For more than two years, an obsessed German man hunted our company’s social media profiles. Now, with the support of Instagram, YouTube, and law enforcement, we are in the process of bringing him to justice in California.

We lost 23 social media profiles on five different platforms to “Alex Icke,” a middle-aged pretender whose real name is Alex Wegescheidt.

I’m excited about the future, for the first time in awhile.

Below is text from our lawsuit (Wer lieber auf Deutsch lesen möchte, hier ist der Link):

Matthew C. Heerde (State Bar №241771) mheerde@heerdelaw.com
HEERDE LAW PLLC
48 Wall Street 26th Floor

New York, NY 10005
Tel: (347) 460–3588
Fax: (347) 535–3588
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Digital Marketing Advisors and Zachary Urbina

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DIGITAL MARKETING ADVISORS, a California corporation, and ZACHARY URBINA, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALEXANDER WEGESCHEIDT, an individual, PAULIE2397, an unknown entity; MY.RNA9809, an unknown entity; ANASTASIE7357, an unknown entity; JANNELLE881, an unknown entity; SELENA_6642, an unknown entity; KATHLIN685, an unknown entity; CORNY3616, an unknown entity; ST.ARR7698, an unknown entity; 286532__BRITTANY__994717, an unknown entity;
ELODIACHURCHES.294.227, an unknown entity;
GENNI9397, an unknown entity; STEVENRODRIGUEZ5512886; an unknown entity;
DOES 1–20, inclusive;

Defendants.

Case №21 STCV 36274

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:

1. DEFAMATION;
2. TRADE LIBEL;
3. INTENTIONAL
4. INTERFERENCE WITH
5. ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE;
6. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
7. OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Digital Marketing Advisors (“Plaintiff” or “DMA”) and plaintiff Zachary Urbina (“Urbina,” and collectively with DMA, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys of record, bring this Complaint against the above-named Defendant, and allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs bring this action in order to address a pattern of anonymous online defamation, interference, and harassment that has damaged Mr. Urbina personally and has severely damaged Plaintiffs’ business.

2. Plaintiffs manage female model talent and create photographic and video content that DMA monetizes with its talent clients. Plaintiffs market this content in part by posting teaser content to social media platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, and others. Plaintiffs’ online social media profiles are thus a valuable part of Plaintiffs’ business.

3. Since early 2020, Plaintiffs’ content on Instagram and YouTube has been subject to fraudulent and malicious attack by the defendants sued herein, resulting in the disabling of Plaintiffs’ social media profiles, the loss of immense amount of labor and financial investment, and the loss of customer relationships.

4. Plaintiffs thus bring this suit to identify and seek damages against the anonymous users who have filed false and wrongful complaints against Plaintiffs’ online content.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Digital Marketing Advisors is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business located in Los Angeles County. At all times mentioned herein, Zachary Urbina (“Urbina”) was the sole owner and principal of DMA and was authorized to act, and did act, on its behalf. DMA occasionally does business as Shore Thang.

6. Plaintiff Zachary Urbina is an individual and citizen of the State of California and at all times relevant was and is a resident of Los Angeles County.

7. Defendant Alexander Wegescheidt (hereinafter, “Wegescheidt”) is, on information and belief, a foreign national and citizen of Germany and resides in Germany. On information and belief, Wegescheidt’s primary Instagram profile uses the name “Alex Icke,” but, as alleged below, Wegescheidt has also created numerous additional fake, “sock puppet” social media profiles in order to perpetrate the malicious wrongful conduct described herein, including sending defamatory direct messages to Plaintiffs’ family, friends, customers, and followers on Instagram, and systematically submitting hundreds of fraudulent and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ content on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles, in order to cause Plaintiffs’ social media profiles to be disabled.

8. Defendant Paulie2397 is an unknown entity, known only to Plaintiffs by its Instagram username Paulie2397. On information and belief, Defendant Paulie2397 created an Instagram profile with this username in order to send defamatory and libelous messages to Plaintiffs’ friends and colleagues and to submit anonymous false and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

9. Defendant My.rna9809 is an unknown entity, known only to Plaintiffs by its Instagram username My.rna9809. On information and belief, Defendant My.rna9809 created an Instagram profile with this username in order to send defamatory and libelous messages to Plaintiffs’ friends and colleagues and to submit anonymous false and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

10. Defendant Anastasie7357 is an unknown entity, known only to Plaintiffs by its Instagram username Anastasie7357. On information and belief, Defendant Anastasie7357 created an Instagram profile with this username in order to send defamatory and libelous messages to Plaintiffs’ friends and colleagues and to submit anonymous false and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

