SEAN REIS (SBN 184044)

I
sreis@edelson.com \
EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
2
a
3002I TomasStreet,Suite 300
RanchoSantaMargarita,California 92688
F'tLHwfM )
J

Telephone: (949) 459-2124 2179\1vr/

r'1AY
4 Facsimile: (949) 459-2123
5
JAY EDELSON*
'$i-'^t
-,F*ffiff'r,t'it.'Tft
6 (j edelson@edelson. com)
RAFEY S. BALABANIAN*
7 (rbalabanian@edelson. com)
CHRISTOPHERL. DORE*
8 (cdore@edelson.com)
Eper-soNMcGuns LLC
9
350 North LaSalleStreet,Suite1300
1 0 Chicago,Illinois 60654
Telephone:(312) 589-6370
1 1 Fax:(312)589-6378

I2

13
on$goutF" p"g"f
[additionalcounselappearing
* Pro hac vice Application Forthcoming
ll 2,585
I4
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE PUTATIVE CLASS
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
t6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
t7
CaseNo.
w behalf
,
BRET L. LUSSKIN, JR. individually and on
of all otherssimilarly situated,
t19
Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
20
V.
2l
22 GOOGLE,INC., a Delawarecorporation,and
SLIDE, INC., a Delawarecorporation,
23
Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
24
25
26
27
28 COMPLAINT
\ I
1\ "\,. I
\l \; 1i
 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

2 1. Plaintiff Bret L. Lusskin, Jr. brings this class action complaint against
J DefendantsGoogle Inc. and Slide Inc. to stop Defendants'practice of making unsolicited
4 text messagecalls to cellular telephones,and to obtain redressfor all personsinjured by their
5 conduct. Plaintiff, for his class action complaint, alleges as follows upon personal
6 knowledgeas to himself and his own acts and experiences,and, as to all other matters,upon
7 informationand belief, including investigationconductedby his attorneys.
8 PARTIES

9 2. Plaintiff Bret L. Lusskin is a naturalpersonand citizen of the Stateof Florida.

10 3. DefendantGoogle, Inc. is a corporationincorporatedand existing under the
1 1 laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located at 1600

t2 AmphitheatreParkway,Mountain View, California 94043. Googledoesbusinessthroughout

1 3 the United States,including in the Stateof California and this District.
t4 4. DefendantSlide,Inc. is a corporationincorporatedand existingunder the laws
1 5 of the Stateof Delawarewith its principal placeof businessat 301 BrannanSt, 6th Floor, San
r6 Francisco,California 94107. Slide is a wholly owned subsidiaryof DefendantGoogle. Slide
t7 does businessthroughout the United States,including in the State of California and this
1 8 District.
I9 JURISDICTION & VENUE
20 5. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
2l U.S.C. $ 1332(d), because(a) at leastone memberof the putative classis a citizenof a state
22 different from Defendants,(b) the amount in controversyexceeds$5,000,000,exclusive of
23 interestand costs,and (c) noneof the exceptionsunderthat subsectionapply to this action.
24 6. Venueis properin this districtunder28 U.S.C.$ 1391(a)(1-2)as Defendants
25 reside in this District and a substantialpart of the eventsgiving rise to the claims asserted
26 hereoccurredin this District.
27
28
COMPLAINT
 I COMMON ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
2 A. Bulk SMS Marketins
J 7. In recent years, marketerswho have felt stymied by federal laws limiting

4 solicitation by telephone,fax machine, and e-mail have increasinglylooked to altemative

5 technologiesthroughwhich to sendbulk messagescheaply.
6 8. Bulk text messaging,or SMS marketing, has emergedas a new and direct

7 method of communicating and soliciting consumer business.The term "Short Message

8 Seryice" or "SMS" is a messagingsystemthat allows cellular telephonesubscribersto use
9 their cellular telephonesto send and receive short text messages,usually limited to 160
l0 characters.An SMS messageis a text messagecall directedto a wirelessdevicethrough the
1 1 useof the telephonenumberassignedto the device.

t2 9. When an SMS messagecall is successfullymade, the recipient's cell phone

1 3 rings, alerting him or her that a call is being received. As cellular telephonesare inherently

t4 mobile and are frequently carried on their owner's person, calls to cellular telephones,

may be receivedby the calledparty virhrally anywhereworldwide.

