff Are Not\n Actionable ................................................................................................. 10\n18\n II. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLEAD A STRONG INFERENCE OF SCIENTER .... 11\n19\n A. Plaintiff Fails to Allege Motive and Opportunity ..................................... 12\n20\n B. Plaintiff Fails to Allege Circumstantial Evidence of Scienter .................. 12\n21\n C. The Balance of Inferences Supports a Finding of No Scienter ................. 13\n22\n III. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLEAD LOSS CAUSATION ........................................ 14\n23\n A. The May 1 Earnings Call Is Not an Actionable Corrective\n24 Disclosure .................................................................................................. 14\n25 B. The May 2 Deutsche Bank, May 19 Wells Fargo and May 20 Baird\n Analyst Reports Are Not Actionable Corrective Disclosures ................... 15\n26\n IV. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 20(A) .............. 15\n27\n28 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 15\n\n -i-\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n Page(s)\n 2\n CASES\n 3\n Bodri v. GoPro, Inc.,\n 4 252 F. Supp. 3d 912 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................... 7\n 5 Bonanno v. Cellular Biomedicine Grp., Inc., 2016 WL 14585753 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2,\n 2016)........................................................................................................................................ 15\n 6\n Bonanno v. Cellular Biomedicine Grp., Inc.,\n 7 2016 WL 2937483 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2016) ........................................................................ 15\n 8 Brody v. Transitional Hosps. Corp.,\n 280 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................................... 8\n 9\n City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Align Tech., Inc.,\n10 856 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................... 15\n11 City of Royal Oak Ret. Sys. v. Juniper Networks Inc.,\n 880 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................. 11\n12\n Dolly v. GitLab Inc.,\n13 2025 WL 2372965 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) ........................................................................ 13\n14 Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo,\n 544 U.S. 336 (2005) ................................................................................................................ 14\n15\n Greenspan v. Qazi,\n16 2021 WL 2577526 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2021) .............................................................. 6, 10, 12\n17 Grigsby v. BofI Holding, Inc.,\n 979 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................. 15\n18\n In re BofI Holding, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n19 977 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................... 14\n20 In re HP Sec. Litig.,\n 2013 WL 6185529 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2013) ........................................................................ 12\n21\n In re Nektar Therapeutics,\n22 2020 WL 3962004 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2020) ......................................................................... 15\n23 In re Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Secs. Litig.,\n 697 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 13\n24\n In re Shoretel Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n25 2009 WL 248326 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2009) ............................................................................. 15\n26 In re Skechers USA, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 2004 WL 1080174 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2004)........................................................................... 12\n27\n In re Terravia Holdings Inc.,\n28 2020 WL 553939 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2020) ............................................................................... 7\n - ii -\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 In re Textainer P\u2019ship Sec. Litig.,\n 2005 WL 3801596 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2005) .......................................................................... 8\n 2\n In re Zoom Sec. Litig.,\n 3 2022 WL 484974 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2022) ............................................................................. 6\n\n 4 Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,\n 899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................... 8\n 5\n Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano,\n 6 563 U.S. 27 (2011) .................................................................................................................... 8\n\n 7 Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc.,\n 540 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 7, 10\n 8\n McGovney v. Aerohive Networks, Inc.,\n 9 2019 WL 8137143 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2019) ............................................................................ 9\n\n10 Monachelli v. Hortonworks,\n 225 F. Supp. 3d 1045 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .................................................................................... 7\n11\n Pauly v. Becker,\n12 2024 WL 628437 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2024) ............................................................................. 6\n\n13 Police Ret. Sys. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,\n 759 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................. 7, 13\n14\n Prodanova v. H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC,\n15 993 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................. 12\n\n16 Ronconi v. Larkin,\n 253 F.3d 423 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................... 13\n17\n Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,\n18 551 U.S. 308 (2007) .................................................................................................... 12, 13, 14\n\n19 Turocy v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.,\n 2016 WL 4056209 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2016) ........................................................................... 9\n20\n Valenti v. Dfinity USA Rsch. LLC,\n21 2025 WL 902031 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2025) ...................................................................... 6, 12\n\n22 Wozniak v. Align Tech., Inc.,\n 850 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................. 11\n23\n Zucco Partners LLC v. Digimarc Corp.,\n24 552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 11\n\n25 STATUTES\n\n26 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(b)(1) .................................................................................................................. 6\n\n27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).......................................................................................................................... 6\n\n28\n - iii -\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO DISMISS\n\n 2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:\n\n 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 21, 2026 at 11:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as they\n\n 4 may be heard before the Honorable James Donato, Defendants Reddit, Inc. (\u201cReddit\u201d or the\n\n 5 \u201cCompany\u201d), Steven Huffman (\u201cHuffman\u201d), Jennifer Wong (\u201cWong\u201d), and Andrew Vollero\n\n 6 (\u201cVollero\u201d) (together, \u201cDefendants\u201d) shall and hereby do move to dismiss the Amended Class\n\n 7 Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (Dkt. No. 48) (\u201cComplaint\u201d or\n\n 8 \u201cAC\u201d) filed on December 15, 2025 by Lead Plaintiff Phlexicon Phlexicon (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d). This\n\n 9 Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, Motion, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities and\n\n10 Exhibit A attached thereto, the Request for Judicial Notice, the Declaration of Stephen Blake\n\n11 (\u201cBlake Decl.\u201d) and exhibits attached thereto (\u201cEx.\u201d), all records and papers on file in this action,\n\n12 and any evidence or oral argument offered at a hearing on this Motion.\n\n13 Defendants seek an order dismissing the Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rules 9(b)\n\n14 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (\u201cFRCP\u201d) and the Private Securities Litigation\n\n15 Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d) for failure to state a claim.\n\n16 STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED\n\n17 1. Failure To Plead a Material Misrepresentation. Whether Plaintiff\u2019s claims under\n\n18 Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the\n\n19 \u201cExchange Act\u201d) should be dismissed on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to plead particularized\n\n20 facts showing that any Defendant made a materially false or misleading statement or omission.\n\n21 2. Failure To Plead Scienter. Whether Plaintiff\u2019s Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and\n\n22 Section 20(a) claims should be dismissed on the additional, independent ground that Plaintiff has\n\n23 failed to plead particularized facts giving rise to a \u201cstrong inference\u201d that any Defendant made any\n\n24 misrepresentation with scienter (i.e., knowingly or with deliberate recklessness).