Fragrance Harris Stanfield v. Mean LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 04396

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: July 25, 2025
• Docket: 540 CA 24-01448
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fragrance Harris Stanfield v Mean LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 04396)

Fragrance Harris Stanfield v Mean LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 04396

Decided on July 25, 2025

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on July 25, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: LINDLEY, J.P., CURRAN, BANNISTER, SMITH, AND NOWAK, JJ.

540 CA 24-01448

[*1]FRAGRANCE HARRIS STANFIELD, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, OPINION AND

v

MEAN LLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ALPHABET INC., GOOGLE, LLC, YOUTUBE, LLC, AND REDDIT, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. (APPEAL NO. 6.)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, WASHINGTON D.C. (ERIC A. SHUMSKY, ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE, OF COUNSEL), WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C., NEW YORK CITY, WEBSTER SZANYI LLP, BUFFALO, AND PERKINS COIE LLP, NEW YORK CITY, FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ALPHABET, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, YOUTUBE, LLC, AND REDDIT, INC.

TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP, WASHINGTON, D.C. (GLENN E. CHAPPELL, ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE, OF COUSNEL), EVERYTOWN LAW, NEW YORK CITY, AND LAW OFFICES OF BONNER AND BONNER, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, NEW YORK CITY (JASMEET K. AHUJA OF COUNSEL), FOR CHAMBER OF PROGRESS, ENGINE ADVOCACY, AND WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, AMICUS CURIAE.

HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP, NEW YORK CITY (DANIEL M. SULLIVAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY ADVISORY COUNCIL, AMICUS CURIAE.

CHELUS, HERDZIK, SPEYER & MONTE, P.C., BUFFALO (ISABELLA S. JANKOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY, AMICUS CURIAE.

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Paula L. Feroleto, J.), entered August 29, 2024. The order denied the motion of defendants-appellants to dismiss the second amended complaint against them.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the second amended complaint is dismissed against defendants-appellants.

Same opinion as in Patterson v Meta Platforms, Inc. ([appeal No. 1] — AD3d — [July 25, 2025] [4th Dept 2025]).

All concur except Bannister and Nowak, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm in the same dissenting opinion as in Patterson v Meta Platforms, Inc. ([appeal No. 1] — AD3d — [July 25, 2025] [4th Dept 2025]).

Entered: July 25, 2025

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court