See the associated moving brief. This is the reply brief preliminary statement:

Defendant Opinion Corp. (“defendant” or “Opinion Corp.”) submits this reply

memorandum in further support of its motion to dismiss the Complaint of AmeriGas Propane, L.P. (“plaintiff” or “AmeriGas”) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff’s opposition memorandum confuses its fatally deficient Complaint with what it asks the Court to infer from its pleadings. As demonstrated below, the leaps AmeriGas asks the Court to make fail to meet the modern day “plausibility” standard to withstand dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

AmeriGas’ “creative” legal theories depend on either no legal authority or cases that are readily distinguishable from the claims here. Ultimately, it remains that plaintiff’s claims of infringement are transparent workarounds of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) (“Section 230”).

For the reasons set forth in defendant’s initial moving papers, its affirmation in further support and below, defendant’s motion to dismiss should be granted with prejudice.