\n\n25 3. Loss Causation. Whether Plaintiff\u2019s Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and Section\n\n26 20(a) claims should be dismissed on the additional, independent ground that Plaintiff has failed to\n\n27 plead particularized facts showing that the revelation of false facts or concealed risks to the market\n\n28 caused investor losses.\n\n -1-\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES\n\n 2 INTRODUCTION\n\n 3 The crux of Plaintiff\u2019s case is that Reddit failed to caution investors about Google\u2019s ongoing\n\n 4 rollout of artificial intelligence (\u201cAI\u201d) search offerings. But the potential impact of Google\u2019s\n\n 5 updates on search traffic was widely known and, indeed, something Reddit itself had explicitly\n\n 6 warned of in its SEC filings. Nevertheless, Plaintiff attempts to mount a case in its \u201cthrow\n\n 7 everything at the wall\u201d AC by quoting lengthy portions of oral statements from Reddit\u2019s Q3 and\n\n 8 Q4 2024 earnings calls and claiming that Defendants \u201cdownplayed\u201d risk and/or overstated\n\n 9 \u201coutlook.\u201d But Plaintiff entirely fails to specifically plead why these statements misled, let alone\n\n10 that they were false. And, of course, Plaintiff\u2019s theory is ultimately belied by the reality that\n\n11 Reddit\u2019s revenues and users grew in Q4 2024 and Q1 2025, and that Reddit performed in line with\n\n12 its own quarterly forecasts and market expectations. Copypasta walls of text and cherry-picked\n\n13 analyst reports speculating about Google AI\u2019s impact on Reddit in Q2 2025 fall far short of the\n\n14 requirement to plead specific facts demonstrating falsity and an intent to mislead. The AC should\n\n15 be dismissed:\n\n16 First, Plaintiff fails to particularly plead any false or misleading statement. Plaintiff does\n\n17 not challenge Reddit\u2019s results, which exceeded its own quarterly forecasts. And Plaintiff ignores\n\n18 both Reddit\u2019s disclosures warning investors of the specific potential negative impact of Google\n\n19 updates and extensive market commentary discussing this exact risk. Pasting lengthy block quotes\n\n20 from Class Period earnings calls and later-published analyst reports is not a substitute for well-\n\n21 pleaded facts showing that Defendants\u2019 statements misled investors. Plaintiff makes no effort to\n\n22 explain how Defendants\u2019 statements created a false impression for investors, or connect them to\n\n23 analyst concerns about Google\u2019s ongoing updates. Even a cursory look shows that Defendants\u2019\n\n24 statements were: (i) demonstrably true; (ii) non-actionable statements of corporate optimism; and/or\n\n25 (iii) candid reflections on the potential risks and rewards from Google\u2019s updates that in no way\n\n26 misled investors or \u201cdownplayed\u201d the very risks Defendants openly discussed.\n\n27 Second, Plaintiff fails to plead the requisite strong inference of scienter. Indeed, the AC is\n\n28 utterly bereft of scienter allegations. Plaintiff pleads no unusual stock sales or motives to commit\n\n -1-\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 7 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 fraud. Nor does Plaintiff point to any information suggesting that Reddit executives feared Google\n\n 2 AI updates would have dramatic effects on Reddit at the time of the November 2024 and February\n\n 3 2025 earnings calls. Rather, it is apparent that Reddit executives were reacting in real time to a\n\n 4 changing search environment and candidly highlighted the potential effects of Google updates on\n\n 5 user traffic. They did so while underscoring the Company\u2019s resiliency and optimism regarding user\n\n 6 growth. Far from the dire situation Plaintiff portrays, Reddit\u2019s optimism was justified, as the\n\n 7 Company\u2019s earnings and stock price have continued to grow.\n\n 8 Third, Plaintiff fails to plead \u201closs causation\u201d with respect to the purported \u201ccorrective\n\n 9 disclosures\u201d arising from analyst reports on May 2, 19 and 20, 2025. These disclosures were not\n\n10 \u201ccorrective\u201d at all. They did not reveal any previously undisclosed information to the market, but\n\n11 rather reflected new developments and/or speculation about future impact\u2014which are simply not\n\n12 corrective as a matter of law.\n\n13 Throughout the Class Period and thereafter, Reddit has provided its investors with real-time\n\n14 information and its best thinking about the future. The Company has consistently posted strong\n\n15 results that have buoyed its stock price and put the lie to any assertion of securities fraud. Dismissal\n\n16 is warranted, with prejudice, as Plaintiff\u2019s theory is fundamentally ill-pleaded.\n\n17 BACKGROUND\n\n18 A. The Reddit Defendants\n\n19 Reddit is a global community of online communities organized around the shared interests\n\n20 of its members. AC \u00b6 15. It is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Id. \u00b6 7.\n\n21 Defendants are Steven Huffman, the co-founder and CEO; Jennifer Wong, COO; and Andrew\n\n22 Vollero, CFO. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 8-11.\n\n23 B. Reddit\u2019s Business\n\n24 Reddit derives the vast majority of its revenue from advertising sales. Id. \u00b6 16. Reddit\n\n25 reports revenue, user growth, and monetization metrics quarterly, including \u201cdaily active unique\u201d\n\n26 (\u201cDAUq\u201d) and \u201caverage revenue per unique\u201d (\u201cARPU\u201d). Id. \u00b6 17.1 Both DAUq and ARPU grew\n\n27 1\n DAUq identifies the number of users with unique identifiers who have visited Reddit at least once\n28 during a 24-hour period. Ex. 1 (Feb. 13, 2024 Form 10-K for FY 2024 (\u201c10-K\u201d)) at 5. ARPU is the\n quarterly revenue in a given geography divided by the average DAUq in that geography. Id.\n -2-\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 8 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 during the Class Period and thereafter (DAUq grew from 97.2 million in Q3 2024 to 110.4 million\n\n 2 in Q2 2025; ARPU grew from $3.58 to $4.53). Ex. 2 at 1, 6; Ex. 3 at 1, 6.\n\n 3 C. Reddit\u2019s Relationship With Google\n\n 4 A portion of Reddit\u2019s user traffic reaches the platform from search engines like Google;\n\n 5 thus, updates by Google may have downstream effects on Reddit traffic. See id. \u00b6\u00b6 18-23. Both of\n\n 6 these facts were widely recognized even before the start of the Class Period. See, e.g., AC \u00b6 25\n\n 7 (citing Jonathan Vanian, Reddit\u2019s increased reliance on Google traffic has Wall Street Anxious To\n\n 8 See if Visitors Sign Up, CNBC (Aug. 14, 2024) (Ex. 4)); see also Anita Ramaswamy, REUTERS,\n\n 9 Reddit Google searches \u2018how to make money\u2019 (Mar. 13, 2024) (\u201cReddit\u2019s reliance on search\n\n10 engines, specifically \u2026 Google, poses a fundamental risk.\u201d) (Ex. 5). 2\n\n11 Reddit\u2019s public filings explicitly warn investors about the dynamic with Google and avenues\n\n12 for potential competition posed by large language models (\u201cLLMs\u201d):\n\n13 \uf0b7 \u201cChanges in internet search engine algorithms \u2026 could have a negative impact on\n traffic for our website and, ultimately, our business[.]\u201d 10-K at 13.\n14\n \uf0b7 \u201cWe rely, in part, on internet search engines, such as Google, to generate traffic to\n15 our website \u2026 If a major search engine changes its algorithms in a manner that\n negatively affects the search engine ranking of our website \u2026 our business [and]\n16 prospects could be adversely affected.\u201d Id. at 17 (emphasis added).\n17 \uf0b7 \u201c[W]e face competition from [LLMs] such as those built by Google \u2026 Redditors\n may choose to find information using LLMs \u2026 instead of visiting Reddit directly.\u201d\n18 Id. at 16 (emphasis added); see also id. at 11 (\u201cSome users are also turning to LLMs\n such as \u2026 Gemini.\u201d).\n19\n Reddit\u2019s public statements have never shied away from the fact that Google\u2019s updates can\n20\n impact Reddit, or that individual updates may generate \u201cvolatility\u201d or \u201cchop\u201d in DAUq growth:\n21\n \uf0b7 \u201c[Google algorithm changes] come and they go. You never hear me celebrate an\n22 algorithm change or complain about it because they tend to wash out over time \u2026\n We\u2019ll see where the algorithms go.\u201d (Ex. 8 at 6);\n23\n \uf0b7 \u201cLook \u2026 with all of these algorithm changes[], we\u2019ll have to see when we see \u2026\n24 We see some volatility in the \u2026 users as Google evolves and changes.\u201d (id. at 6, 7);\n25\n 2\n26 See also Adam Clark, BARRON\u2019S, Reddit Earnings Got a Google Boost. Why That\u2019s Worrisome\n for the Stock (May 8, 2024) (opining that Reddit must prove its \u201cexplosive growth isn\u2019t dependent\n27 on a Google algorithm change\u2014because that could be susceptible to being reversed or altered\u201d)\n (Ex. 6); Sara Lebow, EMARKETER, Reddit is at the top of Google Search results and growing ad\n28 revenues. Should marketers be taking note? (Sept. 5, 2024) (\u201cGoogle could change its algorithm at\n any time and alter Reddit\u2019s prominence in search results.\u201d) (Ex. 7).\n -3-\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 9 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 \uf0b7 \u201cGoogle is always evolving. In this AI era, they\u2019re doing a bunch of new stuff. I\n don\u2019t think they\u2019ll ever be done.\u201d (Ex. 9 at 8).