Mitchener v. CuriosityStream, Inc.
5:25-cv-01471
N.D. Cal.Aug 6, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Christopher Mitchener alleged that CuriosityStream’s website used TikTok software to collect and transmit identifying information from every website visitor to TikTok without the visitor's consent.
- The underlying legal claim was brought under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), asserting that the software functioned as a prohibited 'trap and trace device.'
- The complaint alleged the software harvested device information, browser details, location, referral data, URL tracking, and potentially biographical data like names and addresses.
- Plaintiff sought to certify a class of California residents whose identifying information was sent to TikTok as a result of visiting the website.
- Defendant CuriosityStream moved to dismiss, arguing Plaintiff lacked standing and that the software does not meet the statutory definition of a 'trap and trace device.'
- The Court had recently dismissed a nearly identical complaint in another case and applied that reasoning here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing | Mitchener suffered concrete privacy injury by data collection/disclosure to TikTok. | Mitchener failed to allege personal harm; only general, speculative claims. | Plaintiff lacks standing; no concrete, particularized injury alleged. |
| Violation of CIPA | TikTok software is a 'trap and trace device' capturing identifying info without consent. | The software does not qualify as a 'trap and trace device' and/or collects content, not just communication metadata. | Software is not a 'trap and trace device' as defined by CIPA. |
| Privacy Expectation | Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the collected information. | The information collected (e.g., IP address, basic device info) is not protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy. | No reasonable expectation of privacy in gathered metadata (IP, geolocation). |
| Amendment Futility | Plaintiff should be allowed to amend complaint. | Amendment would be futile; legal deficiencies cannot be cured. | Dismissal is with prejudice; amendment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (requirement for concrete and particularized harm for Article III standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (constitutional standing requirements)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (concrete harm required for statutory claims)
- United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500 (no reasonable expectation of privacy in IP addresses)