14.  Confide was incorporated in 2013 to develop, market, and sell communications  applications. Confide’s main product is its Confide App that it markets as a confidential  messaging platform. Using the Confide App, which is available for Android, iOS, Windows, and  macOS devices, consumers can communicate to others who are also using App and transmit text,  video, audio, and various file types.    15.  Confide offers a “basic” version of the App for free and a “plus” (i.e., premium)  version for a monthly fee. Both versions promise, inter alia, (1) ephemeral messages, (2) end-to- end encryption, and (3) screenshot protection.5 For instance, Confide represents that messages  sent through the App are ephemeral. Specifically, that after a message is “read once, [it is]  gone…[n]o forwarding, no printing, no saving…no nothing.”6    17.  In line with this, Confide purports to “prevent[] screenshots on most of [its]  platforms[,]” and, “[w]here prevention is not technically feasible, [its] patent-pending reading  experience ensures that only a sliver of the message is unveiled at a time and that the sender’s  name is not visible.”8 (See Figure 1.)    19.  When the messages are viewed through Confide’s desktop applications (e.g.,  Windows and macOS), Confide seemingly modifies its application’s user interface so that any  screenshot taken is returned as a gray or black screen. (See Figure 2.)  (Figure 2.)9   20.  Beyond blocking screenshots, Confide represents the App will purportedly alert  both the sender and recipient of a message if the recipient has attempted to take a screenshot, and  then kick the offender out of the message. (See Figure 1.)    21.  As acknowledged by Confide through its representations, preserving the  confidentiality of any message requires the combination of encryption, ephemerality, and  screenshot protection. If the messaging platform fails to provide any one of these factors,  messages sent through that platform are not truly confidential.  Confide Does Not Provide Its Advertised Features      23.  As introduced above, Confide represents, in no uncertain terms, that its App  blocks screenshots. But that isn’t true. Any Confide user accessing the platform through the  Windows App can take screenshots of any and all received messages. Those screenshots can  include the entire content of the message as well as the identity of the sending party, despite  Confide’s explicit claims that such information would not be visible at the same time (i.e., only a  “sliver” of the text would be visible).    24.  As Figure 3 shows, it is possible to take screenshots that capture the name of the  sender (Sending Party), as well as the full content of the message sent by the Sending Party:  (Figure 3, a screenshot taken of a message received on the Windows desktop  version of the App after deactivating “enable desktop composition.”)    26.  To make matters worse, many of the other security features that Confide claims  protect its messages also fail to operate on the desktop versions of the App. Confide represents  that even if a party can somehow take a screenshot, it would alert the sender and remove the  offender from the message. By alerting the sender, Confide is putting them on notice that their  messages can no longer be considered confidential (and the sender will undoubtedly stop sending  confidential communications).    27.  In reality, Confide does not notify anyone when a screenshot is taken when the  recipient uses the macOS or Windows App. Worse, the offending party taking the screenshot is  never removed from the message, ensuring that the sender continues sending confidential or  otherwise sensitive information, pictures, or videos.    29.  Ultimately, and despite Confide’s promises, the App does not prevent screenshots  of messages (or pictures or videos) sent through the App—whether taken via an operating  system’s internal screenshot mechanism or camera photography. As a result, Confide’s promises  of ephemerality are rendered false. Message recipients can easily create permanent records of the  purportedly secured messages.    31.  Confide deceived consumers into believing that its messaging platform would  allow them to send and receive messages with screenshot protection even when it didn’t design  Apps to provide those protections. Consumers relied on Confide’s representations, sent secretive,  confidential, and intimate messages, and even paid for additional features, all under false  pretenses. Each of which was exposed to potential duplication, storage, and exploitation, and  none of which featured Confide’s self-professed elements of “confidentiality.”  32.  Plaintiff Jeremy Auman purchased a monthly subscription to Confide’s App on or  around January 13, 2017 for $6.99 a month.   33.  Auman purchased his subscription to the App based on Confide’s representations  that it provided a “confidential” messaging platform and its representations that his messages  would be secure from any potential duplication or preservation due to its repeated promises of  message ephemerality and screenshot protection.   35.  As discussed above, the messages Auman sent through the App did not feature the  security measures expressly promised by Confide in its marketing materials. Each of the  messages sent by Auman through the App were subject to duplication and permanent storage.     36.  Had Auman known that Confide did not offer the confidentiality and security  features that it marketed to consumers, he would not have downloaded or used the App or paid  for a subscription to the App.   37.  Plaintiff ceased using the App to send confidential and secure messages and  cancelled his subscription after finding out that Confide did not offer the confidentiality and  security features as represented in its marketing materials.    38.  Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)  and (b)(3) on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, defined as follows:  Class: All persons in the United States who (1) paid Confide for a  subscription; (2) after August 2015.   The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding  over this action and members of their families; (2) Confide, Confide’s subsidiaries, parents,  successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Confide or its parents have a controlling  interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly  execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this  matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel  and Confide’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such  excluded persons.   