R.C. v. Sussex Publishers, LLC, 3:24-cv-02609

Plaintiffs R.C. and D.G. filed a putative class action against Sussex Publishers, LLC, alleging unauthorized interception and mishandling of private and medical information through the use of Google Analytics on the Psychology Today website.
The litigation focuses on claims under California Penal Code § 631, which prohibits unauthorized wiretapping or eavesdropping of communications "in transit."
The Court previously dismissed the § 631 claim in earlier complaints for insufficiently pleading that alleged interception occurred "while [communications] are in transit."
Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add detailed factual allegations and a demonstrative video to show Google Analytics' real-time processing of sensitive user information as it is input on the website.
Sussex Publishers moved again to dismiss, challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings and whether the allegations plausibly establish interception and reading of communications "in transit."
The Court considered only the pleadings, not external factual disputes or materials not incorporated into the complaint, as is required at the motion to dismiss stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Interception “in transit”	Google Analytics code reads/analyzes data in real time as users interact.	Google does not intercept or read data until after it reaches the defendant/site.	Plaintiffs plausibly allege interception occurs "while in transit;" motion to dismiss is denied.
"Reading" of communications	Google’s code interprets content for its own analytics/ads in real time.	Only automatic collection/storage, no substantive reading or understanding by Google.	Allegations plausibly show Google performs an initial substantive read for analytical/advertising use.
Sufficiency of pleadings standard	Factual allegations must be taken as true at this stage (Iqbal/Twombly).	Cites other cases’ findings on how Google Analytics functions, treats as undisputed.	Court only considers pleadings; disputes are for summary judgment, not motion to dismiss.
Relevance of external materials	Only materials in/cited by the complaint are relevant on this motion.	Requests court to incorporate Google’s public documentation not cited in complaint.	Motion to dismiss confined to complaint; no external/incorporated materials considered.

Tavernetti v. Superior Ct., 22 Cal.3d 187 (Cal. 1978) (defines the three independent patterns of conduct prohibited by § 631 and the liability for aiding and abetting violations)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (sets pleading standard for motions to dismiss–allegations must be taken as true)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for sufficiency of pleadings)
Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (pleadings construed in light most favorable to plaintiff at motion to dismiss stage)