1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 1 of 38 Page ID #:65
`
`
`PURVI G. PATEL (CA SBN 270702)
`PPatel@mofo.com
`MATTHEW E. LADEW (CA SBN 318215)
`MLadew@mofo.com
`JOVANNA RENEE BUBAR (CA SBN 329277)
`JBubar@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90017-3543
`Telephone: 213.892.5200
`Facsimile: 213.892.5454
`Attorneys for Defendant
`QUANTUM METRIC, INC.
`ANGELA CHRISTINE AGRUSA (CA SBN 131337)
`Angela.agrusa@us.dlapiper.com
`DAVID B. FARKAS (CA SBN 257137)
`David.farkas@us.dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
`Tel. 310.595.3000
`Fax 310.595.3300
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`LULULEMON USA INC.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`MARY YOON, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`LULULEMON USA INC. and
`QUANTUM METRIC, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK
`DEFENDANTS LULULEMON
`USA INC. AND QUANTUM
`METRIC, INC.’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
`AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT
`Date: April 9, 2021
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Judge: Hon. John W. Holcomb
`Ctrm:
`2
`
`
`Complaint filed: Nov. 19, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 2 of 38 Page ID #:66
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 9, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon
`thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 2 of this Court, located at
`3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside, California 92501, Defendants Lululemon USA,
`Inc. and Quantum Metric, Inc. will and hereby do move this Court, pursuant to
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), for an order dismissing
`Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint with prejudice because Plaintiff fails to state
`any claim for relief under the California Invasion of Privacy Act and for invasion
`of privacy under the California Constitution.
`This motion is based on this Notice; the accompanying Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities, Request for Judicial Notice, Declaration of Purvi G.
`Patel, and Declaration of David B. Farkas; the pleadings, files, and records in
`this action; and such additional evidence and arguments as may be presented
`to the Court.
`This motion is made following a conference of counsel pursuant to L.R.
`7-3, which took place on February 1, 2021. (Declaration of Purvi G. Patel ¶ 2;
`Declaration of David B. Farkas ¶ 2.)
`Dated: February 8, 2021
`
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Purvi G. Patel
`
` Purvi G. Patel
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Quantum Metric, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Dated: February 8, 2021
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`
`By: /s/ David B. Farkas
` David B. Farkas
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Lululemon USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 3 of 38 Page ID #:67
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 1 
`II.
`III. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3 
`A. What Quantum’s Platform Actually Does and How Lululemon
`Uses It. ................................................................................................... 3 
`B. Allegations Related to Plaintiff Yoon. .................................................. 5 
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 6 
`V. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 7 
`A.
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Under CIPA Section 631 (Count
`1). ........................................................................................................... 7 
`1.
`Both Quantum and Lululemon were parties to Plaintiff’s
`alleged communication ............................................................... 7 
`Quantum’s platform did not collect the “contents” of
`Plaintiff’s purported communication ........................................ 10 
`Quantum’s platform does not intercept communications
`“in transit” ................................................................................. 12 
`Lululemon’s use of Quantum’s services is disclosed in
`Lululemon’s privacy policy ...................................................... 15 
`Plaintiff Lacks the Right to Sue and Standing to Assert a CIPA
`Section 635 Claim and Fails to State Such a Claim (Count 2). .......... 18 
`1.
`Section 635 does not provide a private right of action ............. 18 
`2.
`Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to assert a claim under
`Section 635 ................................................................................ 19 
`Even if Plaintiff could enforce Section 635, Quantum’s
`platform is not a device primarily or exclusively designed
`for eavesdropping ...................................................................... 20 
`Even if Quantum’s platform were a “device,”
`Lululemon’s conduct does not violate Section 635 .................. 21 
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Invasion of Privacy Under
`the California Constitution (Count 3). ................................................ 22 
`1.
`There is no legally protected privacy interest here ................... 22 
`2.