1 5 including SMS messages,

t6 B. DefendantsSendText Messasesto ConsumersWho Do Not Want Them

t7 10. The newestevolution of text messagemarketinghastaken the form of "group
1 8 messaging"applications,such as Defendants' group texting service "Disco," in which a
l9 singlepersonor entity is able to createa group and sendtext messagesto dozensof peopleat
20 once. Likewise, a group texting service allows all the recipients to respondto all other
2I membersof the group with a singlemessage.
22 IL In or aroundApril 2011, Defendantsreleaseda servicecalled Disco, available
23 on the Internetat Disco.com. DefendantsGoogle and Slide workedjointly in developingand
24 designingthe Disco service. On information and belief, both employeesof Google and Slide
25 participatedin and played an integralrole in Disco's productionand release.
26 12. Disco is marketed by Defendants as a "group texting" tool, allowing
27
28
COMPLAINT
 I customersto simultaneouslysend SMS text messagesto large groups of people en masse,
2 using one commoncellular telephonenumberprovidedby Defendants.
3 13. Using the Disco websiteor mobile application,a customersignsup, createsa
4 "group," and then addsup to ninety-nine(99) other individualsto that group by enteringtheir

5 full namesand cellular telephonenumbers.

6 14. Defendantsdo not seekto obtain consentto be part of the group, nor doesthe
7 group originator needto demonstrateconsent,or even agreeto gain the consentof the group
8 members.
9 15. A consumer'sparticipationin the group is opt-out, meaningthat a consumer
l0 may be addedto and kept in the group without authorization.
11 16. Once all group membersreceivea message,they too can respondto everyone
l2 else in the group an unlimited number of times, creating an ongoing "chat room" effect of
1 3 nearly constanttext messages.Becausethe messagescome from an unknown number,and
T 4 the group creatorcan easily input a fake name,the resultingchatroom canbe a chaoticstorm
1 5 of text messagesin which people are attemptingto figure out what the group is, who the
T6 creatoris, how they were put in the group,and how to stop it.
I7 17. The overall result of this software design is that thousandsof consumers
1 8 receivetext messagesthrough Defendants'Disco servicethat they neither consentedto nor
1 9 wanted.
20 C. DefendantsHarvest the Phone Numbers Submitted bv Group Creators
2l to Promote the Disco ServiceThroush Text Spam
22 18. Additionally, a group text service opensup an opportunity for the company
23 controlling the flow of messages,in this case Defendants,to send wireless spam to the
24 thousandsof phone numbers added by consumerswho are creating groups for their own
25 individual use.
26 19. Defendantsare able to harvestall phone numbersaddedby group creatorsin
27
28
COMPLAINT
 1 order to independentlysendtheir own text messageadvertisementspromoting therr servlce
2 and mobile application.
J 20. The moment a consumercreatesa Disco texting group, but before the group
4 creatoractually tries to text anyonein the new group, every memberof the group is instantly
5 sentseveraltext messagesdirectly by Defendants.
6 21. Thesetext messagesinclude specific advertisementsfor Disco's service and
7 mobile application,and contain a direct link to downloadthe Disco mobile application. For
8 example,a group membermay receivea text messagein a form similar to the following:
9 Hi [gloup member],it's [group creator]. Welcometo Disco!
10 I just addedyou to "[group name].

1l Reply to join our chat or text *who for roster.

t2 Disco is a group texting service.

13 StandardSMS ratesmay apply

l4 or chat for FREE w/ our app-http:l/disco.com/d

15 More info? Text *help To quit? Text *leave
r6 22. The group creatoris not informed that advertisementsor other text messages
t7 will be sentby Defendantsand cannotcontrol their ffansmission.
18 D. Plaintiffs Experience with Defendants
t9 23. On or aboutApril 8,2011, Plaintiffs cell phonerang, indicatingthat a text
20 call was being received. The text messagestatedthat it was from the Disco service.
2l 24. The "from" field of such transmissionwas identified as 302-583-5422.The
22 phonenumber 302-583-5422is ownedand/oroperatedby Defendants.
23 25- At no time did Plaintiff consent to the receipt of text messagesfrom
24 Defendants.
25 26. Becausegroup memberswere not familiar with the phone number 302-583-
26 5422,or previously had not had any interaction with the website Disco.com, immediately
27
28
COMPLAINT
I after receiving the first text messagePlaintiff received approximately 105 more text
2 messagesthrough the Disco.com service, all expressing confusion and anger over the
a
J unsolicitedbarrageof messages.
4 27. The flood of text messagesbecame so overwhelming that it effectively

