Svenson v. Google Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111810
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Alice Svenson bought an app from Google Play using Google Wallet and alleges Google transmitted her "Contact Information" (name, email, account name, city/state/zip, sometimes phone) to the third‑party app developer after purchase.
- Svenson claims Google’s disclosures breached contract terms (Google/GW/Play Terms and Privacy Policies), violated the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2702), and violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and for failure to state claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The Court denied the standing challenge based on Ninth Circuit precedent recognizing statutory causes of action (e.g., SCA) can supply Article III injury (In re Zynga Privacy Litig.).
- The Court dismissed: (1) SCA § 2701 claim with prejudice (no leave to amend); (2) breach of contract, breach of implied covenant, SCA § 2702, and UCL claims with leave to amend (limited), identifying pleading defects as to contract identification, damages, and whether disclosed data are "contents" vs. "record information."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Statutory rights under SCA and alleged disclosures confer concrete injury and standing | No concrete or particularized injury from disclosure of IDs/Contact Information | Denied dismissal — standing exists (Zynga controls) |
| Breach of contract | Terms (GWPP/GPP/GWToS/GPToS) promise privacy; disclosure breached those promises causing damage and restitution | Plaintiff failed to identify the operative contract, show consideration or contractual damages | Dismissed with leave to amend — pleadings fail on contract identification and damages |
| Breach of implied covenant | Disclosure frustrated contract benefits and was done in bad faith | Claim duplicates breach of contract | Dismissed with leave to amend — duplicative as pled |
| SCA § 2701 (unauthorized access) | Transmitting Contact Information to third parties exceeded authorization and accessed stored communications without consent | § 2701 exempts provider’s authorized access to its own facilities; no unauthorized access alleged | Dismissed without leave to amend — cannot plead defendants accessed their own facility without authorization |
| SCA § 2702 (divulgence of "contents") | Contact Information disclosed to third parties constitutes "contents of a communication" | Contact Information is "record or other information," not "contents" (per Ninth Circuit reasoning) | Dismissed with leave to amend — complaint plausibly alleges record information, not contents; plaintiff may try to plead facts to show "contents" |
| UCL (unlawful/unfair) | Disclosure is an unlawful/unfair practice; seeks restitution or injunctive relief | No economic injury shown from the transaction (she received the app for $1.77) | Dismissed with leave to amend — plaintiff has not pleaded economic injury as required under Kwikset |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- In re Zynga Privacy Litig., 750 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir.) (statutory prohibitions that grant a right to relief can supply Article III injury)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards — legal conclusions insufficient)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir.) (SCA context and scope)
- In re Pharmatrak, 329 F.3d 9 (1st Cir.) (certain user‑submitted form data may be "contents")