\n 2\n Just as these statements articulate, Google continuously updates its algorithm. For example,\n 3\n shortly after the start of the Class Period, Google implemented an update \u201c[l]ate in Q4\u201d 2024. See\n 4\n AC \u00b6 38. As Reddit had warned was possible, these Q4 algorithm updates led to a temporary\n 5\n slowdown in DAUq growth, which was reflected in Reddit\u2019s YoY DAUq metrics for Q4 2024. 3\n 6\n However, by the time of Reddit\u2019s Q4 2024 earnings call, DAUq had already \u201crecovered.\u201d Id. \u00b6 38.\n 7\n Meanwhile, Google continued its \u201cimplementation of new AI features\u201d in 2025. See, e.g., AC \u00b6\n 8\n 54; see id. \u00b6 55 (citing Wells Fargo report noting \u201caccelerat[ation]\u201d). 4\n 9\n D. Reddit Reports on Q4 2024\n10\n On February 12, 2025, Reddit reported earnings and metrics for Q4 2024: $427.7 million\n11\n reported revenue outperformed its quarterly revenue forecast of $385M-$400M (Ex. 2 at 2; Ex. 10\n12\n (Feb. 12, 2025 earnings release) at 1); and 101.7 million reported DAUq (39% YoY growth),\n13\n narrowly missing market expectations of 103.1M by 1%. 5 See Ex. 11 (Feb. 12, 2025 Baird Report)\n14\n at 1; Ex. 10 at 1. During Reddit\u2019s earnings call, Huffman explained that \u201c[l]ate in Q4, we did\n15\n experience some volatility from Google Search triggered by a periodic algorithm change,\u201d AC \u00b6\n16\n 38, noting that while he saw \u201cno revenue impact\u201d from the Q4 Algorithm Updates, Reddit expected\n17\n to \u201csee volatility from Google all the time[,] as does everybody.\u201d Id. \u00b6 42.\n18\n E. Reddit Reports on Q1 2025\n19\n On May 1, 2025, Reddit reported earnings and metrics for Q1 2025: $392.4 million reported\n20\n revenue outperformed its quarterly revenue forecast of $360-$370M (Ex. 10 at 2; Ex. 12 (May 1,\n21\n 2025 earnings release) at 1); and 108.1 million reported DAUq (31% YoY growth), beating market\n22\n23 3\n See, e.g., AC \u00b6\u00b6 38 (\u201cLate in Q4, we did experience some volatility from Google Search triggered\n24 by a periodic [Google] algorithm change, but traffic from search has recovered so far in Q1 and\n we\u2019ve regained momentum. What happened wasn\u2019t unusual. Referrals from search fluctuate from\n25 time to time[.]\u201d); 43 (\u201cThis [algorithm change] was particularly interesting because it really was a\n swing down but then a recovery shortly thereafter\u201d); 66 (\u201c[W]e saw some chop at the end of 04,\n26 but in 01, we saw recovery, and we saw good momentum\u201d) (emphases added).\n 4\n See also id. \u00b6\u00b6 57 (citing Baird downgrade, reporting on \u201cnew developments in Google Search \u2026\n27 just[] presented at the Google I/O developer conference\u201d); 49 (Google \u201csearch ecosystem is under\n heavy construction\u201d).\n28 5\n Reddit does not project DAUq in its public filings.\n -4-\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 10 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 expectations by 1%. Ex. 13 (May 2, 2025 Deutsche Bank Report) at 2; Ex. 12 at 1. The market\n\n 2 reacted positively to Reddit\u2019s Q1 earnings report, jumping by up to 18.4% between the 4:00 pm\n\n 3 E.T. report and Reddit\u2019s 5:00 pm E.T. earnings call. Ex. 14.\n\n 4 During the earnings call, Huffman relayed his expectations about the effect of Google\n\n 5 updates in the year ahead, explaining that Reddit \u201cexpect[ed] some bumps along the way from\n\n 6 Google because we\u2019ve already seen a few this year,\u201d and \u201cgiven that the search ecosystem is under\n\n 7 heavy construction, the near-term could be more bumpy than usual.\u201d AC \u00b6 49. Huffman continued\n\n 8 to pre-report what Reddit was then seeing in Q2: \u201cTo give you an early read on Q2 through \u2026\n\n 9 April, we\u2019re seeing total DAUs growing in the high-teens range year-over-year\u201d\u2014a slowdown from\n\n10 the 31% YoY growth from Q1 2024. Id. Reddit\u2019s stock price dropped in after-hours trading, see\n\n11 Ex. 14, and declined further on May 2. Ex. 15.\n\n12 F. May 2, 19 and 20 Analyst Reports\n\n13 A series of analyst reports were released in May repeating Huffman\u2019s comments about\n\n14 Reddit\u2019s Q2 and near-term volatility from Google and speculating about the future impact of\n\n15 Google\u2019s \u201ccontinued AI experimentation in Search.\u201d See AC \u00b6\u00b6 52, 54-60; Exs. 13, 16-17.\n\n16 G. Plaintiff\u2019s Claims\n\n17 Plaintiff does not challenge Reddit\u2019s reported performance or user metrics, and largely\n\n18 ignores the Company\u2019s SEC filings in favor of a scattershot pleading targeting oral statements by\n\n19 Defendants Huffman and Wong during the Q3 2024 and Q4 2024 earnings calls, including:\n\n20 \uf0b7 Accurate statements regarding the general effect of Google AI/algorithm updates on\n (i) Reddit\u2019s business (id. \u00b6\u00b6 33, 34, 35, 42) and (ii) the search traffic that reaches\n21 Reddit from Google (id. \u00b6\u00b6 30-32, 34, 38);\n22 \uf0b7 Accurate statements regarding the specific effects of (i) the Q4 Algorithmic Updates\n on Reddit (id. \u00b6\u00b6 38, 42, 43) and (ii) the Q4 increase in search queries for the term\n23 \u201cReddit\u201d (id. \u00b6\u00b6 38, 43); and\n24 \uf0b7 Miscellaneous inactionable statements, including statements related to addressable\n markets/opportunities for user growth (id. \u00b6\u00b6 39, 40) and ARPU (id. \u00b6 40).\n25\n See also Ex. A (chart, Plaintiff\u2019s alleged misrepresentations). Plaintiff generically claims that these\n26\n statements misled investors because Google\u2019s updates were \u201cdramatically reducing traffic to\n27\n Reddit\u201d and rendered Reddit\u2019s \u201coutlook on user rates and advertising revenues\u201d false. AC \u00b6\u00b6 36,\n28\n -5-\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 11 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 46. In reality, Reddit continues to grow and was traded at $218.50 at the date of the AC\u2014a 128%\n\n 2 increase from May 21, 2025. See Ex. 15.\n\n 3 ARGUMENT\n\n 4 A securities fraud plaintiff must allege: \u201c(1) a material misrepresentation or omission;\n\n 5 (2) scienter; \u2026 and ([3]) loss causation.\u201d Valenti v. Dfinity USA Rsch. LLC, 2025 WL 902031, at\n\n 6 *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2025) (Donato, J.) (citations omitted). It must also satisfy the \u201cdemanding\u201d\n\n 7 \u201cdual pleading requirements of [FRCP] 9(b) and the PSLRA.\u201d Greenspan v. Qazi, 2021 WL\n\n 8 2577526, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2021) (Donato, J.) (citations omitted); 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-\n\n 9 4(b)(1)(B).\n\n10 I. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT PLEAD AN ACTIONABLE MISREPRESENTATION\n\n11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) requires Plaintiff to \u201cstate with particularity the circumstances\n\n12 constituting fraud or mistake\u201d; that is, the \u201cwho, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct\n\n13 charged, as well as what is false or misleading about the purportedly fraudulent statement, and why\n\n14 it is false.\u201d Pauly v. Becker, 2024 WL 628437, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2024) (Donato, J.)\n\n15 (citations omitted). The PSLRA requires that the AC \u201cspecify each statement alleged to have been\n\n16 misleading, the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, and \u2026 state with particularity\n\n17 all facts on which [plaintiff\u2019s information and belief] is formed.\u201d In re Zoom Sec. Litig., 2022 WL\n\n18 484974, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2022) (citing 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(b)(1)).\n\n19 A. Plaintiff\u2019s Scattershot Pleading Is Plainly Deficient\n\n20 Plaintiff alleges that block-quoted statements spanning ten paragraphs of the AC (\u00b6\u00b6 31-35,\n\n21 38-40, and 42-43) are misleading because:\n\n22 Defendants misstated and/or failed to disclose that (i) changes in Google Search\u2019s algorithm\n and features like AI Overview were causing users to stop their query on Google Search; (ii)\n23 these algorithm changes were materially different than prior instances of reduced traffic to\n the Reddit website; (iii) Defendants were aware that the increase in the query term \u201cReddit\u201d\n24 on search engines was because users were getting the sought after answer from Google\n Search without having to go to Reddit, and not because they intended to visit Reddit; (iv)\n25 this zero-click search reality was dramatically reducing traffic to Reddit in a manner the\n Company was unable to overcome in the short term; (v) Defendants, therefore, lacked a\n26 reasonable basis for their outlook on user rates and advertising revenues.\n27 AC \u00b6\u00b6 36, 46. This scattershot pleading is plainly deficient. Allegations that \u201clump together many\n\n28 challenged statements \u2026 without stating with particularity why each statement is false or\n\n -6-\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 12 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 misleading\u201d do not satisfy Plaintiff\u2019s burden. In re Terravia Holdings Inc., 2020 WL 553939, at\n\n 2 *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2020) (Donato, J.) (cleaned up); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges,\n\n 3 Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) (\u201cA litany of alleged [mis]statements, unaccompanied by\n\n 4 \u2026 specific facts indicating why those statements were false\u201d do not satisfy the PSLRA).\n\n 5 B. Reddit\u2019s Accurate Historical Reporting and Quarterly Forecasts Are Not\n Actionable\n 6\n Plaintiff seems to criticize Reddit\u2019s reported earnings and user metrics but does not claim\n 7\n that they are false or misleading. AC \u00b6\u00b6 29, 37-38, 40, 42-43, 47-48. \u201c[D]isclosure[s] of accurate\n 8\n historical data, [even when] accompanied by general statements of optimism \u2026 are not actionable.