5 'Jammed" Plaintiffs cell phone, rendering it completely inoperable until the flow of

6 subsided.
messages
7 28. By effectuating these unauthorized text messagecalls, Defendants have
8 causedconsumersacfualharm. In the presentcase,becauseof the natureof group texting, a
9 consumercould be subiectedto hundredsof text messagesbefore having an opportunity to
1 0 opt out.

11 29. In order to redresstheseinjuries, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a classof

t2 similarly situatedindividuals,brings suit under the TelephoneConsumerProtection Act,47
1 3 U.S.C.5 227, et seq.("47 U.S.C. 5 227"), which prohibitsunsolicitedvoice and text callsto

I4 cell phones.
15 30. On behalf of the Class,Plaintiff seeksan injunction requiring Defendantsto
1 6 ceaseall wireless spam activities and an award of statutorydamagesto the class members,

I7 togetherwith costsand reasonableattorneys'fees.

t8 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

I9 31. Plaintiff brings this actionpursuantto FederalRule of Civil Procedure

20 23(b)(2)and Rule 23(bX3) on behalf of himself and a Classdefinedas follows:

2l Disco MessasesClass

22 All personswho (1) receiveda text messagedirectly from the Disco group
23 texting servicethat was not sentby a Disco group leaderor anothermember
24 of a Disco group; and(2) all personswho opted-outof a Disco texting group
25 within twenty-four hoursof receiptof an initiating text messageor who was a
26

27

28
COMPLAINT
 I memberof a Disco texting group that was closedwithin twenty-fourhours of
2 its creation.
J 32. assigns,
Excluded from the Class are Defendants,their legal representatives,
4 and successors,and any entity in which Defendantshave a controlling interest. Further
5 excludedare Plaintiff s attorneys. Also excludedis the judge to whom this caseis assigned
6 and thejudge's immediatefamily, as well as any personwho createda Disco group.
7 33. Upon information and belief, there are tens of thousandsof personsin the
8 Class,suchthatjoinder of all membersis impracticable.
9 34. Plaintiff will fairly and adequatelyrepresentand protect the interestsof the
1 0 Class members. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantialexperiencein prosecuting

1 1 complex litigation and classactions. Plaintiff and his counselare committed to vigorously

l2 prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Class, and have the financial
1 3 resourcesto do so. Neither Plaintiff nor his counselhave any interestadverseto thoseof the

T 4 othermembersof the Class.

15 35. Absent a class action, most members of the Class would find the cost of
I6 litigating their claims to be prohibitive, and will have no effective remedy. The class
T 7 treatmentof commonquestionsof law and fact is also superiorto multiple individual actions

1 8 or piecemeallitigation in that it conservesthe resourcesof the courts and the litigants, and

I9 promotesconsistencyand efficiency of adjudication.

20 36. Defendantshave actedand failed to act on groundsgenerallyapplicableto the
2l Plaintiff and the other membersof the Class in transmitting the wireless spam at issue,
22 requiring the Court's imposition of uniform relief to ensurecompatiblestandardsof conduct
23 toward the membersof the Class.
24 37. The factualand legal basesof Defendants'liability to Plaintiff and to the other
25 membersof the Classare the same,resulting in injury to the Plaintiff and to all of the other
26 membersof the Class as a result of the transmissionof the wireless spam alleged herein.
27

28
COMPLAINT
 I Plaintiff and the other Class membershave all suffered harm and damagesas a result of
2 Defendants'unlawful and wrongful conductof transmittingwirelessspam.