40.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, and those questions  predominate over any questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common  questions for the Class include, but are not limited to the following:  a)  Whether Confide’s representations were designed to mislead consumers  into subscribing to the App;  b)  Whether Confide’s conduct described herein violates New York’s  Deceptive Practices Law (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349);   c)  Whether Confide’s conduct described herein violates New York’s False  Advertising Law (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 350 et seq.); and  d)  Whether Confide’s conduct described herein constitutes fraudulent  inducement.   41.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the  Class. Plaintiff and the Class sustained damages as a result of Confide’s uniform wrongful  conduct during transactions with Plaintiff and the Class.   42.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in  complex litigation and class actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class,  and Confide has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.    44.  Superiority: This case is appropriate for certification because class proceedings  are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy. The injuries suffered by the individual members of the Class are likely to have been  relatively small compared to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the litigation  necessitated by Confide’s actions. Absent a class action, it would be difficult, if not impossible,  for the individual members of the Class to obtain effective relief from Confide. Even if members  of the Class themselves could sustain such individual litigation, it would not be preferable to a  class action because individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties and  the Court and require duplicative consideration of the legal and factual issues presented herein.  By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits  of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single Court.  Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered, and uniformity of decisions will be  ensured.  45.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   47.  Confide’s corporate headquarters are in New York, New York. It made the App in  New York, New York. The marketing representations and advertisements at issue were developed  in New York, and the internal approval for their use in commerce occurred in New York.    48.  Confide directs consumer inquiries and comments to support@getconfide.com,  which, upon information and belief, is accessed and managed by Confide’s staff in New York.   49.  Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class members’ subscription payments were all  processed electronically and received by Confide in New York.    50.  New York’s Deceptive Practices Law, Gen. Bus. Law § 349, protects consumers  against “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the  furnishing of any service” in the state of New York.    51.  As described herein, Confide engaged in deceptive business practices by, among  other things, misrepresenting that the App possessed confidentiality features that it did not  possess and using those misrepresentations to induce consumers (like Plaintiff and the Class)  into subscribing to the App.   53.  Confide intentionally misrepresented the security features of the App and failed to  correct those misrepresentations, because they knew those misrepresentations had induced  consumers into purchasing subscriptions to the App, and the correction would have resulted in a  loss of subscribers.   54.  Confide’s deceptive statements regarding the security features of the App were  materially untrue, misleading, and likely to deceive the public inasmuch as their advertisements  and statements caused reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, to mistakenly believe that the  App had the security features that Confide advertised it as possessing.   55.  Confide’s material misrepresentations regarding the security features of the App  directly affected Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ choices to subscribe to the App.   56.  Plaintiff and the Class chose to subscribe to Confide’s App specifically because of  Confide’s promises that the App offered security features advertised and ensured the  confidentiality of messages sent through the App.    57.  Plaintiff and the Class reasonably viewed the representations made by Confide  regarding the App as true, and as a direct and proximate result, subscribed to the App based on  the representations that it offered specific security measures to ensure the confidentiality of  messages sent through the App.    58.  Had Confide corrected its misrepresentations and clarified that the App did not  actually have the security features it advertised, or the ability to provide confidential messaging,  Plaintiff and thousands of consumers would have chosen alternative products that provided  additional security measures which the App did not.   60.  Accordingly, had Plaintiff and the Class known that the App did not provide the  security features that Confide represented it as possessing, they would not have been willing to  use the App and pay for a monthly subscription.   61.  Thus, as a direct and proximate result of Confide’s deceptive practices, Plaintiff  and the Class have suffered actual injury in the form of payment to Confide and a loss of privacy.    62.  Although the features provided to Confide subscribers (i.e., those who paid  money to Confide beyond the free app) still have some utility, their utility has been greatly  diminished as a result of Defendant's misrepresentations. If Defendant had provided the App as  advertised (i.e., the App was actually secure and blocked screenshots), Plaintiff and members of  the Class could use the subscription features at the level expected. But because Defendant did not  provide the App as advertised, Plaintiff and members of the Class cannot use the subscription  features in the way contemplated at the time they purchased the subscriptions (when they thought  the App was secure).   64.  By all of the above, Confide engaged in willful and knowing violations of N.Y.  Gen. Bus. Law § 349 by engaging in deceptive and materially misleading business practices  directed at consumers, which caused consumers actual harm.     65.  