\u201d\n 9\n See, e.g., Monachelli v. Hortonworks, 225 F. Supp. 3d 1045, 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2016); Bodri v.\n10\n GoPro, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 3d 912, 928 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (\u201c[R]easonable investor would [not] take[]\n11\n statements about past and present [pricing] as an objective assurance of future [] stability\u201d).\n12\n Plaintiff also implies that Reddit\u2019s \u201coutlook on user rates and advertising revenues\u201d was\n13\n misleading, see AC \u00b6\u00b6 36(v), 46(v), but cannot specify how so. Plaintiff notably neglects to mention\n14\n that Reddit exceeded its quarterly forecasts on revenue and continued to grow its user base in both\n15\n Q4 2024 and Q1 2025.6 Plaintiff cannot credibly claim statements that Reddit felt \u201cvery good about\n16\n the [DAUq growth] pace that [they were] on in Q1\u201d and had \u201cstarted off Q1\u201d \u201con a great foot \u2026\n17\n with[] search traffic\u201d (AC \u00b6\u00b6 42-43) are false without specifically pleading that Reddit\u2019s Q1 DAUq\n18\n did not actually recover from the Q4 Algorithmic Updates. Plaintiff has not done so here because\n19\n Reddit\u2019s Q1 DAUq exceeded market expectations.7\n20\n C. Reddit\u2019s Google-Related Statements Are Not Actionable\n21\n The crux of Plaintiff\u2019s allegations appears to be that Reddit somehow \u201cdownplayed the\n22\n changes in Google Search\u2019s algorithm and features like AI Overview\u201d; \u201cdenied that these changes\n23\n posed significant risk to Reddit[]\u201d; and \u201cmisled investors about the threat[.]\u201d AC \u00b6 28. These\n24\n25\n 6\n Reddit projected revenue of $385M-$400M for Q4 2024 and reported actual revenue of $427.7M;\n26 DAUq grew 39% YoY. It projected revenue of $360-$370M for Q1 2025 and reported actual\n revenue of $392.4M; DAUq grew 31% YoY. See supra at p. 4.\n27 7\n Even assuming arguendo that Reddit\u2019s outlook was inaccurate (see AC \u00b6\u00b6 35, 39, 40, 42, 43; Ex.\n28 A), it is protected under the PSLRA\u2019s safe harbor for forward-looking statements. Police Ret. Sys.\n v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 759 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2014).\n -7-\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 13 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 assertions fall flat in the face of Reddit\u2019s actual disclosures of these Google risks.\n\n 2 1. Reddit Did Not Mislead Investors About Google-Related Risks; It\n Explicitly Warned of Such Risks, And Investors Were Well Aware\n 3\n A misrepresentation is only actionable if it creates \u201can impression of a state of affairs that\n 4\n differs in a material way from the one that actually exists.\u201d Brody v. Transitional Hosps. Corp., 280\n 5\n F.3d 997, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002). Additional disclosure is required only when necessary to make the\n 6\n \u201cstatements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.\u201d\n 7\n Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 1009 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). There\n 8\n must be \u201ca substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by\n 9\n the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the \u2018total mix\u2019 of information made\n10\n available.\u201d Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27, 38 (2011) (internal citations\n11\n omitted). This \u201ctotal mix\u201d includes information within the public domain and \u201cfacts known or\n12\n reasonably available to the shareholders.\u201d In re Textainer P\u2019ship Sec. Litig., 2005 WL 3801596, at\n13\n *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2005) (citation omitted).\n14\n Here, as discussed supra at p. 3, Reddit proactively disclosed the risks associated with\n15\n Google AI and algorithmic updates before and during the Class Period. Even the challenged\n16\n statements themselves acknowledge the \u201cGoogle giveth, Google taketh\u201d dynamic Plaintiff alleges\n17\n Defendants concealed.8 Defendants\u2019 statements did not downplay or deny risk in any way, and\n18\n certainly cannot be found misleading in the context of Reddit\u2019s overall disclosures and market\n19\n awareness of Google update risk. See generally Ex. A.\n20\n 2. Reddit\u2019s General Statements About Google Are Not Actionable\n21\n Plaintiff excerpts various statements by Defendants that address general updates to Google\u2019s\n22\n algorithm. These statements are not actionable, both because Plaintiff has failed to state with\n23\n particularity why each statement is false or misleading, and because none of the challenged\n24\n statements is actually untrue or \u201cdownplays\u201d the effect of Google updates. See, e.g., \u00b6\u00b6 30-31, 33,\n25\n26 8\n See, e.g., AC \u00b6\u00b6 33 (\u201cIt\u2019s true, the algorithm does kind of \u2026 give [to] us and take us away[.] So\n27 you\u2019ll never hear us celebrate or complain about an algorithm change[.]\u201d); 34 (\u201c[W]e\u2019ve seen\n their algorithm change a lot over the years, and of course, it always will \u2026 Some [changes] help,\n28 some hurt.\u201d); 42 (\u201c[W]e see volatility from Google all the time[,] as does everybody.\u201d) (emphases\n added).\n -8-\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 14 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 34, 35, 38, 42, 43; Ex. A.\n\n 2 General effect of Google updates on Reddit\u2019s business: Defendants\u2019 statements\n\n 3 concerning the general effect of Google updates\u2014including that \u201cthe algorithm does kind of \u2026\n\n 4 give [to] us and take us away[.] So you\u2019ll never hear us celebrate or complain about an algorithm\n\n 5 change\u201d; that \u201c[s]ome [changes] help, some hurt\u201d; and that \u201c[Reddit] see[s] volatility from Google\n\n 6 all the time[,]\u201d AC \u00b6\u00b6 33, 34, 42\u2014bear no relation to the expansive \u201ctheories\u201d of fraud outlined at\n\n 7 AC \u00b6\u00b6 36 and 46. These statements actively rebut Plaintiff\u2019s narrative that Reddit downplayed the\n\n 8 effect of Google on Reddit\u2019s business because they acknowledge this effect directly. See Turocy v.\n\n 9 El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., 2016 WL 4056209, at *8 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2016) (no\n\n10 misrepresentation where \u201callegedly omitted facts rendering the statements false were actually\n\n11 disclosed\u201d); McGovney v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., 2019 WL 8137143, at * 11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7,\n\n12 2019) (no misleading statement where defendant \u201cdisclosed exactly what [p]laintiffs allege [it]\n\n13 omitted\u201d).\n\n14 General effect of Google\u2019s updates on the search traffic that visits Reddit from Google:\n\n15 Plaintiff has no basis to attack accurate statements that Reddit traffic from Google consists primarily\n\n16 of two classes of individuals\u2014those \u201cwho go to Google with the intention of ending up on Reddit\u201d\n\n17 (who \u201cliterally typ[e] the word Reddit into Google\u201d), and those who \u201crun[] maybe a more general\n\n18 search on Google and then end[] up on Reddit.\u201d AC \u00b6\u00b6 31-32, 38. Plaintiff fails to plead how these\n\n19 statements misled investors; they do not \u201cdownplay\u201d or \u201cdeny.\u201d\n\n20 3. Reddit\u2019s Specific Statements About Google\u2019s Q4 Algorithm Updates\n Are Not Actionable\n21\n Plaintiff also excerpts statements relating to Google\u2019s Q4 Algorithm Updates. See AC \u00b6\u00b6\n22\n 38, 42, 43; Ex. A. These purported misrepresentations are not actionable because Plaintiff does not\n23\n plead they are false and because they are measured and thus not misleading.\n24\n Specific impact of Q4 Algorithm Updates on Reddit: The AC cites three paragraphs where\n25\n Defendants identified that Reddit: \u201cexperience[d] [Q4] volatility from Google Search triggered by\n26\n a periodic algorithm change, but traffic [had] recovered so far in Q1\u201d; stated there was \u201cno revenue\n27\n impact,\u201d on Q1; and reported that Reddit \u201c[felt] very good about the [DAUq] pace[] in Q1.\u201d AC\n28\n -9-\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 15 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 \u00b6\u00b6 38, 42, 43. Plaintiff does not plead how any of these statements were false.\n\n 2 Each of Huffman\u2019s statements that Reddit experienced a dip in search traffic in Q4 2024\n\n 3 related to Google Search volatility, but that search traffic had recovered in Q1 2025 (AC \u00b6\u00b6 38, 43),\n\n 4 and that the Q4 Algorithmic Updates had \u201cno revenue impact\u201d (AC \u00b6 42) are verifiably true, and\n\n 5 Plaintiff does not plead otherwise. See Ex. A. Moreover, none of the identified statements\n\n 6 \u201cdownplays\u201d Google update risks\u2014these statements acknowledge the potential impact, while\n\n 7 accurately reporting that Q1 DAUq thereafter rebounded. Plaintiff pleads no facts showing\n\n 8 Reddit\u2019s characterization of the Google dynamic was inaccurate in any way.\n\n 9 Q4 increase in search queries for the term \u201cReddit\u201d: Plaintiff also claims that statements\n\n10 about a Q4 \u201cincrease in the query term \u2018Reddit\u2019\u201d as reflecting searchers\u2019 intent to end up on Reddit\n\n11 (see AC \u00b6\u00b6 38, 43; see also \u00b6 31) were misleading because \u201cDefendants were aware that the increase\n\n12 \u2026 was [due to] users \u2026 getting the sought after answer from Google Search without having to go\n\n13 to Reddit.