Bernadine Griffith v. TikTok, Inc.
5:23-cv-00964
C.D. Cal.Dec 26, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs (three non-TikTok users) claimed TikTok and ByteDance collected their web browsing data through third-party website tools (Pixel and Events API) when visiting sites that had those tools installed.
- Plaintiffs initially sought class certification, which was denied; the case proceeded on the individual claims of the three remaining plaintiffs.
- Discovery centered around whether and when defendants actually collected sensitive or personally identifiable data from plaintiffs, with data sampling due to data retention limits and cost barriers.
- Evidence was largely circumstantial or based on inference; expert reports from plaintiffs were partially withdrawn due to errors.
- The record ultimately contained almost no specific, direct evidence that TikTok obtained private or sensitive information from plaintiffs.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, and the court held a hearing on December 20, 2024.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs consented to data collection | Plaintiffs did not actually or impliedly consent via website terms or behavior | Plaintiffs expressly or impliedly consented by using websites disclosing third-party data sharing and continuing site use | Defendants did not meet burden to show actual or implied consent as a matter of law |
| Whether sensitive/private info was collected | Defendants collected (or likely collected) sensitive and personally identifiable data | No evidence Defendants collected any sensitive/personal information from plaintiffs | Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence; judgment for defendants |
| Whether URLs/data transmitted are "contents" under wiretap statutes | URLs and event info qualify as communications intercepted under ECPA and CIPA | Event/info collected was not "contents" under ECPA/CIPA, and any URLs are not shown to contain such contents | No evidence TikTok intercepted protected "contents"; judgment for defendants |
| Whether plaintiffs had a compensable property interest | Browsing histories and data had market value; TikTok's use diminished plaintiffs' property value | No exclusive control or evidence of economic loss/value attributable to defendants' actions | No property interest shown; judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (party must show evidence of essential elements to avoid summary judgment)
- Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589 (breadth and sensitivity of data, relevance to expectation of privacy; contrast with present facts)
- Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024 (requirement for exclusive possession or control in property claims)
- Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 47 Cal. 4th 272 (reasonable expectation of privacy; highly offensive intrusion)
- Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal. 4th 766 (definition of confidential communication under CIPA § 632)