Gray v. Amazon.com Inc, 2:22-cv-00800

Plaintiffs James Gray and Scott Horton filed a putative class action against Amazon alleging Amazon used voice recordings from Alexa devices (and data derived from them) for targeted advertising without adequate disclosure.
The original complaint asserted claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA), intrusion upon seclusion, and violation of Washington’s Personality Rights Act (PRA).
The Court previously dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding Amazon’s public policies and terms adequately disclosed collection/use for interest-based ads and that plaintiffs had notice/consented.
Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint to add historical disclosures, expand the definition of “voice data,” and update research-based allegations; Amazon opposed, arguing futility.
The Court applied the Rule 15 futility standard (12(b)(6)/Iqbal/Twombly framework), found the PAC did not cure the defects (notice/consent; failure to plead reliance/causation; PRA scope), denied leave to amend, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing	Historical terms in effect when devices were bought did not disclose use of voice data for targeted ads	Amazon’s historical and current policies put users on notice and permit collection/use for ads; no implied duty to restrict use	Denied — PAC does not allege materially different historical terms; policies contemplate advertising use; amendment futile
Violation of Washington CPA	Disclosures were ambiguous; consumers (Plaintiffs) couldn’t know Amazon’s use and thus were injured (overpaid)	Plaintiffs fail to plead they viewed/relied on any deceptive statements at purchase; Rule 9(b) particularity required	Denied — plaintiffs fail to plead reliance/causation; amendment futile
Intrusion upon seclusion	Updating historical terms would cure prior defects	Plaintiffs were on notice and consented by registering/using Alexa; policies permit the challenged use	Denied — consent/notice fatal; amendment futile
Personality Rights Act (PRA)	Use of voice-derived dossiers for advertising falls within PRA’s prohibition on using a person’s voice for advertising	Plaintiffs do not allege voice was used in an advertisement or that use was without consent; prior ruling stands	Denied — PAC offers no new facts; Court rejects plaintiffs’ statutory recharacterization; reconsideration denied

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2018) (amendment futile if claim would be subject to dismissal)
Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) (futility when amendment would be immediately subject to dismissal)
Miller v. Rykoff–Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1988) (legal sufficiency test for proposed amendments mirrors Rule 12(b)(6))
Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., 706 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2013) (courts construe allegations in favor of non-moving party at pleading stage)
Wilson v. Hewlett–Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts need not accept conclusory allegations)
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (unchallenged legal principles on pleading and inference)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (standards for granting leave to amend)
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (discussed in context of Twombly/Iqbal evolution)
Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir. 2010) (incorporation-by-reference doctrine for considering exhibits)