Fizz Social Corp. v Flower Ave, Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 31447(U) April 23, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 654292/2024 Judge: Lyle E. Frank Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2025 01:00 PM INDEX NO. 654292/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. LYLE E. FRANK PART 11M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 654292/2024 FIZZ SOCIAL CORP. MOTION DATE 10/16/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- FLOWER AVE, INC. D/B/A SIDECHAT AND/OR YIK YAK, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS .
Upon the foregoing documents, defendant’s motion is denied.
Background
Fizz Social Corp. (“Plaintiff”) is a social media platform for college students that
launched at Stanford in 2021. In the years since, it has been expanding and currently claims to be
active at 240 colleges and universities. In 2022, Flower Ave, Inc. (“Defendant”) created a rival
social media platform under the name of Sidechat and later acquired the older platform Yik Yak.
As part of the expansion process for college social media platforms, such companies often hire
students as brand ambassadors, who attempt to drive up student engagement with the platforms.
Common practices also include the use of other, more established and generalized social media
platforms, such as Instagram, to advertise their company, and hosting launch events that offer
giveaways and other incentives to garner student engagement. Given the necessarily limited
body of potential customers, competition between college social media platforms can be fierce.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s agents and employees have engaged in disruptive
tactics that go beyond normal competitive behavior, amounting to tortious interference. Incidents
654292/2024 FIZZ SOCIAL CORP. vs. FLOWER AVE, INC. D/B/A SIDECHAT AND/OR YIK YAK Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 001
1 of 6 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2025 01:00 PM INDEX NO. 654292/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2025
that Plaintiff alleges include a brand ambassador for Defendant loudly chanting “Fizz has
hackers” at one of Plaintiff’s launch events, another employee impersonating a Questbridge
Scholar in order to gain information on Plaintiff’s planned expansions, sending false spam
reports to Instagram in order to have accounts affiliated with Plaintiff suspended before launch
events, and paying students to delete Plaintiff’s app. Plaintiff brought the underlying proceeding
in August of 2024, with one claim of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage,
seeking damages and equitable relief.
Standard of Review
It is well settled that when considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211,
“the pleading is to be liberally construed, accepting all the facts alleged in the pleading to be true
and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference.” Avgush v. Town of Yorktown,
303 A.D.2d 340, 341 (2d Dept. 2003). Dismissal of the complaint is warranted “if the plaintiff
fails to assert facts in support of an element of the claim, or if the factual allegations and
inferences to be drawn from them do not allow for an enforceable right of recovery.”
Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc, 29 N.Y.3d 137, 142 (2017).
A party may move for a judgment from the court dismissing causes of action asserted
against them based on the fact that the pleading fails to state a cause of action. CPLR
§ 3211(a)(7). For motions to dismiss under this provision, “[i]nitially, the sole criterion is
whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four corners factual allegations are
discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law.” Guggenheimer
v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y. 2d 268, 275 (1977).
Discussion
654292/2024 FIZZ SOCIAL CORP. vs. FLOWER AVE, INC. D/B/A SIDECHAT AND/OR YIK YAK Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 001
2 of 6 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2025 01:00 PM INDEX NO. 654292/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2025
Defendant brings the present motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. They argue
that the required elements have not been pled and that Plaintiff has not identified a prospective
user who left Plaintiff’s platform due to Defendant’s alleged actions. The elements of a claim for
tortious interference are “(1) business relations with a third party, (2) the defendant’s interference
with those business relations, (3) the defendant acted for the sole purpose of harming plaintiff or
used wrongful means, and (4) injury to the business relationship.” Valkyrie AI LLC v.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, 233 A.D.3d 460, 462 (1st Dept. 2024). Plaintiff opposes the
motion and argues that they have adequately pled all required elements and have presented
sufficient facts in support of their claim at this stage. For the reasons that follow, defendant’s
motion is denied.
The Business Relationships with Third Parties Element Is Sufficiently Pled
The first element that Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to plead is the identification of
business relationships with a third party. Defendant argues that Plaintiff must identify specific
individuals that would have signed up with Plaintiff as an app user, absent Defendant’s actions.
Plaintiff argues that identification of the specific class of customers, i.e., the class of students at
the specific universities that Fizz was seeking to recruit from, is sufficient. In Tekton, the First
Department found a tortious interference claim was validly stated when a plaintiff alleged that
subcontractors would have entered into future contracts with plaintiff had it not been for the
defendants’ actions. Tekton Bldrs. LLC v. 1232 S. Blvd. LLC, 180 A.D.3d 616, 617 (1st Dept.
2020). The complaint in that underlying action did not identify specific third parties by name, but
merely referred to “clients, subcontractors, suppliers and/or potential subcontractors and
suppliers.” 2017 NY S. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 38183, at *14. Here, the identification of specific
654292/2024 FIZZ SOCIAL CORP. vs. FLOWER AVE, INC. D/B/A SIDECHAT AND/OR YIK YAK Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 001
3 of 6 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2025 01:00 PM INDEX NO. 654292/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2025
groups of potential customers, such as U.C. Berkeley students, is sufficient to survive a motion
to dismiss.
