718 F.Supp.3d 993
N.D. Cal.2024Background
- Plaintiff Annette Cody sued Ring LLC, alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) after her online chat with Ring was allegedly intercepted and used by Kustomer, Inc., a Meta subsidiary.
- Cody claimed Kustomer intercepted, analyzed, and used chat data for commercial gain, with Ring aiding and abetting this interception.
- The lawsuit was pursued as a putative class action and challenged under CIPA sections 631(a) (wiretapping/eavesdropping) and 632.7 (recording of telephone/cordless/cellular calls).
- Ring moved to dismiss, arguing the alleged conduct did not violate CIPA because it was not telephonic wiretapping and did not constitute unlawful real-time interception.
- The National Retail Federation (NRF) sought to file an amicus curiae brief supporting Ring, but the Court found the submission unnecessary.
- The Court granted Ring’s motion to dismiss, allowing amendment only for the 631(a) claim, and dismissed the 632.7 claim with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 631(a) – Telephonic wiretapping | Internet chats are covered under CIPA § 631(a) first clause | 631(a) applies only to telephonic/telegraph wires | Dismissed; 631(a) first clause does not reach internet |
| Section 631(a) – Interception in transit | Kustomer’s software intercepts chats in real time | Allegations are conclusory, lacking detail | Dismissed; insufficient facts on real-time interception |
| Section 631(a) – Third-party eavesdropping | Kustomer acts independently to exploit data | Kustomer is a tool of Ring; cannot be 3rd-party | Dismissed; allegations too vague re: vendor functionality |
| Section 632.7 – Recording between telephones | Statute should be construed broadly to cover web chats via smartphones | Statute refers only to calls between phones | Dismissed with prejudice; not applicable to web chats |
| Amicus Brief – NRF | Should not be allowed; duplicative, prejudicial if not allowed to respond | Brief offers no additional help to the Court | Denied; amicus brief not helpful |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for sufficient factual matter)
- Tavernetti v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. 3d 187 (CIPA’s distinct clauses and scope)
- Warden v. Kahn, 99 Cal. App. 3d 805 (Section 631 applies only to third-party eavesdropping)
- Ribas v. Clark, 38 Cal. 3d 355 (real-time/interception requirements under CIPA)
- People v. Perez, 35 Cal. 4th 1219 (aiding and abetting requires a predicate offense)