\u201d See AC \u00b6\u00b6 36(iii), 46(iii). But Plaintiff pleads no basis for falsity other than its own\n\n14 ipse dixit, nor does it show that Defendants were aware of contrary information. See Greenspan,\n\n15 2021 WL 2577526, at *6 (plaintiff must identify \u201cstatements that directly contradict what the\n\n16 defendant knew at that time,\u201d and \u201c[m]isleading statements must be capable of objective\n\n17 verification.\u201d) (cleaned up); Metzler, 540 F.3d at 1070 (falsity prong \u201cnot satisfied by conclusory\n\n18 allegations\u201d that misstatements \u201care per se false based on the plaintiff\u2019s allegations of fraud\n\n19 generally\u201d).\n\n20 D. Miscellaneous \u201cMisstatements\u201d Challenged by Plaintiff Are Not Actionable\n\n21 Plaintiff also attacks statements by Defendants that are so unrelated to Plaintiff\u2019s theory of\n\n22 fraud as to defy categorization. These miscellaneous statements are also inactionable.\n\n23 Statements related to addressable market/opportunities for user growth: Portions of AC\n\n24 \u00b6\u00b6 39 (describing potential for user growth generally) and 40 (describing potential for ARPU\n\n25 growth) bear no relation to Google\u2019s algorithm/AI updates, but are instead descriptive\u2014such as\n\n26 Wong\u2019s February 2025 statement that she saw \u201copportunity to grow [ARPU] over time,\u201d AC \u00b6 40\u2014\n\n27 or are opinion statements regarding addressable markets and opportunities for user growth\u2014such\n\n28 as \u201c[w]e haven\u2019t come, I think[,] close to tapping out [growth] in the U.S.[.]\u201d AC \u00b6 39.\n\n - 10 -\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 16 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 ARPU-related statements: Plaintiff also incorrectly argues that it was misleading to say\n\n 2 that Reddit doesn\u2019t \u201cmanage to ARPU\u201d because \u201cARPU was a key metric for Reddit \u2026, and a\n\n 3 decline in users visiting the site would create pressures on ARPU.\u201d AC \u00b6 40-41. This is incorrect\n\n 4 for several reasons. First, it is not misleading for Reddit to clarify that ARPU\u2014which it discloses\n\n 5 as a \u201ckey metric\u201d\u2014is not something that it \u201cmanage[s] to.\u201d Reddit has repeatedly explained this\n\n 6 distinction, including prior to the Class Period.9 Second, Plaintiff misunderstands ARPU: a decline\n\n 7 in users (a lower denominator) with the same revenue would increase ARPU.\n\n 8 Corporate optimism/puffery: Excerpts of the alleged misstatements\u2014already inactionable\n\n 9 for the reasons addressed above\u2014are also inactionable puffery or corporate optimism. See AC \u00b6\u00b6\n\n10 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, 42, 43; Ex. A. Huffman\u2019s views that Reddit \u201chas great content\u201d that \u201cconsumers\n\n11 want\u201d; that Reddit had done an \u201cexcellent job\u201d adapting to prior Google updates; that Huffman\n\n12 \u201c[felt] good about the [Q1] pace\u201d; and that Reddit had \u201cstarted off Q1 on a great foot\u201d (id. \u00b6\u00b6 33,\n\n13 38, 42-43), are textbook examples of corporate optimism that cannot support a claim for securities\n\n14 fraud as a matter of law. See Wozniak v. Align Tech., Inc., 850 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1036-37 (N.D.\n\n15 Cal. 2012) (\u201c[W]e are very pleased with the learning from our pilot launch,\u201d \u201cwe are very pleased\n\n16 with our progress,\u201d and statements projecting \u201cexcellent results\u201d inactionable puffery); City of\n\n17 Royal Oak Ret. Sys. v. Juniper Networks Inc., 880 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2012)\n\n18 (statements that \u201cour demand indicators are strong, our product portfolio is robust\u201d inactionable\n\n19 corporate optimism).\n\n20 II. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLEAD A STRONG INFERENCE OF SCIENTER\n\n21 Courts in the Ninth Circuit \u201cconduct a dual [scienter] inquiry,\u201d first evaluating \u201cwhether\n\n22 any of the plaintiff\u2019s allegations, standing alone, are sufficient to create a strong inference of\n\n23 scienter\u201d and then \u201cconduct[ing] a \u2018holistic\u2019 review of the same allegations to determine whether\n\n24 the [individual] allegations combine to create a strong inference of intentional conduct or deliberate\n\n25 recklessness.\u201d Zucco Partners LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 992 (9th Cir. 2009). A\n\n26\n 9\n27 See, e.g., Ex. 18 (Aug. 7, 2023 Q2 2024 AMAA Investor Relations Transcript) at 5 (\u201c[W]e manage\n to revenue growth and user growth. And ARPU is just the math.\u201d); see Ex. 19 (Aug. 6, 2024 Q2\n28 2024 Earnings Call Transcript) at 24 (similar); Ex. 20 (Oct. 29, 2024 Q3 2024 Earnings Call\n Transcript) at 11 (similar)).\n - 11 -\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 17 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 complaint \u201ccannot rely on \u2018mere motive and opportunity or recklessness, but rather, must state\n\n 2 specific facts indicating no less than a degree of recklessness that strongly suggests actual intent.\u2019\u201d\n\n 3 Prodanova v. H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, 993 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir. 2021) (citations\n\n 4 omitted). Conclusory \u201che must have known\u201d allegations are insufficient. See Valenti, 2025 WL\n\n 5 902031, at *2. Plaintiff falls far short of this exacting standard.\n\n 6 A. Plaintiff Fails to Allege Motive and Opportunity\n\n 7 \u201c[S]imply establishing a \u2018motive to commit fraud\u2019 is insufficient\u201d to plead scienter.\n\n 8 Greenspan, 2021 WL 2577526, at *8 (citations omitted). However, \u201clack of a plausible motive\u201d\n\n 9 also \u201cmakes it much less likely that a plaintiff can show a strong inference of scienter.\u201d Prodanova,\n\n10 993 F.3d at 1108 (citing Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 325 (2007)).\n\n11 \u201cOnly where a complaint otherwise asserts compelling and particularized facts showing [scienter]\n\n12 will we overlook the failure to allege a plausible motive.\u201d Id. Here, Plaintiff makes no specific\n\n13 motive allegations.\n\n14 B. Plaintiff Fails to Allege Circumstantial Evidence of Scienter\n\n15 Plaintiff alleges Defendants\u2019 own statements show knowledge that the \u201czero-click search\n\n16 reality\u201d purportedly imposed by Google AI updates \u201cwas dramatically reducing traffic to Reddit,\u201d\n\n17 which was not conveyed to investors. AC \u00b6\u00b6 36, 65-68. To plead scienter based on this theory,\n\n18 Plaintiff must \u201callege contemporaneous facts in sufficient detail and in a manner that would create\n\n19 a strong inference that the alleged adverse facts were known at the time of the challenged\n\n20 statements.\u201d In re Skechers USA, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2004 WL 1080174, at *6 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2004)\n\n21 (citations omitted) (\u201cvague allegations\u201d and \u201cconclusory statements\u201d are not sufficient). But none\n\n22 of the identified statements indicates Defendants\u2019 purported knowledge that Google AI posed such\n\n23 an existential threat. At most, they indicate awareness that Google AI may have an effect on\n\n24 Reddit\u2019s ability to monetize search traffic\u2014a risk that was repeatedly acknowledged. The AC\n\n25 therefore \u201cfails to allege any facts showing that any defendant disbelieved either the information\n\n26 they [disclosed], or the optimistic opinions they expressed about [Reddit\u2019s] growth outlook.\u201d In re\n\n27 HP Sec. Litig., 2013 WL 6185529, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2013).\n\n28 Plaintiff\u2019s two \u201cconfidential witnesses\u201d\u2014(i) a former data scientist who reported that\n\n - 12 -\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 18 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 Reddit\u2019s user and search metrics were \u201cavailable to senior employees to view\u201d in a platform, and\n\n 2 (ii) a sales manager who reported that Reddit provided sales managers with \u201ca Google Slides\n\n 3 presentation outlining Reddit\u2019s talking points about the impact of Google\u2019s AI Overviews\u201d\u2014supply\n\n 4 no additional support for scienter. AC \u00b6\u00b6 69, 70; Police Ret. Sys, 759 F.3d at 1063 (witness\n\n 5 statements not supportive of scienter because \u201cthey do not detail the actual contents of the reports\n\n 6 [defendants] purportedly \u2026 had access to \u2026 and the witnesses lack first hand knowledge regarding\n\n 7 what \u2026 defendants knew or did not know\u201d); Dolly v. GitLab Inc., 2025 WL 2372965, at *14 (N.D.\n\n 8 Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) (confidential witness\u2019s account that executives \u201cattended company meetings\u201d\n\n 9 and were \u201cregularly kept in the loop\u201d \u201cconflate[d] knowledge of the Company\u2019s business with\n\n10 knowledge of falsity\u201d and \u201c[was] no substitute for particularized facts\u201d). Indeed, the AC does not\n\n11 allege that the materials identified by Plaintiff\u2019s witnesses showed \u201cdramatically reduc[ed] traffic\u201d\n\n12 to Reddit in a \u201cmanner the Company was unable to overcome in the short term,\u201d AC \u00b6\u00b6 36, 46,\n\n13 which is the linchpin of Plaintiffs\u2019 fraud theory. At most, they show that Reddit was tracking user\n\n14 traffic from Google and was aware that Google updates affected its user traffic, which is a fact\n\n15 Defendants shared freely. See supra at pp. 3-4; n.8.