Gabrielli v. Motorola Mobility LLC
4:24-cv-09533
| N.D. Cal. | Jul 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jonathan Gabrielli brought a proposed class action alleging Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”) secretly tracked and collected user data via cookies on its website, even after users selected a “Reject All non-essential cookies” option.
- Gabrielli alleged that after rejecting cookies, Motorola’s website still loaded third-party tracking scripts (e.g., Google, TikTok, Amazon) that collected detailed user information without consent.
- The claims were based on various California statutes (e.g., CIPA), common law privacy torts, breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment, seeking damages and injunctive relief for a class of California users over a four-year period.
- Motorola moved to dismiss all claims and to strike class allegations, arguing lack of standing, no personal jurisdiction, insufficient facts for several claims, and that some claims failed as a matter of law.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Motorola’s motion to dismiss, and denied the motion to strike class allegations, allowing several claims (notably privacy and consumer protection claims) to proceed, while dismissing contract-based and trespass to chattels claims with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing | Concrete privacy injury from non-consensual data collection | No concrete injury; plaintiff is a "tester" seeking violations | Standing found; complaint sufficiently alleges concrete privacy harm |
| Personal Jurisdiction | Motorola targeted CA users, collected geolocated data, cited CA privacy law | Running a national website isn’t targeting CA; no express aiming | Specific jurisdiction proper; Motorola purposefully directed conduct to CA |
| Privacy/Intrusion Claims | Reasonable privacy expectation, highly offensive conduct due to data tracking after opt-out | No intent; at most, button malfunctioned; no sufficiently egregious conduct | Sufficient facts alleged; claims not dismissed at pleading stage |
| CIPA Wiretapping/Pen Register | Motorola aided third parties in intercepting communications; software qualifies as pen register | Only applies to telephones; Motorola exempt as provider; no intent | Claims survive: statute’s language broad enough; intent adequately pled |
| Breach of Contract | Violation of Privacy Policy/Promises re: cookies | No damages alleged (free service); contract doesn't cover issue | Dismissed: Insufficient allegation of damages ("benefit of bargain" fails) |
| Implied Covenant | Conduct frustrated users’ expectations in contract | Duplicative of contract claim; same alleged acts | Dismissed as duplicative and for same damages defect |
| Fraud / Misrepresentation | Popup “Reject All” was deceptive and intentional | No actionable misstatement; bona fide error | Fraud claim adequately alleged: specifies who, what, when, where, how |
| Trespass to Chattels | Cookies impaired devices; nominal damages | No concrete harm to devices alleged | Dismissed: Damage allegations too conclusory |
| Unjust Enrichment | Unjust profits by misleading data collection | Not viable if contract exists | Allowed to proceed (contract claim dismissed) |
| Motion to Strike Class Claims | Class certification issues premature | Class can't be certified; standing, agreement to arbitrate | Denied: Dismissal at pleadings only if no set of facts supports class |
Key Cases Cited
- Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) (pleading stage allegations are accepted as true in motions to dismiss)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits scope of general jurisdiction for corporations)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021) ("arises out of or relates to" standard for specific jurisdiction)
- In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) (statutory privacy violations confer Article III standing)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (outlines minimum contacts test for specific jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (corporate "at home" general jurisdiction test)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility and factual specificity in pleadings)
- Hill v. NCAA, 7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994) (contextual factors for California privacy claims)
- Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 47 Cal. 4th 272 (2009) (standard for "highly offensive" invasions of privacy)
- Patel v. Facebook, 932 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2019) (privacy right encompasses individual control over information)
- eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (elements for trespass to chattels in tech context)