Shang v. Twitch Interactive, Inc.

Background

Bo Shang, a Massachusetts resident proceeding without a lawyer, sued Twitch Interactive, Inc. and Samantha Briasco-Stewart in San Francisco Superior Court. The defendants moved the case to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction. The court previously asked Shang to clarify the legal claims in his complaint. He stated that he wanted to remove his First and Fourteenth Amendment claims and intended to pursue a claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and related provisions against Twitch. He also identified federal criminal statutes concerning illegal gambling businesses and betting over communication wires as support for the claim.

Shang alleged that Twitch engaged in unfair competition, deceptive advertising, and false representations about its services. His allegations included claims about Twitch’s content moderation, treatment of streamers and users, handling of user communications, and subscription benefits. He also alleged that Twitch failed to respond adequately to harassment and cyberattacks. As to Briasco-Stewart, a former Twitch employee, Shang alleged that she did not take action after receiving his communication and later sought a civil restraining order against him.

Requests for Judicial Notice and Incorporation

The court granted the defendants’ request for judicial notice of documents from the civil-harassment restraining-order proceedings. The court took notice that the documents existed and were filed, but not that the facts stated in them were true. The court also granted the request to incorporate Twitch’s Terms of Service by reference because the complaint referred to those terms multiple times.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Twitch failed as a matter of law because those constitutional provisions govern government conduct, not the conduct of private parties such as Twitch.

The court also concluded that the complaint did not clearly state a claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17200. To the extent Shang relied on 18 U.S.C. § 1955 and 18 U.S.C. § 1084 as the unlawful acts supporting that claim, the court found that the complaint did not allege facts plausibly showing that Twitch committed either crime.

As to Briasco-Stewart, the court found that the complaint identified no facts plausibly supporting a claim against her. The court also noted that Shang later suggested he was dropping the claims against her. Those claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Shang leave to amend his claims against Twitch. It dismissed the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims without leave to amend because amendment would be futile, and it dismissed the claims against Briasco-Stewart without leave to amend. Shang could not add new defendants without the court’s prior permission.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The deadline for an amended complaint against Twitch was February 10, 2025. The court stated that any amended complaint could not include claims against Briasco-Stewart or First or Fourteenth Amendment claims. If Shang did not file an amended complaint, judgment would be entered in the defendants’ favor.