\n\n16 C. The Balance of Inferences Supports a Finding of No Scienter\n\n17 In evaluating scienter, \u201ccourts must take into account plausible opposing inferences.\u201d In re\n\n18 Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Secs. Litig., 697 F.3d 869, 883 (9th Cir. 2012). The AC should be\n\n19 dismissed if \u201ctaken as a whole, [it does] not raise a \u2018strong inference\u2019 that misleading statements\n\n20 were knowingly or [with] deliberate recklessness made to investors.\u201d Ronconi v. Larkin, 253 F.3d\n\n21 423, 429 (9th Cir. 2001) (abrogated on other grounds). An inference of scienter is \u201cstrong\u201d only if\n\n22 \u201ca reasonable person would deem [it] cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference\n\n23 one could draw from the facts alleged.\u201d Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 324. Here, no view of the allegations\n\n24 and facts, taken together, presents a view of scienter that meets the holistic Tellabs standard.\n\n25 Plaintiff identifies no specific facts supportive of its theory that Defendants\u2019 \u201coutlook on\n\n26 user rates and advertising revenues\u201d (see AC \u00b6\u00b6 36(v), 46(v)) was misleading. Plaintiff pleads no\n\n27 motive, no unusual stock trades, and no specific facts suggesting that Reddit\u2019s executives feared\n\n28 Google updates would \u201cdramatically reduc[e] traffic to Reddit.\u201d Id.\n\n - 13 -\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 19 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 In reality, Defendants repeatedly warned investors about Google update risks, which\n\n 2 investors were well aware of before the Class Period. Defendants also addressed specific Google\n\n 3 updates during their earnings calls, providing real-time information to investors and their best\n\n 4 expectations for upcoming quarters. In May 2025, when Defendants proactively cautioned\n\n 5 investors about the potential impact of recent Google updates on the next quarter and year, the\n\n 6 market reacted to this new negative information. This is not fraud. The only cogent explanation is\n\n 7 that Defendants made appropriate and candid disclosures about the rapidly-evolving AI-search\n\n 8 ecosystem while remaining optimistic about Reddit\u2019s ability to grow. This outlook has certainly\n\n 9 proven true. See Ex. 15. The AC therefore fails to plead scienter. Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 314.\n\n10 III. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLEAD LOSS CAUSATION\n\n11 Plaintiff must also plead \u201closs causation\u201d by establishing a causal connection between the\n\n12 fraudulent conduct and its economic loss. Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 342 (2005).\n\n13 The typical route is to plead that \u201cdefendant\u2019s fraud was revealed to the market through one or more\n\n14 \u2018corrective disclosures\u2019 and that the company\u2019s stock price declined as a result.\u201d In re BofI Holding,\n\n15 Inc. Sec. Litig., 977 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir. 2020).\n\n16 A. The May 1 Earnings Call Is Not an Actionable Corrective Disclosure\n17 Plaintiff argues that Reddit\u2019s May 1 earnings call was a \u201ccorrective event[,]\u201d after which\n\n18 Reddit\u2019s stock price fell from $118.79 per share on May 1 to $113.83 per share on May 2, 2025.\n\n19 AC \u00b6\u00b6 47-53. But none of the information disclosed on the May 1 call was \u201ccorrective\u201d because\n\n20 it was entirely new, without reference to prior statements. After its earnings report, Reddit\u2019s\n\n21 stock price initially rose. But then, following the May 1 earnings call, the market reacted to new\n\n22 information about April DAUq growth and forward-looking statements like Defendants\u2019 warning\n\n23 to stockholders of \u201cbumpy\u201d DAUq for the year ahead, and remarks that \u201cgiven that the search\n\n24 ecosystem is under heavy construction, the near-term could be more bumpy than usual.\u201d Id. \u00b6 50\n\n25 (emphasis added).10 A corrective disclosure \u201cmust \u2018relate back to the misrepresentation and not\n\n26\n27 10\n After-hours trading data confirms Reddit\u2019s stock price initially rose to $142.50 in the half hour\n after Reddit\u2019s Q1 2025 results were released. See Ex. 14. Reddit\u2019s stock only fell once the forward-\n28 looking news broke.\n - 14 -\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 20 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1 to some other negative information about the company.\u2019\u201d Bonanno v. Cellular Biomedicine Grp.,\n\n 2 Inc., 2016 WL 4585753, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2016). It is not sufficient that the market reacts\n\n 3 to new information that does not reveal a fraud. In re Shoretel Inc. Sec. Litig., 2009 WL 248326,\n\n 4 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2009) (report that \u201creveal[ed] nothing about what was \u2026 misrepresented\u201d\n\n 5 and instead showed \u201cmarket [had] reacted to defendant\u2019s poor financial health\u201d not corrective).\n\n 6 B. The May 2 Deutsche Bank, May 19 Wells Fargo and May 20 Baird Analyst\n Reports Are Not Actionable Corrective Disclosures\n 7\n Analyst reports from Deutsche Bank on May 2, Wells Fargo on May 19, and Baird on May\n 8\n 20 do not constitute \u201ccorrective disclosures.\u201d AC \u00b6 63. No undisclosed \u201ctruth\u201d is revealed by the\n 9\n repackaging of already-publicly available information, analysts\u2019 statements of opinions about the\n10\n continued acceleration of Google AI/algorithm updates, 11 or reporting on entirely new events like\n11\n what was \u201cjust \u2026 presented\u201d at the Google I/O Developer conference on May 20, 2025 (AC \u00b6 57).\n12\n In re Nektar Therapeutics, 2020 WL 3962004, at *18 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2020) (\u201c[T]he mere\n13\n repackaging of already-public information by an analyst [is] simply insufficient to constitute a\n14\n corrective disclosure\u201d) (citation omitted); Bonanno v. Cellular Biomedicine Grp., Inc., 2016 WL\n15\n 2937483, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2016) (report containing \u201cmerely the opinions of the author\u201d\n16\n cannot \u201cbe categorically labeled as \u2018the truth\u2019\u201d) (citation omitted); Grigsby v. BofI Holding, Inc.,\n17\n 979 F.3d 1198, 1208 (9th Cir. 2020) (corrective disclosure \u201cmust at least relate back to the\n18\n misrepresentation and not to some other negative information about the company\u201d).\n19\n IV. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 20(A)\n20\n Plaintiff\u2019s Section 20(a) claim fails without a primary Section 10(b) violation. See City of\n21\n Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Align Tech., Inc., 856 F.3d 605, 623 (9th Cir.\n22\n 2017) (\u201c[W]ithout \u2018a primary violation \u2026,\u2019 Plaintiff cannot establish control person liability.\u201d).\n23\n CONCLUSION\n24\n Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss the AC with prejudice.\n25\n26 11\n See Ex. 16 at 1-3 (recent traffic slowdown \u201clikely more permanent,\u201d because Wells Fargo\n27 \u201cbelieve[ed]\u201d that upgrades to Google AI were different than prior algorithmic updates, and that \u201cin\n [their] view,\u201d they \u201cexpect[ed]\u201d greater uncertainty as a result); Ex. 17 at 1 (\u201cbelie[f] [that Google\n28 AI upgrades] could also have downstream impacts on [] user growth,\u201d which \u201ccould lead to further\n negative pressure on Reddit\u2019s \u2026 user growth[.]\u201d) (emphases added).\n - 15 -\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-05144-JD Document 50 Filed 02/13/26 Page 21 of 21\n\n\n\n\n 1\n 2 Dated: February 13, 2026 By: /s/ Stephen P. Blake\n STEPHEN P. BLAKE (Bar. No. 260069)\n 3 sblake@stblaw.com\n SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP\n 4 One Market Plaza, Suite 3800\n 5 San Francisco, California 94105\n Telephone: (415) 426-7210\n 6 Facsimile: (415) 426-7301\n Email: sblake@stblaw.com\n 7\n Attorneys for Defendants Reddit, Inc., Steven\n 8 Huffman, Andrew Vollero, and Jennifer Wong\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n - 16 -\n REDDIT\u2019S NOTICE, MOTION & MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS NO. 3:25-CV-05144-JD\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-13T08:28:30.238997-07:00","document_number":"50","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763984","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814011/","id":489814011,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/1/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:52.969260-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:52.969270-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":12,"file_size":277648,"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":"035026763985","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814013/","id":489814013,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/2/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.037606-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.037617-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":8,"file_size":277194,"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":2,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763986","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Request for Judicial