Riganian v. LiveRamp Holdings, Inc.
4:25-cv-00824
| N.D. Cal. | Jul 18, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Riganian and Spurgeon, on behalf of themselves and proposed classes, allege that LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. operates as a data broker, gathering and selling detailed personal data profiles (RampIDs) on hundreds of millions of individuals without their direct interaction or knowledge.
- LiveRamp aggregates data from both online (e.g., cookies, tracking pixels) and offline (e.g., name, address, phone number) sources, creating persistent identity graphs used in a commercial Data Marketplace, including sensitive attributes.
- Plaintiffs contest their lack of meaningful consent to LiveRamp’s pervasive data collection and commercialization practices.
- Plaintiffs bring six claims: invasion of privacy under California law/constitution, intrusion upon seclusion, California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Federal Wiretap Act (ECPA), unjust enrichment, and declaratory/injunctive relief.
- LiveRamp moved to dismiss the claims, challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings and applicability of key statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable expectation of privacy & offense | Aggregation and sale of comprehensive, sensitive behavioral data, including online and offline activities, is highly offensive and exceeds social norms. | Data collected is not sensitive; aggregation is like a phone directory; insufficient to find privacy violation. | Plaintiffs plausibly allege both a reasonable expectation of privacy and a highly offensive intrusion; claim survives. |
| Section 230 Immunity | Section 230 does not apply; LiveRamp creates and sells the data profiles, not merely publishes third-party content. | LiveRamp claims Section 230 bars liability as it acts as a service provider, not content creator. | Section 230 does not bar the claims because LiveRamp materially contributes to the content at issue. |
| Wiretap Act Crime-Tort Exception | Crime-tort exception applies because LiveRamp’s commercial use involves tortious conduct (privacy violations). | Exception only applies if primary motivation is to commit tort; here, motive is profit not tort. | Exception applies if profit is sought via tortious conduct; claim survives motion to dismiss. |
| CIPA “Reading in Transit” | Real-time interception/reading of data via event listeners is plausibly alleged. | No plausible reading in transit; only interception, which is instantaneous. | Specific factual allegations plausibly allege real-time reading; sufficient to survive motion to dismiss. |
| CIPA Pen Register (638.51) | "Pen register" definition is broad, includes modern software processes, not limited to telephones. | Statute only covers telephone-based technology and signaling. | Plain language includes internet tracking tools; claim survives. |
| Unjust Enrichment | LiveRamp unjustly profited from unauthorized data collection and commercialization. | No unjust enrichment absent mistake, fraud, coercion, or request. | Allegations sufficient to support claim for unjust enrichment in this context. |
| Declaratory Judgment Claim | Alleges ongoing improper practices; wants declaration and injunctive relief. | Not a standalone cause of action, only a remedy. | Dismissed with prejudice as not a standalone claim, but relief may be sought if other claims succeed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) (aggregation and sale of behavioral data can support privacy and intrusion claims)
- Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 47 Cal. 4th 272 (Cal. 2009) (framework for reasonable expectation of privacy under California law)
- Hill v. NCAA, 7 Cal. 4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (elements for privacy claims and offensiveness standard)
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (Section 230 immunity standards)
- Katz-Lacabe v. Oracle Am., Inc., 668 F. Supp. 3d 928 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (data broker aggregation of browsing and offline personal information plausibly violates reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (motion to dismiss standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (motion to dismiss plausibility standard)