United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS RE:
DKT. NO. 97
J. DAVILA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Enigma Software Group USA LLC (“Enigma”) brings
claims against Defendant Malwarebytes Inc. based on its
allegation that Malwarebytes unlawfully characterized
Enigma's software as harmful to users' computers.
Malwarebytes now moves to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). Malwarebytes's motion will be granted.
develops software that protects internet users from malware,
adware, and other unwanted computer programs. First Am.
Compl. (“FAC”) ¶¶ 3, 36, Dkt. No. 33.
Malwarebytes's software scans users' computers for
“potentially unwanted programs, ” which it
automatically flags and quarantines. Id. ¶ 5.
When the software detects an unwanted program, it displays a
notification and asks the user if she wants to remove the
program from her computer. Id.
also provides anti-malware software to internet users.
Id. ¶ 4. Enigma alleges that, in 2016,
Malwarebytes revised the criteria it uses to identify
unwanted programs. Id. ¶ 7. Under the new
criteria, Malwarebytes's software identifies Enigma's
software as a potential threat. Id. Enigma alleges
that Malwarebytes's classification of Enigma's
software is wrong because Enigma's programs “are
legitimate and pose no security threat to users'
computers.” Id. ¶ 9. Enigma alleges that
Malwarebytes revised its criteria to interfere with
Enigma's customer base and to retaliate against Enigma
for a separate lawsuit Enigma filed against a Malwarebytes
affiliate. Id. ¶¶ 8, 19-20.
basis, Enigma brings claims for (1) false advertising in
violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (FAC ¶¶
134-43), (2) violations of New York General Business Law
§ 349 (FAC ¶¶ 144-50), (3) tortious
interference with contractual relations (FAC ¶¶
151-160), and (4) tortious interference with business
relations (FAC ¶¶ 161-68).
now moves to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Def.'s
Mot. to Dismiss (“MTD”), Dkt. No. 97.
motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal
sufficiency of claims alleged in the complaint. Parks
Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th
Cir. 1995). Dismissal “is proper only where there is no
cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts
alleged to support a cognizable legal theory.”
Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).
The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.' ” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
argues that all of Enigma's claims are barred by the
immunity provisions of § 230(c)(2) of the Communications
Decency Act. Mot. 7. That section provides:
provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
held liable on account of-
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict
access to or availability of material that the provider or
user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,
whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to
information content providers or others the technical means
to restrict access to ...