Plaintiff Has Sufficiently Pled Wrongful Means
The next element that Defendant argues was insufficiently pled is the wrongful means.
Defendant has several arguments in this regard, including: 1) that it cannot be held liable for the
actions of independent contractors, such as brand ambassadors, and 2) the conduct complained of
does not arise to the level of wrongful means. Plaintiff has alleged a variety of specific actions as
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fizz Social Corp. v Flower Ave, Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 31447(U) April 23, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 654292/2024 Judge: Lyle E. Frank Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2025 01:00 PM INDEX NO. 654292/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. LYLE E. FRANK PART 11M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 654292/2024 FIZZ SOCIAL CORP. MOTION DATE 10/16/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- FLOWER AVE, INC. D/B/A SIDECHAT AND/OR YIK YAK, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS .
Upon the foregoing documents, defendant’s motion is denied.
Background
Fizz Social Corp. (“Plaintiff”) is a social media platform for college students that
launched at Stanford in 2021. In the years since, it has been expanding and currently claims to be
active at 240 colleges and universities. In 2022, Flower Ave, Inc. (“Defendant”) created a rival
social media platform under the name of Sidechat and later acquired the older platform Yik Yak.
As part of the expansion process for college social media platforms, such companies often hire
students as brand ambassadors, who attempt to drive up student engagement with the platforms.
Common practices also include the use of other, more established and generalized social media
platforms, such as Instagram, to advertise their company, and hosting launch events that offer
giveaways and other incentives to garner student engagement. Given the necessarily limited
body of potential customers, competition between college social media platforms can be fierce.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s agents and employees have engaged in disruptive
tactics that go beyond normal competitive behavior, amounting to tortious interference. Incidents
654292/2024 FIZZ SOCIAL CORP. vs. FLOWER AVE, INC. D/B/A SIDECHAT AND/OR YIK YAK Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 001
1 of 6 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2025 01:00 PM INDEX NO. 654292/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2025
that Plaintiff alleges include a brand ambassador for Defendant loudly chanting “Fizz has
hackers” at one of Plaintiff’s launch events, another employee impersonating a Questbridge
Scholar in order to gain information on Plaintiff’s planned expansions, sending false spam
reports to Instagram in order to have accounts affiliated with Plaintiff suspended before launch
events, and paying students to delete Plaintiff’s app. Plaintiff brought the underlying proceeding
in August of 2024, with one claim of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage,
seeking damages and equitable relief.
Standard of Review
It is well settled that when considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211,
“the pleading is to be liberally construed, accepting all the facts alleged in the pleading to be true
and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference.” Avgush v. Town of Yorktown,
303 A.D.2d 340, 341 (2d Dept. 2003). Dismissal of the complaint is warranted “if the plaintiff
fails to assert facts in support of an element of the claim, or if the factual allegations and
inferences to be drawn from them do not allow for an enforceable right of recovery.”
Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc, 29 N.Y.3d 137, 142 (2017).
A party may move for a judgment from the court dismissing causes of action asserted
against them based on the fact that the pleading fails to state a cause of action. CPLR
§ 3211(a)(7). For motions to dismiss under this provision, “[i]nitially, the sole criterion is
whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four corners factual allegations are
discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law.” Guggenheimer
v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y. 2d 268, 275 (1977).
Discussion
654292/2024 FIZZ SOCIAL CORP. vs. FLOWER AVE, INC. D/B/A SIDECHAT AND/OR YIK YAK Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 001
2 of 6 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2025 01:00 PM INDEX NO. 654292/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2025
Defendant brings the present motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. They argue
that the required elements have not been pled and that Plaintiff has not identified a prospective
user who left Plaintiff’s platform due to Defendant’s alleged actions. The elements of a claim for
tortious interference are “(1) business relations with a third party, (2) the defendant’s interference
with those business relations, (3) the defendant acted for the sole purpose of harming plaintiff or
used wrongful means, and (4) injury to the business relationship.” Valkyrie AI LLC v.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, 233 A.D.3d 460, 462 (1st Dept. 2024). Plaintiff opposes the
motion and argues that they have adequately pled all required elements and have presented
sufficient facts in support of their claim at this stage. For the reasons that follow, defendant’s
motion is denied.
The Business Relationships with Third Parties Element Is Sufficiently Pled
The first element that Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to plead is the identification of
business relationships with a third party. Defendant argues that Plaintiff must identify specific
individuals that would have signed up with Plaintiff as an app user, absent Defendant’s actions.
