Jones v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.
3:23-cv-01082
S.D. Cal.Jul 5, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Julie Jones brought a putative class action against Peloton Interactive for allegedly violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), specifically Penal Code § 631(a), by intercepting user chat communications on Peloton’s website via third-party software Drift.
- The Drift tool, embedded in Peloton's website chat, allegedly intercepted, recorded, and utilized customer communication data without user notice, believing interactions were with Peloton only.
- Plaintiff claims Drift uses the intercepted chat data not just for Peloton's benefit but to enhance its own AI platform, serving its shareholders and its business interests.
- The original complaint included multiple claims but was dismissed; Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint with only the CIPA § 631(a) claim.
- Peloton moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiff withdrew her request for injunctive relief; the court dismissed that claim with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Drift is a third-party eavesdropper or Peloton’s agent under CIPA § 631(a) | Drift uses intercepted data for its own benefit, making it a third-party | Drift is merely a tool for Peloton, acting as Peloton’s agent and thus exempt | Drift plausibly alleged to be a third-party eavesdropper; claim survives |
| Sufficiency of allegations under § 631(a) clause two (interception) | Drift willfully intercepts communications in transit for its own uses | No allegations of commercial exploitation; Drift just records for Peloton | Plaintiff sufficiently alleged unlawful interception under clause two |
| Sufficiency of allegations under § 631(a) clause three (use) | Drift uses intercepted information to improve its own SaaS platform | Clause three claims fail if clause two is not met | Plaintiff’s clause three claim survives since clause two is sufficiently alleged |
| Aiding and abetting liability under clause four | Peloton aids Drift’s unlawful interception and use | Fails if no underlying violation of clauses one or two | Sufficient aiding and abetting claim as clause two is plausibly alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Ribas v. Clark, 38 Cal. 3d 355 (Cal. 1985) (only a third party can eavesdrop under CIPA; a participant to the conversation is exempt)
- Tavernetti v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. 3d 187 (Cal. 1978) (clarified the distinct wrongful acts proscribed in section 631(a))
- In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussed third-party status for eavesdroppers under CIPA)
- Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard on motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6))