Atkins v. Amplitude, Inc.
3:24-cv-04913
| N.D. Cal. | Sep 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Kyle Atkins and Michael Luo allege Amplitude, via an SDK embedded in the DoorDash app, covertly collected and transmitted users’ sensitive data (geolocation, device IDs, in‑app activity) and used it for its own purposes.
- Plaintiffs assert claims under the federal Wiretap Act and California law (CIPA § 631, Cal. Penal Code § 502, and related statutes) based on this data collection and dissemination.
- Amplitude moved to compel arbitration based on arbitration agreements Plaintiffs signed with DoorDash and seeks to enforce those agreements as a nonsignatory; Amplitude alternatively moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and/or consent.
- The Court first resolved standing, finding Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a concrete privacy injury analogous to traditional privacy torts and that alleged use beyond DoorDash’s disclosed sharing plausibly exceeded any consent.
- The Court held that Amplitude may enforce the DoorDash arbitration agreement under equitable estoppel because Plaintiffs’ claims are intertwined with DoorDash’s Privacy Policy and the contractual relationship between DoorDash and Amplitude.
- The Court denied the motion to dismiss as moot (except for the standing ruling), granted the motion to compel arbitration, stayed the case pending arbitration, and ordered periodic status reports.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Plaintiffs lack a concrete, particularized injury from data collection | Plaintiffs suffered concrete privacy harm from compilation/disclosure of sensitive data | Plaintiffs have Article III standing; alleged disclosures are analogous to actionable privacy torts |
| Enforcing arbitration by nonsignatory (equitable estoppel) | Agreement to DoorDash cannot bind Plaintiffs to arbitrate with Amplitude | Amplitude can enforce DoorDash arbitration because claims rely on DoorDash policy and arose from interdependent misconduct | Equitable estoppel applies; Amplitude may enforce the arbitration agreement |
| Delegation clause & unconscionability | Delegation clause and arbitration terms are unconscionable (procedural & substantive) | Delegation clause and arbitration terms are enforceable; users could opt out and terms are not overly oppressive | Plaintiffs failed to prove unconscionability; delegation clause valid and arbitrability questions delegated to arbitrator |
| Case disposition / remedy | Seek litigation against Amplitude in court; dismissal for lack of standing | Compel arbitration and stay or dismiss pending arbitration | Motion to compel arbitration granted; motion to dismiss denied as moot; case stayed pending arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (concreteness test for Article III standing)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589 (privacy violations can be concrete injuries)
- Patel v. Facebook, 932 F.3d 1264 (privacy torts and actionable privacy harms)
- Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp., 705 F.3d 1122 (equitable estoppel allows nonsignatory enforcement in California law contexts)
- Goldman v. KPMG, LLP, 92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 534 (fairness rationale for estoppel preventing selective reliance on contract)
- Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 6 P.3d 669 (Cal. 2000) (procedural and substantive unconscionability framework)
- Bielski v. Coinbase, Inc., 87 F.4th 1002 (analyzing delegation clause in context of the arbitration agreement)
- Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., 120 F.4th 670 (batching provisions and unconscionability analysis)