King v. Hard Rock Cafe Int'l (USA), Inc.
2:24-cv-01119
| E.D. Cal. | Jun 9, 2025Background
- Christina King filed a class action against Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc., alleging the use of Meta Pixel on the defendant's hotel website enabled Meta (Facebook) to intercept website users’ private information without consent.
- Plaintiff claims this interception amounted to a violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), specifically Sections 631(a) (wiretapping) and 632 (confidential communications), on behalf of herself and a class of California Facebook users who accessed the hotel's website.
- The intercepted data allegedly included detailed guest records and booking-related information; King alleges she did not consent to such interception.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) for both failure to sufficiently allege interception of the contents of communications and lack of reasonable expectation of confidentiality.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss but gave leave for King to file a second amended complaint to remedy factual deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interception under § 631(a) included the "contents" of a communication | King claimed Meta Pixel captured the substance of her communications, including booking info and individualized actions | Hard Rock argued only record/info-type data was intercepted, not "contents" as required by law | Plaintiff failed to allege that contents—not just record information—were intercepted; claim dismissed with leave to amend |
| Whether website communications were "confidential" under § 632 | King alleged her interactions were confidential and protected under state law (guest records) | Hard Rock argued no reasonable expectation of confidentiality exists for typical internet communications like hotel bookings | Plaintiff did not plausibly allege confidentiality; claim dismissed with leave to amend |
| Sufficiency of factual allegations re: interaction specificity | General allegations of using the website to browse/book a hotel | Lack of detailed factual allegations as to what was specifically intercepted | Complaint lacked specificity about the nature/content of plaintiff's website communications |
| Leave to amend | Plaintiff can cure by adding specific facts | Did not oppose leave | Dismissal is with leave to amend within 21 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard for sufficiency of complaint under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissal proper when complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts)
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (complaint allegations are accepted as true at 12(b)(6) stage)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- Tavernetti v. Superior Ct. of San Diego Cnty., 22 Cal. 3d 187 (1978) (interpretation of CIPA's broad prohibition on interception)
- In re Zynga Privacy Litigation, 750 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) (distinguishing contents from record information for wiretap statutes)