Therefore, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, seeks an order pursuant to  N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h) awarding a minimum of $50 in damages to Plaintiff and each Class  member who suffered injury as a result of Confide’s deceptive practices.   66.  Because Confide’s conduct was willful and knowing, Plaintiff and the putative  Class seek treble damages pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h).  67.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   68.  Confide engaged in advertising and marketing to consumers throughout the  United States, including in New York, that induced them to subscribe to the App by promising  them that the App featured certain security features to ensure the confidentiality of messages sent  through it.    69.  As described herein, Confide engaged in false advertising by, among other things,  misrepresenting that the App had security protections that prevented screenshots of the content of  messages from being taken, as well as protections that would limit the amount of a message’s  content displayed at the same time.    71.  Confide also represented that the content of a message would not be  simultaneously displayed in conjunction with the identity of the individual that sent the message.  Those representations were false: both macOS and Windows versions of the App always show  the full content of a message in conjunction with the identity of the sending party.    72.  Confide further promised that its messages were ephemeral, and thus could not be  saved, printed, or forwarded. That representation was also false: the Window’s desktop version  of the App allows for screenshots to be taken. Additionally, both desktop versions of the App  allow for photographs to be taken of full messages in conjunction with the identity of a  message’s sender.    73.  Confide made these representations with the intent to induce consumers into  purchasing subscriptions to the App for its perceived—but non-existent—features that  purportedly provided confidentiality of messages sent through the App.    74.  Confide’s advertising and marketing statements regarding the features of the App  were materially untrue, misleading, and likely to deceive the public inasmuch as their  advertisements and statements caused consumers to mistakenly believe that the App contained  the specific features represented in those statements (including screenshot protection, message  ephemerality, and the confidentiality of any message sent through the App).    75.  Plaintiff and members of the Class were exposed to and relied on Confide’s  statements in deciding to subscribe to the App and paying the monthly subscription fee.   77.  Accordingly, had Plaintiff and the Class known that the App did not provide the  security features that Confide represented it as possessing, they would not have been willing to  use and pay for a monthly subscription.   78.  Thus, as a direct and proximate result of Confide’s deceptive practices, Plaintiff  and the Class have suffered actual injury in the form of payment to Confide.    79.  Although the features provided to Confide subscribers (i.e., those who paid  money to Confide beyond the free app) still have some utility, their utility has been greatly  diminished as a result of Defendant's misrepresentations. If Defendant had provided the App as  advertised (i.e., the App was actually secure and blocked screenshots), Plaintiff and members of  the Class could use the subscription features at the level expected. But because Defendant did not  provide the App as advertised, Plaintiff and members of the Class cannot use the subscription  features in the way contemplated at the time they purchased the subscriptions (when they thought  the App was secure).   81.  By all of the above, Confide engaged in willful and knowing violations of N.Y.  Gen. Bus. Law §§ 350 et seq., falsely advertising the features of the App, which materially  misled consumers and caused them actual harm.   82.  Therefore, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, seeks an order pursuant to  N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 350 et seq. awarding a minimum of $500 in damages to Plaintiff and  each Class member who suffered injury as a result of Confide’s false advertising.   83.  Because Confide’s conduct was willful and knowing, Plaintiff and the putative  Class members seek treble damages pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350-e(3).   84.  Further, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other members of the Class, seek an  order under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350-e(3) enjoining Confide’s unlawful advertising practices  described herein.  85.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   86.  By representing that the App possessed screenshot protection and other features to  ensure the ephemerality of any messages sent through the App, Confide falsely represented the  App possessed security features that it did not, in fact, posses. Confide made these statements  with knowledge of their falsity.    87.  Confide misrepresented the security features of the App specifically with the  intention of inducing consumers who would not otherwise subscribe to the App, or would  otherwise have subscribed to its competitors, to do so.    89.  Plaintiff was one such customer. After viewing Confide’s representations  regarding the security features of the App, as well as its statements that messages sent through  the App would be confidential because it possessed those features, Plaintiff subscribed to the  App. Had Confide not misrepresented the actual features of the App, Plaintiff would not have  paid to subscribe to the App.    90.  In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff Auman seeks an order requiring Confide to pay  actual and compensatory damages.    91.  Plaintiff further requests that if the Court finds that Confide’s conduct and  misrepresentations were made with malice and in conscious disregard for Plaintiff and the  Class’s rights, they should be awarded punitive damages against Confide in an amount to deter  such conduct in the future.   Fraudulent Inducement  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Violation of New York’s Deceptive Practices Law  N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Violation of New York’s False Advertising Law  N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 350 et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  