Mirmalek v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC
3:24-cv-01797
| N.D. Cal. | Dec 12, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Taliah Mirmalek brought a putative class action against Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, owner of LATimes.com, alleging unauthorized collection of IP addresses via third-party trackers.
- Plaintiff claims that when California residents visit the LATimes.com website, three trackers (TripleLift, GumGum, Audiencerate) collect users’ IP addresses without consent or a court order, allegedly violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a).
- The action was removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
- Plaintiff sought remand, which was denied; Defendant then moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- Plaintiff asserts statutory injury via disclosure of personal data and targeted ads, while Defendant argues the trackers are not covered by CIPA, claim falls under CCPA, or exceptions apply.
- Court addresses judicial notice requests for related cases and evaluates statutory exceptions and potential conflict with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do third-party trackers constitute "pen registers" under CIPA? | Trackers are devices/processes collecting addressing info (IP), fitting CIPA's broad statutory definition. | Definition only covers telephone technology, not website code/software. | Court finds the definition is broad and covers the challenged trackers. |
| Did Defendant install/use pen register without a court order? | Defendant caused third-party code to be incorporated on website, triggering installation/use without court order. | Not directly challenged; instead argued for exceptions or alternative regulatory coverage. | Plaintiff plausibly alleges Defendant installed/used trackers without court order. |
| Does Plaintiff have statutory standing under CIPA? | Plaintiff harmed by unauthorized disclosure and use of personal IP address for targeted ads and analytics. | Plaintiff did not suffer concrete harm required for statutory standing. | Plaintiff’s alleged harms are sufficient for standing. |
| Do CIPA statutory exceptions or CCPA preemption apply? | Defendant not a provider of electronic or wire comms service; CIPA and CCPA are complementary. | Exceptions apply because Defendant is a service provider; CCPA should control. | Exceptions do not apply; CCPA does not preempt CIPA, CIPA controls if it provides greater protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Zynga Priv. Litig., 750 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) (held that IP addresses are addressing information, not content, under the law)
- United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguished collecting addressing info from content of communications)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (articulates plausibility standard for federal complaints)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (sets out plausibility requirement for pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))