There are many questionsof law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff
a
J 38.
4 and the other membersof the Class,and thosequestionspredominateover any questionsthat
5 may affect individual membersof the Class. Commonquestionsfor the Classinclude but are
6 not limited to the following:
7 (a) Doesthe wirelessspamDefendantstransmittedviolate 47 U.S.C. $
8 227?
9 (b) Are the Classmembersentitledto treble damagesbasedon the
10 willfulness of Defendants'conduct?
11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
t2 (Violation of 47 U.S.C. S 227)

13 39. Plaintiff incorporatesby referencethe foregoing allegations as if fully set

l4 forth herein.
l5 40. Defendantsmade unsolicited text calls, including the messagein paragraphs
1 6 24 and31, to the wirelesstelephonenumbersof the Class. Each suchtext messagecall was
t7 madeusing equipmentthat, upon information and belief, had the capacityto storeor produce
1 8 telephonenumbersto be called,using a randomor sequentialnumbergenerator.
I9 4I. Thesetext calls were madeen masseand without the prior expressconsentof
20 the Plaintiff and the other membersof the Classto receivesuchwirelessspam.
2l 42. Defendantshave,therefore,violated47 U.S.C.$ 227(bxl)(A)(iii). As a result
22 of Defendants' conduct, the members of the Class are each entitled to, under section
23 227(b)(3)(B),a minimumof $500.00in damagesfor eachviolationof suchact.
24 43. BecauseDefendantshad knowledgethat Plaintiff and membersof the Class
25 did not consent to the receipt of the aforementionedwireless spam, the Court should,
26 pursuant to section 47 U.S.C. 5 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages
27
28
COMPLAINT
 rt:c*verablchy {lrc f}laintilTand the otlrertllet}Ibersof tlre Class.
z WIIEItEFOR[- flilirrriff Brcl L. L*sskin,on behalfof himsell'andthe Classprayslbr
a
ttre f*llcrvingruliel
?
I
t. An nrdet cenif,'*ingthis easeas a classitetionon behalf of the Class

as definedah*re; appointingPlainlilTLusskinas the rsprssentative{tf

i

b the ('las*: and appointinghis counselas classcou:rsel;

7 2.
I 1
t1
An aruardol'actualand stfltulorydantagesl
tc ceaseall tvirelesssparn
An irliunetionrequirirrgDeJendants
pf thc Class;
activilirs.nnelatherwiseprotectitlg,
the interests

Iti il An awartjof reasonilblsattomcys' l'cr:sanclcosts;ancl

n 5. $uch furtheranclntherrelief rhs Clourldeemsreasonableantljusl.
n
tl JI,RV ilfI{AND ,
l4 Plaintiffr*questslrialby jun'*f nllclaims fhatsanbe so lried.
t5

l6
Respectfullysubnrittcri,
l1

hi Dated:l\{ay3?.2{lll
,M tlL
Iq
llv:
./,TV v

7* $*an P" Reis

EDELSONh.{CCUIREtLP
2l for Plainiii'f
CIneo{'the Attome-"*s

?3 snAN Rnls{sBrxrtl4$44}
"rret.r(Ji;rdelrr1fi .r 0trt
/.*)EI}SLST}hIMCfi UIRE, LLP
3${l2l TornasSrreet,Suite 3f}0
:-*
R"qncht$antaMargarits,C*liikrmia926$B
:_5 Telephane:1e49J459-2124
F"acsinrile: tS49)4:9-2 I 23
X:

:?

:r$
fl{}l\{Fl .i1lNT
 JAY EDELSON*
I
( edelson@edelson.com)
2 RAFEY S. BALABANIAN*
(rbalabanian@edelson.com)
J CHRISTOPHERL. DORE*
(cdore@edelson.com)
4 EoBrsoNMcGunn LLC
350North LaSalleStreet,Suite1300
5
Chicago,Illinois 60654
6 Telephone:(312) 589-6370
Fax:(312)589-6378
7
SCOTTD. OWENS*
8 2000E. OaklandParkBlvd., Suite 106
9 Ft. Lauderdale.FL 33306
Telephone: (954)306-8104
l0 Fax: (954) 337-0666

11
* Pro hac vice Application Forthcoming
l2
13
I4
15
16
t7
18
t9
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT

10