Low v. Linkedin Corp.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97012
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiffs sue LinkedIn on behalf of a US class alleging disclosure of personally identifiable information and browsing histories to third parties via cookies/beacons.
- Amended complaint asserts violations under the Stored Communications Act and California privacy rights, plus state tort and contract theories.
- LinkedIn allegedly assigns unique user IDs and transmits the ID and profile URL to third parties when a profile is viewed, enabling potential de-anonymization.
- Plaintiffs claim the disclosures violate LinkedIn’s privacy policy and create a concrete privacy injury to registered users Low and Masand.
- The court previously dismissed for lack of standing but allowed amendment; the motion targets both standing and merits under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court ultimately grants in part and denies in part LinkedIn’s motion, with most claims dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing viability | Plaintiffs allege concrete statutory/privacy injuries from SCA and California privacy right. | Standing insufficient; injuries too generalized or speculative. | Standing found; injury concrete and particularized under SCA/privacy rights. |
| SCA claim viability against LinkedIn | LinkedIn acted as an RCS and disclosed contents to third parties. | LinkedIn did not perform as an RCS; disclosures not of contents by an offsite processor. | SCA claim dismissed with prejudice; LinkedIn not acting as RCS for disclosed data. |
| California privacy invasion claims | Disclosures to third parties invade a protected privacy interest under state law. | Disclosures not a serious invasion; data disclosed was not highly offensive. | California privacy claims dismissed with prejudice; no serious invasion shown. |
| False Advertising Law (FAL) standing and reliance | Masand/Low relied on LinkedIn misrepresentations and privacy promises in obtaining services. | No adequate reliance; lack of factual pleading of misrepresentations viewed by plaintiffs. | FAL claim dismissed with prejudice for lack of reliance. |
| Damages theories sufficiency (contract, others) | Personal information has independent economic value; breach caused damages. | Economic value theory unsupported; emotional damages not recoverable on contract claim, and other theories fail. | Contract/damages theories dismissed; most claims dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jewel v. National Security Agency, 673 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2011) (SCA violation can constitute concrete injury for standing)
- In re Facebook Privacy Litig., 791 F.Supp.2d 705 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (privacy claims and standing in privacy class actions)
- Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., Inc., 529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes RCS vs ECS under the SCA)
- Am. Acad. of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (Cal. 1997) (California privacy rights construed under state constitution)
- Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (trove of elements for invasion of privacy threshold)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (standing requirements under FAL involve actual reliance)
- In re iPhone Application Litig., 844 F.Supp.2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (personal information as property/valuation not recognized)
- In re JetBlue Airways Corp., Privacy Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 299 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (privacy data value and damages principles in contract context)