Notice","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814014/","id":489814014,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/3/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.050902-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.050909-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":4,"file_size":221270,"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":3,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763987","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Declaration of Stephen Blake in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss th","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814015/","id":489814015,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/4/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.069958-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.069981-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":9,"file_size":219279,"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":4,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763988","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814016/","id":489814016,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/5/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.085712-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.085721-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":15,"file_size":316391,"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":5,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763989","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814017/","id":489814017,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/6/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.104463-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.104472-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":15,"file_size":331968,"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":6,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763990","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814019/","id":489814019,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/7/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.121887-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.121895-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":6,"file_size":2015178,"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":7,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763991","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814020/","id":489814020,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/8/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.137591-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.137599-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":1605222,"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":8,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763992","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814021/","id":489814021,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/9/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.159651-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.159660-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":1688247,"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":9,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763993","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814022/","id":489814022,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/10/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.174870-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.174879-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":1294345,"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":10,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763994","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814028/","id":489814028,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/11/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.743044-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.743055-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":16,"file_size":168605,"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":11,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763995","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814029/","id":489814029,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/12/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.774095-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.774106-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":13,"file_size":161359,"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":12,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763996","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814030/","id":489814030,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/13/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.803579-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.803590-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":15,"file_size":333541,"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":13,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763997","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 10 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814031/","id":489814031,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/14/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.825941-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.825952-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":9,"file_size":152458,"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":14,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763998","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 11 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814032/","id":489814032,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/15/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.852104-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.852115-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":15,"file_size":326781,"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":15,"pacer_doc_id":"035026763999","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 12 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814033/","id":489814033,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/16/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.872741-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.872751-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":12,"file_size":316992,"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":16,"pacer_doc_id":"035026764000","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 13 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814034/","id":489814034,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/17/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.890293-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.890301-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":12,"file_size":967540,"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":17,"pacer_doc_id":"035026764001","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 14 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814035/","id":489814035,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/18/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.909028-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.909037-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":8,"file_size":976028,"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":18,"pacer_doc_id":"035026764002","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 15 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814036/","id":489814036,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/19/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.930763-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.930773-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":12,"file_size":3619834,"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":19,"pacer_doc_id":"035026764003","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 16 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814037/","id":489814037,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/20/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.954846-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.954856-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":14,"file_size":730095,"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":20,"pacer_doc_id":"035026764004","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 17 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814038/","id":489814038,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/21/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.977376-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:53.977386-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":8,"file_size":805996,"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":21,"pacer_doc_id":"035026764005","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 18 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814039/","id":489814039,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/22/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:54.000354-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:54.000363-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":36,"file_size":282806,"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":22,"pacer_doc_id":"035026764006","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 19 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814040/","id":489814040,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/23/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:54.019700-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:54.019709-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":20,"file_size":904449,"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":23,"pacer_doc_id":"035026764007","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 20 