11. Defendant Jannelle881 is an unknown entity, known only to Plaintiffs by its Instagram username Jannelle881. On information and belief, Defendant Jannelle881 created an Instagram profile with this username in order to send defamatory and libelous messages to Plaintiffs’ friends and colleagues and to submit anonymous false and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

12. Defendant Selena_6642 is an unknown entity, known only to Plaintiffs by its Instagram username Selena_6642. On information and belief, Defendant Selena_6642 created an Instagram profile with this username in order to send defamatory and libelous messages to Plaintiffs’ friends and colleagues and to submit anonymous false and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

13. Defendant Kathlin685 is an unknown entity, known only to Plaintiffs by its Instagram username Kathlin685. On information and belief, Defendant Kathlin685 created an Instagram profile with this username in order to send defamatory and libelous messages to Plaintiffs’ friends and colleagues and to submit anonymous false and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

14. Defendant Corny3616 is an unknown entity, known only to Plaintiffs by its Instagram username Corny3616. On information and belief, Defendant Corny3616 created an Instagram profile with this username in order to send defamatory and libelous messages to Plaintiffs’ friends and colleagues and to submit anonymous false and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

15. Defendant St.arr7698 is an unknown entity, known only to Plaintiffs by its Instagram username St.arr7698. On information and belief, Defendant St.arr7698 created an Instagram profile with this username in order to send defamatory and libelous messages to Plaintiffs’ friends and colleagues and to submit anonymous false and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

16. Defendant 286532__Brittany__994717 is an unknown entity, known only to Plaintiffs by its Instagram username 286532__Brittany__994717. On information and belief, Defendant 286532__Brittany__994717 created an Instagram profile with this username in order to send defamatory and libelous messages to Plaintiffs’ friends and colleagues and to submit anonymous false and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

17. Defendant Elodiachurches.294.227 is an unknown entity, known only to Plaintiffs by its Instagram username Elodiachurches.294.227. On information and belief, Defendant Elodiachurches.294.227 created an Instagram profile with this username in order to send defamatory and libelous messages to Plaintiffs’ friends and colleagues and to submit anonymous false and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

18. Defendant Genni9397 is an unknown entity, known only to Plaintiffs by its Instagram username Genni9397. On information and belief, Defendant Genni9397 created an Instagram profile with this username in order to send defamatory and libelous messages to Plaintiffs’ friends and colleagues and to submit anonymous false and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

19. Defendant Stevenrodriguez5512886 is an unknown entity, known only to Plaintiffs by its Instagram username Stevenrodriguez5512886. On information and belief, Defendant Stevenrodriguez5512886 created an Instagram profile with this username in order to send defamatory and libelous messages to Plaintiffs’ friends and colleagues and to submit anonymous false and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

20. The twelve Instagram profiles with the above-described usernames, Paulie2397, My.rna9809, Anastasie7357, Jannelle881, Selena_6642, Kathlin685, Corny3616, St.arr7698, 286532__Brittany__994717, Elodiachurches.294.227, Genni9397, and Stevenrodriguez5512886 are collectively referred to herein as the “Instagram Profiles.” All of the individuals or entities running the Instagram Profiles are doing so anonymously.

21. On information and belief, Wegescheidt created the Instagram Profiles in order to send defamatory direct messages to Plaintiffs’ family, friends, customers, and followers on Instagram, urging them to also file content complaints on Plaintiffs’ several Instagram profiles.

22. On information and belief, Defendants DOES 1–20, inclusive, are responsible for the conduct and damages alleged herein, including creating and/or operating the Instagram Profiles described above, and by fraudulently and maliciously reporting content on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles in order to disable those profiles. DOES 1–20, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious names, their true names and capacities being unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and that such defendants proximately caused Plaintiff’s damages.

23. Wegescheidt, the Instagram Profiles, and DOES 1–20, inclusive, are herein collectively referred to as “Defendants.”

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court pursuant to sections 410.10 and 395(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure because Plaintiffs reside in and/or do business in Los Angeles County.

25. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $25,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

26. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Wegescheidt pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, because Wegescheidt’s intentional conduct as described herein created sufficient minimum contacts with California such that maintenance of suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Wegescheidt intentionally aimed his improper conduct into California in order to damage Plaintiffs who are residents of California. Wegescheidt did so by, among other methods, creating fake social media profiles using the platforms of California companies and damaging to send direct messages to Plaintiff’s family, friends, and customers, many of whom also reside in California.