Plaintiff argues that identification of the specific class of customers, i.e., the class of students at
the specific universities that Fizz was seeking to recruit from, is sufficient. In Tekton, the First
Department found a tortious interference claim was validly stated when a plaintiff alleged that
subcontractors would have entered into future contracts with plaintiff had it not been for the
defendants’ actions. Tekton Bldrs. LLC v. 1232 S. Blvd. LLC, 180 A.D.3d 616, 617 (1st Dept.
2020). The complaint in that underlying action did not identify specific third parties by name, but
merely referred to “clients, subcontractors, suppliers and/or potential subcontractors and
suppliers.” 2017 NY S. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 38183, at *14. Here, the identification of specific
654292/2024 FIZZ SOCIAL CORP. vs. FLOWER AVE, INC. D/B/A SIDECHAT AND/OR YIK YAK Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 001
3 of 6 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2025 01:00 PM INDEX NO. 654292/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2025
groups of potential customers, such as U.C. Berkeley students, is sufficient to survive a motion
to dismiss.
Plaintiff Has Sufficiently Pled Wrongful Means
The next element that Defendant argues was insufficiently pled is the wrongful means.
Defendant has several arguments in this regard, including: 1) that it cannot be held liable for the
actions of independent contractors, such as brand ambassadors, and 2) the conduct complained of
does not arise to the level of wrongful means. Plaintiff has alleged a variety of specific actions as
part of a “campaign” to target Fizz, including yelling false claims about hackers near Plaintiff’s
launch event, falsely reporting accounts affiliated with Plaintiff as spam to Instagram in order to
prevent potential users from taking advantage of a promotion Plaintiff was running that involved
the use of Instagram, paying students to delete Plaintiff’s app, and impersonating a fictitious
student in order to gain information on the next schools Plaintiff was going to target.
To begin with, actions taken by the people hired by Defendant could form the basis for a
tortious interference claim. While generally “a principal is not liable for the acts of an
independent contractor”, the question of whether an individual is an independent contractor for
purposes of liability is a question of fact. Goodwin v. Comcast Corp., 42 A.D.3d 322, 322 (1st
Dept. 2007). A court may make such a determination only when “the evidence on the issue of
control presents no conflict.” Id., at 323. Here, there has been no evidence provided as to the
employment status of Defendant’s agents, only allegations. Therefore, dismissal of the complaint
on the grounds of employment status would be premature. And for the element of wrongful
means, this aspect of tortious interference can include “physical violence, fraud,
misrepresentation, civil suits, criminal prosecutions and some degree of economic pressure, but
more than simple persuasion is required.” Here, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant’s agents
654292/2024 FIZZ SOCIAL CORP. vs. FLOWER AVE, INC. D/B/A SIDECHAT AND/OR YIK YAK Page 4 of 6 Motion No. 001
4 of 6 [* 4] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2025 01:00 PM INDEX NO. 654292/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2025
used misrepresentations in order to induce students to terminate business relations with the
Plaintiff. This is sufficient to plead a cause of action for tortious interference.
Turning specifically to the incident at U.C. Berkeley, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has
failed to connect Defendant to the reports to Instagram that got Plaintiff’s page suspended, and
that this would not constitute interference with the student body as third parties, but solely
interference with Plaintiff’s relationship with Instagram. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was
behind their page being blocked upon information and belief, given the similarities between that
and the coordinated campaign to report Plaintiff to Instagram that occurred a few weeks prior to
the Berkeley incident. A complaint is deemed to allege “whatever can be implied from its
statements by fair and reasonable intendment.” Foley v. D’Agostino, 21 A.D.2d 60, 65 (1st Dept.
1964). And allegations upon information and belief that are based on a prior pattern of behavior
and concerning facts “peculiarly within defendants’ knowledge” suffice to put parties on notice
of the alleged wrongs. Allenby, LLC v. Credit Suisse, A.G., 134 A.D.3d 577, 580 (1st Dept.
2015). Furthermore, based on the detailed factual allegations in the complaint, any improper
reporting of Plaintiff to Instagram was intended to disrupt Plaintiff’s promotion whereby
Berkeley students who followed Plaintiff on Instagram and downloaded their app could receive
merchandise. These actions were aimed at disrupting the Plaintiff’s business relations with the
Berkeley students, not Instagram. Plaintiff has sufficiently pled wrongful means. The Court has
considered the defendant’s other arguments and found them unavailing. Accordingly, it is hereby
ADJUDGED that the motion to dismiss is denied.
654292/2024 FIZZ SOCIAL CORP. vs. FLOWER AVE, INC. D/B/A SIDECHAT AND/OR YIK YAK Page 5 of 6 Motion No. 001
5 of 6 [* 5] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2025 01:00 PM INDEX NO. 654292/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2025
4/23/2025 DATE LYLE E. FRANK, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□ □ GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
654292/2024 FIZZ SOCIAL CORP. vs. FLOWER AVE, INC. D/B/A SIDECHAT AND/OR YIK YAK Page 6 of 6 Motion No. 001
6 of 6 [* 6]