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814041/","id":489814041,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/24/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:54.034945-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:54.034953-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":33,"file_size":984481,"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":24,"pacer_doc_id":"035026764008","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 21to the Declaration of Stephen Blake","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489814042/","id":489814042,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/50/25/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-13T08:27:54.049747-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:27:54.049755-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":143726,"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":25,"pacer_doc_id":"035026764009","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-13T20:03:59.300069-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:19.453241-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-13","time_filed":"19:54:51","entry_number":50,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":156,"description":"MOTION to Dismiss filed by Steven Huffman, Reddit, Inc., Andrew Vollero, Jennifer Wong. Motion to Dismiss Hearing set for 5/21/2026 11:00 AM. Responses due by 3/30/2026. Replies due by 4/29/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Declaration of Stephen Blake in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, # 4 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 5 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 6 Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 7 Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 8 Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 9 Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 10 Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 11 Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 12 Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 13 Exhibit 10 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 14 Exhibit 11 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 15 Exhibit 12 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 16 Exhibit 13 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 17 Exhibit 14 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 18 Exhibit 15 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 19 Exhibit 16 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 20 Exhibit 17 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 21 Exhibit 18 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 22 Exhibit 19 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 23 Exhibit 20 to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 24 Exhibit 21to the Declaration of Stephen Blake, # 25 Proposed Order)(Blake, Stephen) (Filed on 2/13/2026) (Entered: 02/13/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/452097248/","id":452097248,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/466957300/","id":466957300,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/49/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2026-01-29T17:05:37.453628-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:19.419731-07:00","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":"49","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026704045","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-01-29T17:05:37.427268-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:19.390365-07:00","date_filed":"2026-01-29","time_filed":"16:33:40","entry_number":49,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-01-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":154,"description":"NOTICE by Phlexicon Phlexicon Notice Of Firm Name Change (Linehan, Charles) (Filed on 1/29/2026) (Entered: 01/29/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/448082019/","id":448082019,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462849709/","id":462849709,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/47/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-23T00:58:17.334640-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:19.276447-07:00","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":"47","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":"2025-12-23T00:58:17.312790-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:19.206844-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-06","time_filed":null,"entry_number":47,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Order by Judge James Donato granting 46 Stipulation. At the joint request of the parties, Lead Plaintiff will file an amended complaint by December 15, 2025; defendants will answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by February 13, 2026; Lead Plaintiff will file an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, if any, by March 30, 2026; and defendants will file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition, if any, by April 29, 2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2025) (Entered: 11/06/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/448082018/","id":448082018,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462849708/","id":462849708,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/43/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-23T00:58:17.144511-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:18.973512-07:00","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":"43","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":"2025-12-23T00:58:17.121741-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:18.942002-07:00","date_filed":"2025-09-22","time_filed":null,"entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-09-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER. Movant Phlexicon Phlexicon is the only remaining applicant to serve as lead plaintiff in this securities action. Dkt. Nos. 25, 32, 33, 35. Phlexicon is directed to file by September 26, 2025, an updated proposed order for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and to email a Word version of the proposed order to jdpo@cand.uscourts.gov. The hearing set for September 25, 2025, is vacated. Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/22/2025. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2025) (Entered: 09/22/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/448082017/","id":448082017,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462849707/","id":462849707,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/39/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-23T00:58:16.962789-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:18.709455-07:00","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":"39","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":"2025-12-23T00:58:16.941334-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:18.679996-07:00","date_filed":"2025-09-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":39,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-09-12.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER. In light of their statements of non-opposition, Dkt. Nos. 32, 33, Ian Hauman's and Danish Iqbal's motions for lead plaintiff appointment are terminated, Dkt. Nos. 16, 29, and the associated motion hearings are vacated. Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/12/2025. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2025) (Entered: 09/12/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/448082016/","id":448082016,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462849706/","id":462849706,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/34/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-23T00:58:16.742074-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:18.381032-07:00","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":"34","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":"2025-12-23T00:58:16.719397-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:18.352694-07:00","date_filed":"2025-08-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-08-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ADR Clerk's Notice re: Non-Compliance with Court Order. The parties have failed to file an ADR Certification as required by the Initial Case Management Scheduling Order. Counsel shall comply promptly with the requirements of ADR L.R. 3-5(b) and shall file the ADR Certification. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)(cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2025) (Entered: 08/29/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/448082015/","id":448082015,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70575762/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462849705/","id":462849705,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70575762/18/tamraz-jr-v-reddit-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-23T00:58:16.089297-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:17.413181-07:00","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":"18","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":"2025-12-23T00:58:16.066076-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T22:19:17.380840-07:00","date_filed":"2025-08-18","time_filed":null,"entry_number":18,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-08-18.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance filed by Michael Albert on behalf of Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Pension & Annuity Funds, Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund (Albert, Michael) (Filed on 8/18/2025) (Entered: 08/18/2025)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=70575762&page_size=40"}