1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

AMAZON.COM’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS (No. 2:14-CV-01038-JCC)

24976-0374/LEGAL123677938.2

 

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant. No. 2:14-CV-01038-JCC

AMAZON.COM, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

NOTED ON MOTION CALENDAR: Friday, October 3, 2014 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

!"#$ &'()*+,*-(-./*0!! 12+34$56 (& 789$: (-;-.;() <"=$ ( 2> (?

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AMAZON.COM’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS (No. 2:14-CV-01038-JCC) – i

24976-0374/LEGAL123677938.2

 

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 2 A. The FTC’s Retreat from the Inapplicable “Express Informed Consent” Standard Leaves No Basis to Proceed on the Complaint ....................................... 2 B. The Allegations in the Complaint Fail to Satisfy Section 5(n) of the FTC Act .......................................................................................................................... 3 1. Consumers Billed for Transactions They Authorized Do Not Suffer Substantial Injury ....................................................................................... 3 a. The Charges at Issue Were Authorized ......................................... 3 b. Common Law Agency Principles Are Applicable When Evaluating Section 5 Unfairness Claims ........................................ 5 2. Consumers Could Reasonably Avoid the Alleged Harm .......................... 8 3. The Complaint Fails to Sufficiently Allege That Consumer Injury Outweighs Countervailing Benefits to Consumers or Competition ........ 11 C. The FTC’s Request for Injunctive Relief Should Be Dismissed ......................... 12 III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 12

!"#$ &'()*+,*-(-./*0!! 12+34$56 (& 789$: (-;-.;() <"=$ & 2> (?

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

AMAZON.COM’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS (No. 2:14-CV-01038-JCC) – ii

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000

F

EDERAL

C

ASES

 

 Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good 

, 555 U.S. 70 (2008) .....................................................................................................................3

 Boy 1 v. Boy Scouts of Am.

, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (W.D. Wash. 2014) .................................................................................7

Cooper v. Pickett 

, 137 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................11

Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg

, 593 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................4

 Datel Holdings Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp.

, 712 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .......................................................................................4

FTC v. Accusearch Inc.

, 570 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................5

FTC v. Inc21.com

, 741 F. Supp. 2d 975 (2010),

aff’d 

, 475 F. App’x 106 (9th Cir. 2012)...............................11, 12

FTC v. Interbill and Wells

, slip op. No. CV-S-06-01644-JCM-PAL, at 7 (D. Nev. 2009),

aff’d 

 

sub nom FTC v. Wells

, 385 F. App’x 712 (9th Cir. 2010) .......................................................................2

FTC v. J.K. Publ’ns, Inc.

, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2000) .....................................................................................12

FTC v. John Beck Amazing Profits LLC 

, 888 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (9th Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................12

FTC v. Neovi, Inc.

, 604 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................................4, 5

FTC v. Stefanchik 

, 559 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................6

FTC v. Verity International, Ltd.

, 335 F. Supp. 2d 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ..........................................................................6, 8, 9, 10

!"#$ &'()*+,*-(-./*0!! 12+34$56 (& 789$: (-;-.;() <"=$ . 2> (?