754 F.Supp.3d 933
N.D. Cal.2024Background
- Plaintiff Taylor Smith brought a putative class action alleging privacy violations against YETI Coolers, LLC, related to its use of Adyen, a third-party payment processor, on www.yeti.com.
- Plaintiff claims Adyen intercepts and stores consumers’ personal and financial information during online purchases, using it for fraud prevention services marketed to other merchants without customer consent.
- The lawsuit asserts violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) §§ 631(a) and 632, and invasion of privacy under the California Constitution.
- The operative complaint was met by YETI’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing, among other things, insufficient pleading of knowing facilitation or intent.
- The Court granted the motion to dismiss all claims, but with leave to amend, citing deficiencies in the allegations regarding YETI’s knowledge or intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability under § 631(a) (wiretapping: aiding/abetting) | YETI aided Adyen’s illegal interception by integrating Adyen | No plausible facts that YETI knew or intended Adyen’s misuse | Dismissed; insufficient facts showing YETI’s knowledge/intent |
| Derivative liability under § 632 (confidential recording) | YETI is liable because it facilitated Adyen's recording without consent | Communications not confidential or consent was given | Dismissed; not enough showing of YETI’s knowledge/assistance |
| Invasion of privacy under CA Constitution | Sensitive PII/financial data misuse meets the constitutional standard | Data sharing for payments is routine, not egregious conduct | Dismissed; no facts showing sufficiently serious intrusion |
| Effective consent via website terms | Terms/policy not enforceable; no clear mutual assent | Website provided sufficient notice, so consent is inferred | Dismissed; no enforceable clickwrap/browsewrap agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility in federal court)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575 (CA S.Ct.) (objective reasonableness standard for confidential communications)
- Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834 (invasion of privacy claim elements under CA Constitution)