Bottoms v. Block Inc
2:23-cv-01969
| W.D. Wash. | May 2, 2024Background
- Block, Inc. operates Cash App, an electronic financial services platform that allows users to send and receive money, as well as access additional fee-based services.
- Cash App implemented the "Invite Friends" marketing campaign, enabling users to send pre-composed referral texts to contacts and earn $5 per successful sign-up.
- Plaintiff, Kimberly Bottoms, received unsolicited promotional text messages containing referral links for Cash App, sent by another Cash App user.
- The plaintiff claims Block violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) by substantially assisting users in transmitting unlawful commercial text messages.
- Block moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing insufficiency of the allegations under CEMA on several grounds.
- The court was asked to decide the sufficiency of the plaintiff's CEMA-based claims at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantial assistance under CEMA | Block paid, enabled, and facilitated users to send referral texts using app features and pre-written messages | Users send texts by their own decisions; Block's role insufficient for liability | Sufficient facts alleged for substantial assistance |
| Knowledge of violation | Block need only know or consciously avoid knowing users' practices violate Consumer Protection Act | CEMA requires senders, not only assistant entities, to conduct business in WA, and Block lacked knowledge | Plaintiff's statutory reading correct |
| Exclusion under CEMA for certain activities | Only specific "Invite Friends" referral activity at issue, not entire Cash App platform | Cash App’s broader commercially significant use exempts it from liability | Exclusion does not apply |
| Whether texts were "commercial electronic text messages" | Messages promote Cash App—which charges for some services—making them commercial under CEMA | Messages only invite users to free app; not promoting a good/service for sale or lease | Messages are commercial under CEMA |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (outlines plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requires plausibility, not possibility)
- Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756 (Wash. 2014) (Washington consumer protection statutes should be liberally construed for consumers)