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

Anonymous Instagram Defamation

27. Defendants, including Wegescheidt, are responsible for publishing defamatory statements regarding Plaintiffs by using the Instagram Profiles to send direct messages to the Instagram accounts of at least 25 of Plaintiffs’ family, friends, and customers, and likely far more. The direct messages made false and defamatory statements about Plaintiffs, and also encouraged the recipients to “report” Plaintiffs’ Instagram profiles, in order to prompt Instagram to disable Plaintiffs’ own several instagram profiles. Defendants, including Wegescheidt, began sending these messages on or around September 25, 2021.

28. Instagram is a social networking service owned by Meta Platforms, Inc. that is headquartered in Menlo Park, California.

29. According to Instagram’s “Terms of Use,” a user “can’t do anything unlawful, misleading, or fraudulent or for an illegal or unauthorized purpose,” and “can’t post private or confidential information or do anything that violates someone else’s rights …. “ Further, Instagram’s “Community Guidelines” state that it is unacceptable to post “content that targets private individuals to degrade or shame them … or harass someone … “

30. Instagram’s “Privacy Policy” further states that it “may access, preserve and share [ a user’s] information in response to a legal request … “ when subpoenaed, and that it “may also access, preserve and share information when we have a good faith belief it is necessary to: detect, prevent and address fraud and other illegal activity … “

31. YouTube, Inc. is owned by Alphabet, Inc., which is headquartered in Mountain View, California.

32. Starting on or around September 25, 2021, at the same time that Plaintiffs herein were engaged in settlement communications with one Kendra Rowe — an individual who is a defendant in another action filed by Plaintiffs in the Los Angeles Superior Court bearing case number 19 STCV 41733 — Plaintiffs’ colleagues and friends began notifying Mr. Urbina that they had received direct messages on their own Instagram accounts from Defendants.

33. The direct messages that Plaintiffs’ colleagues and friends received defamed Plaintiffs personally and in their business capacity. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A is an copy of a message that Defendants published by sending to Plaintiffs’ colleagues and friends.

34. On September 25 or 26, 2021, Defendant My.rna9809 sent the message shown in Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ friends and colleagues (the “Message”), falsely stating that Plaintiffs’ Instagram accounts “@shorethangofficial and @shorethangxo is owned by a possible p3do (@zacharyelliot310). Zachary Elliot scouts, recruits and preys on underage girls he discovers on Tiktok and the explore page here on instagram. he profits off their bodies (including underage girls) with a paywall he has created.”

35. The assertions in the Message are false, and have damaged Plaintiffs in their business endeavors and are defamatory per se.

36. The Message went on to encourage its recipients to interfere with Plaintiffs’ business with Instagram and with Plaintiffs’ customers and business associates: “This is a huge red flag and you should report the following accounts immediately. @shorethangofficial @shorethangxo @zacharyelliot310.”

37. On September 25 through September 29, 2021 and thereafter, Defendants, including Wegescheidt, sent the Message to additional of Plaintiffs colleagues and friends, who forwarded the Message to Plaintiffs after they received the message.

38. On or around September 27, 2021, as a result of the Defendants‘ defamation and interference, one of Plaintiffs’ Instagram Profiles, @shorethangofficial, which was named in the Message, was disabled.

39. Since September 27, 2021, 14 of Plaintiffs’ social media profiles have been disabled as a result of Defendants’ malicious conduct.

Fraudulent and Malicious Content Reporting and Harassment of Plaintiffs

40. In addition to the defamatory messages in late September 2021 described above, Plaintiffs have been the subject of systematic fraudulent and malicious attacks on the content of their social media profiles, including Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and LinkTree, which attacks have resulted in the disabling of no fewer than 14 of Plaintiff’s social media profiles, disrupting and destroying Plaintiffs’ relationships with Plaintiffs’ friends, colleagues, and customers, and inflicting severe damage to Plaintiffs’ business.

41. Defendants, including Wegescheidt, submitted repeated anonymous, false, fraudulent, and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ content on Plaintiffs’ Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and LinkTree profiles, in order to cause those social media platforms to disable Plaintiffs’ profiles, in order to damage Plaintiffs’ commercial relationships with Plaintiffs’ customers, and in order to cause emotional distress to plaintiff Urbina.

42. Defendants, including Wegescheidt, employed well-known online harassment tactics such as “brigading,” “sock puppetting,” and “mass reporting”1 to intentionally damage Plaintiffs’ business and to intentionally cause severe emotional distress to Mr. Urbina.

43. From early 2020 to the present, Defendants, including Wegescheidt, waged a systematic campaign of harassment against Plaintiffs, by filing hundreds of anonymous, fraudulent, and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’s social media profiles, including on Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, LinkTree and Reddit.

44. From early 2020 to the present, Defendants, including Wegescheidt, filed these anonymous, fraudulent, and malicious content reports as to content Plaintiffs had posted on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles not because of any legitimate complaint about said content, but only for the malicious purpose of harming Plaintiffs and their business by causing the social media platforms to disable Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

45. Defendants, including Wegescheidt, have carried out this campaign by submitting fraudulent content reports on Plaintiffs’ Instagram Profiles, on Plaintiffs’ YouTube Profile, on Plaintiffs’ TikTok Profile, and on Plaintiffs’ LinkTree profile, by for example, submitting false privacy complaints or false copyright complaints.

46. In order to submit the fraudulent, malicious content complaints, Defendants, including Wegescheidt, created a host of fake Instagram profiles. The names of some of these fake profiles are as follows: alexicke, alexicke2021, fritz.fux, fritz.fux1, johnholmes666, jack.jones1312021, jack.bauer.13, daggyducky13, bartman131, moestavern131.

1 “Brigading” refers to coordinated abusive online behavior, including when a user encourages other users to harass a victim online. “Sock puppetting” refers to the use of fake accounts to create false online interactions to drive polarization. Many brigades use fake “sock puppet” accounts to increase the volume of their attacks and also to post content that may get their main account banned or cause them problems if attached to their usual online identity. “Mass reporting” refers to when a brigade group tries to get users suspended from an online platform by collectively reporting their posts. The brigading group often has some understanding of how algorithms work on the platform to automatically remove reported comments that meet certain criteria. See https://institute.global/policy/social-media-futures-what-brigading (Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, March 10, 2021).

47. Defendants, including Wegescheidt, made it their stated goal to cause all of Plaintiffs’ social media profiles to be disabled using the content reporting systems of the various social media platforms.

48. Wegescheidt has stated in writing to a former colleague of Plaintiffs: “I’m constantly reporting shorethangxo as well as baddiesofstate.”

49. Wegescheidt has stated in writing to a former colleague of Plaintiffs: “I’m working on bringing shorethang down, and it seems that I am quite successful with it.”

50. Wegescheidt has stated in writing to a former colleague of Plaintiffs: “A tougher nut to crack is their TikTok, but it’s just a matter of time.”

51. Wegescheidt has proposed in writing to a former colleague of Plaintiffs that he could “hire a hitman” to kill plaintiff Urbina.

52. In furtherance of their campaign, Defendants, including Wegescheidt, sent emails to LinkTree in September, October, and November 2021, using anonymous email addresses, defaming Plaintiffs and using such defamation to demand that LinkTree disable Plaintiffs’ LinkTree profile

53. On September 28, 2021, Defendants, including Wegescheidt, sent an email to LinkTree using the email address johnholmes13@web.de and knowingly falsely stating to LinkTree that plaintiff Urbina “sexually assaulted” two women, and knowingly falsely asserting that plaintiff Urbina is a “rapist.”

54. On October 1, 2021, Defendants, including Wegescheidt, sent an email to LinkTree using the email address johnholmes13@web.de and knowingly falsely asserting to LinkTree that plaintiff Urbina is a “rapist.”

55. On November 16, 2021, Defendants, including Wegescheidt, sent an email to LinkTree using the email address rairiversthap@web.de and knowingly falsely asserting that plaintiff Urbina “is a serial sexual abuser of various models,” and knowingly falsely asserting that “current and former victims have filed and are still filing lawsuits for sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and attempted rape,” and knowingly falsely asserting that plaintiff Urbina was guilty of “all sorts of sexually oriented crimes and felonies” and knowingly falsely asserting that Plaintiffs created “child pornography.”

56. All of the assertions made in the emails described in the three preceding paragraphs are totally and categorically false.

1. Defendants, including Wegescheidt, knew those assertions were false when made.
2. Wegescheidt has stated in writing to a former colleague of Plaintiffs: “I reached

out to linktree, they have a complaint form, where I just gave them some info about stolen intellectual property and impersonating several models I personally know of. … Got a reply that they have blocked said linktree because of my complaint.”

59. As a result of the false and defamatory assertions made by Defendants, including by Wegescheidt, Plaintiffs have been severely damaged. The false statements and false reports made by Defendants, including Wegescheidt, caused no fewer than 14 of Plaintiffs’ social media profiles to be disabled.

60. On or around the following dates, Defendants, including Wegescheidt, submitted fraudulent and malicious content reports on Plaintiffs’ YouTube channels, resulting in removal of the content and disabling of Plaintiffs’ YouTube channel: April 26, 2021, May 12, 2021, May 31, 2021.

61. As is widely known, YouTube has a policy of blind credulity when it comes to users’ complaints about content. YouTube’s policies for responding to content complaints are arbitrary, opaque and result in knee-jerk removal of content. The system is so bad, that pirates are known to extort vulnerable YouTube users, who must pay cash or else have their content subjected to false copyright claims. As a result of the fraudulent and malicious content. After just three false content complaints, YouTube automatically terminates a user’s entire YouTube channel. 2

2 https://www.insider.com/youtubers-channels-are-being-held-hostage-with-fake-copyright- claims-2020–6; https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47227937

62. In January 2020, Defendants sent false and disparaging messages directly to Mr. Urbina from an anonymous Instagram profile: @bitboy2020.

63. In June 2021, Plaintiffs received harassing text messages from one or more of Defendants, who sent the messages from phone numbers 213–429–1201 and 346–347–6677 using a service called TextPort.com that sends messages from randomly generated phone numbers.

64. Plaintiffs’ social media profiles that were disabled as a result of Defendants’ wrongful and malicious conduct include: YouTube.com/c/shorethangxo; Youtube.com/c/zacharyelliot; Youtube.com/c/shorethang; Instagram.com/shorethangofficial, Instagram.com/shorethangxo; Instagram.com/zacharyelliot310; Instagram.com/nazanin.dx; Instagram.com/bhadietrend; Instagram.com/baddiesofstate; Reddit.com/u/zurbina; TikTok.com/shorethangx; TikTok.com/briellepace; TikTok.com/shorethangofficial; Linktr.ee/shorethang.

65. The disabling of Plaintiffs’ social media profiles disrupted or destroyed Plaintiffs’ relationships with Plaintiffs’ paying customers, who typically access paywalled content from content on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles.

66. Plaintiffs received tens of thousands of dollars a month in profit from traffic from their social media profiles, which traffic was cut off by the malicious conduct of Defendants including Wegescheidt.

67. Plaintiffs had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the creation of the content posted on Plaintiffs’ social media and the marketing of those social media profiles. Disabling of Plaintiffs’ social media profiles destroyed the value of those investments.

68. Defendants’ conduct severed the lines of communication and disruptted professional relationships that Plaintiffs had established with existing and potential new business partners with whom Plaintiffs were poised to do business and make money.

69. Defendants’ conduct damaged Mr. Urbina’s reputation among and his relationships with his friends and colleagues, some of whom ceased following him on Instagram as a result of receiving the Message.

12

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

70. As a result of Defendants’ malicious and wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs’ relationships with hundreds of Plaintiffs’ paying customers have been destroyed.

71. The systematic attacks on Plaintiffs’ social media profiles caused severe emotional distress to plaintiff Urbina. The attacks caused Mr. Urbina to fear for his physical safety. The attacks caused Mr. Urbina to fear for his ability to continue operating his business. The attacks damaged Mr. Urbina’s relationships with personal, long-time friends. The attacks prompted Mr. Urbina to file a complaint with the Los Angeles Police Department. The attacks by Defendants, including Wegescheidt, required Mr. Urbina to spend countless late-night hours speaking with social media platform customer service to revive his profiles. The attacks have required Mr. Urbina to incur legal fees to remediate the damage done by Defendants, including Wegescheidt.

72. Defendants, including Wegescheidt, expressly aimed their intentional, malicious, wrongful conduct into California, intending to damage and in fact damaging Plaintiffs’ business that was founded in and operates in California at all relevant times, and intending to damage and in fact damaging an individual who has resided in California at all relevant times. Defendants, including Wegescheidt, perpetrated their wrongful conduct by exploiting social media platforms, three of which are owned and operated by California companies: Instagram, which is owned by Meta Platforms, Inc. a California corporation headquartered in Menlo Park, California; YouTube, Inc., owned by Google LLC, a California limited liability company headquartered in Mountain View, California; and Reddit, Inc. a California corporation headquartered in San Francisco.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Defamation per se under Civil Code §§ 45, 46

73. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as though fully set forth herein.

74. Defendants, including Wegescheidt, knowingly published false statements of fact about Plaintiffs on at least 25 occasions, and likely far more, between September 25 and September 29, 2021, by sending the Message to Defendants of Plaintiffs’ colleagues and friends.

13

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

75. The statements in the Message damaged Plaintiffs’ reputation, and were defamatory per se.

76. Defendants, including Wegescheidt, knowingly published false statements of fact about Plaintiffs in the emails to LinkTree in September, October, and November 2021, as described above in paragraphs 54, 55, and 56.

77. The statements in the emails to LinkTree damaged Plaintiffs’ reputation, and were defamatory per se.

78. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ defamation, Mr. Urbina has been damaged in his personal life, and Plaintiffs have been damaged in their business in an amount to be proven at trial, but no less than $1,000,000.

79. The above-described actions of Defendants were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ reputation, and Plaintiffs seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Trade Libel

80. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as though fully set forth herein.

81. Defendants, including Wegescheidt, published false statements of fact about Plaintiffs on at least 25 occasions, and likely far more, between September 25 and September 29, 2021, by sending the Message to Defendants of Plaintiffs’ colleagues and friends.

82. As a result of Defendants’ publication of the false statements in the Message, Plaintiffs have been damaged.

83. Defendants, including Wegescheidt, published false statements of fact about Plaintiffs in the emails to LinkTree in September, October, and November 2021, as described above in paragraphs 54, 55, and 56.

84. As a result of the Defendants’ publication of the false statements in the emails to LinkTree, Plaintiffs have been damaged.

14

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

85. As a result of Defendants’ trade libel, Plaintiffs have suffered actual pecuniary loss in an amount to be proved at trial but no less than $1,000,000.

86. The above-described actions of Defendants were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ reputation, and Plaintiffs seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations

87. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as though fully set forth herein.

88. Defendants’ conduct as described above has caused some of Plaintiffs’ business associates to cease doing business with Plaintiffs.

89. Defendants’ conduct as described above has caused some of Plaintiffs’ Instagram followers to cease following Plaintiffs.

90. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, several of Plaintiffs’ instagram profiles have been disabled, damaging Plaintiffs’ relationship with their customers, who purchase licenses to view or keep the photographic and video content that Plaintiffs create.

91. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, several of Plaintiffs’ YouTube profiles have been disabled, damaging Plaintiffs’ relationship with their customers, who purchase licenses to view or keep the photographic and video content that Plaintiffs create.

92. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, several of Plaintiff’s TikTok profiles have been disabled, damaging Plaintiffs’ relationship with their customers, who purchase licenses to view or keep the photographic and video content that Plaintiffs create.

93. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, several of Plaintiff’s LinkTree profile was disabled, damaging Plaintiffs’ relationship with their customers, who purchase licenses to view or keep the photographic and video content that Plaintiffs create.

94. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, several of Plaintiff’s Reddit profile was disabled, damaging Plaintiffs’ relationship with their customers, who purchase licenses to view or keep the photographic and video content that Plaintiffs create.

95. But for Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs’ customers would have continued to purchase access to Plaintiffs’ content.

96. The above-described actions of Defendants were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ reputation, and Plaintiffs seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.

97. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have been damaged in a total amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial that is no less than $1,000,000.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

98. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as though fully set forth herein.

99. Defendants’ conduct described above was outrageous and was intended to cause severe emotional distress to plaintiff Urbina.

100. As a result of Defendants’ conduct described above, plaintiff Urbina suffered severe emotional distress.

101. As a result of Defendants’ conduct described above, plaintiff Urbina suffered damages in a total amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial that is no less than $1,000,000.

102. The above-described actions of Defendants were done with malice, fraud or oppression, and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ reputation, and Plaintiffs seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: A. On the First Cause of Action For Defamation:

• For general, special, and punitive damages according to proof at trial, but in any event in an amount no less than $1,000,000;

B. On the Second Cause of Action For Trade Libel: 16

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

• For general, special, and punitive damages according to proof at trial, but in any event in an amount no less than $1,000,000;

C. On the Third Cause of Action For Intentional Interference with Economic Advantage: • For general, special, and punitive damages according to proof at trial, but in any

event in an amount no less than $1,000,000;
D. On the Fourth Cause of Action For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:

• For general, special, and punitive damages according to proof at trial, but in any event in an amount no less than $1,000,000;

E. For costs of suit; and
F. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated February 15, 2022

HEERDE LAW PLLC

/s/ Matthew C. Heerde MATTHEW C. HEERDE Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Digital Marketing Advisors and Zachary Urbina

BY:

17

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

EXHIBIT A