`Plaintiff does not demonstrate a reasonable expectation
`of privacy .................................................................................. 25 
`The alleged conduct does not amount to an egregious or
`offensive breach of privacy ....................................................... 27 
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 28 
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`i
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 4 of 38 Page ID #:68
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................. 6
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................ 6, 12
`Brodsky v. Apple Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 110 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................ 7, 11
`Bunnell v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am.,
`567 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2007) .............................................................. 15
`Cabral v. Supple, LLC,
`No. EDVC 12-85-MWF,
`2012 WL 12895825 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3 2012) ..................................................... 23
`Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`598 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 19
`Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo,
`329 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ................................................................ 7
`Cousineau v. Microsoft Corp.,
`992 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (W.D. Wash. 2012) ......................................................... 11
`Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n,
`554 U.S. 724 (2008) ............................................................................................ 20
`DirecTV, Inc. v. Treworgy,
`373 F.3d 1124 (11th Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 19
`Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc.,
`876 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................ 6
`Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis,
`138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) ........................................................................................ 21
`
`
`
`
`ii
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 5 of 38 Page ID #:69
`
`
`In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig.,
`140 F. Supp. 3d 922 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (Facebook I) .......................................... 20
`In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig.,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 836 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (Facebook II) ................................... 20, 26
`In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig.,
`956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) (Facebook III),
`petition for cert. filed, Nov. 25, 2020 (No. 20-727) ................................... 7, 9, 22
`Folgelstrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
`195 Cal. App. 4th 986 (2011) ....................................................................... 27, 28
`Foster Poultry Farms v. Alkar-Rapidpak-MP Equip., Inc.,
`868 F. Supp. 2d 983 (E.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................. 3
`Fredenburg v. City of Fremont,
`119 Cal. App. 4th 408 (2008) ............................................................................. 23
`Garcia v. Enter. Holdings, Inc.,
`78 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................ 10
`In re Google Location Hist. Litig.,
`428 F. Supp. 3d 185 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................... 23, 24, 26
`In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litig.,
`58 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................ 21, 28
`Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,
`7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994) ............................................................................ 22, 23, 25, 27
`In re iPhone Application Litig.,
`844 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .............................................................. 28
`Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018),
`cert. denied, Hagan v. Khoja, 139 S. Ct. 2615 (2019) ................................... 3, 10
`Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.,
`302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`iii
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 6 of 38 Page ID #:70
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`In re Lenovo Adware Litig.,
`No. 15-md-02624-RMW,
`2016 WL 6277245 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2016) .................................................... 19
`London v. New Albertson’s Inc.,
`No. 08-CV-11732008,
`WL 4492642, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2008) ................................................... 24
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................. 21, 22, 28
`LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka,
`581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 20
`McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co.,
`845 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................ 6
`Membrila v. Receivables Performance Mgmt., LLC,
`No. 09-cv-2790,
`2010 WL 1407274 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2010) ........................................................ 8
`Opperman v. Path, Inc.,
`205 F. Supp. 3d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ........................................................ 25, 26
`People v. Ratekin,
`212 Cal. App. 3d 1165 (1989) .............................................................................. 9
`Powell v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.,
`864 F. Supp. 2d 949 (E.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................. 7
`Revitch v. New Moosejaw, LLC,
`No. 18-cv-06827-VC,
`2019 WL 5485330 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019) .................................................... 19
`Rogers v. Ulrich, 52 Cal. App. 3d 894 (1975) ..................................................... 8, 15
`Rosenow v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-1297-WQH-MDD,
`2020 WL 1984062 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020) .................................................... 12
`Ruiz v. Gap, Inc.,
`540 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2008),
`aff’d, 380 F. App’x 689 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................. 28
`
`
`
`
`iv
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 7 of 38 Page ID #:71
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Sheski v. Shopify (USA) Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-06858-HSG,
`2020 WL 2474421 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2020) .................................................... 26
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
`136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) .................................................................................. 19, 20
`Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
`551 U.S. 308 (2007) ........................................................................................ 3, 10
`Theofel v. Farey-Jones,
`359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 14
`United States v. Forrester,
`512 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 11
`United States v. Reed,
`575 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 11
`In re Vizio, Inc., Consumer Privacy, Litig.,
`238 F. Supp. 3d 1204 (C.D. Cal. 2017) .............................................................. 12
`In re Yahoo Mail Litig.,
`7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...................................................... 23, 24, 25
`In re Zynga Privacy Litig.,
`750 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 11
`Statutes & Other Authorities
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575 et seq. ................................................................... 15
`Cal. Penal Code § 631 .......................................................................................passim
`Cal. Penal Code § 631(a) ......................................................................................... 12
`Cal. Penal Code § 635 .......................................................................................passim
`Cal. Penal Code § 635(a) ......................................................................................... 18
`Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(a) ...................................................................................... 18
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) ................................................................ 19
`
`
`
`
`v
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 8 of 38 Page ID #:72
`
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) .................................................................. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 9 of 38 Page ID #:73
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`This case against Lululemon USA, Inc. (“Lululemon”) and Quantum Metric,
`Inc. (“Quantum”) is one of twenty-four almost identical lawsuits filed by
`Plaintiff’s counsel seeking to criminalize the use of ubiquitous web analytics tools.
`All of these cases assert the same statutory and common law claims for invasion of
`privacy, based on the novel theory that the routine use of these tools constitutes an
`illegal “wiretap.”
`As Plaintiff alleges, Lululemon — like all of the other businesses sued by
`Plaintiff’s counsel — uses the web analytics tools at issue (a script embedded in its
`website) to understand and improve its website’s functionality. One tool
`Lululemon uses to accomplish that goal is Quantum’s “Session Replay”
`technology, which reconstructs certain aspects of a visitor’s time on Lululemon’s
`website to allow Lululemon, for example, to diagnose and correct any errors the
`visitor encounters. Any personally identifying information captured by the
`“Session Replay” tool is pseudonymized and encrypted field by field before
`leaving the user’s device (e.g., computer), so there is no way for Quantum to tie a
`particular “session” to a particular visitor by reviewing the collected data. Only
`Lululemon, which exclusively holds the decryption key, can decrypt and re-
`identify the information. And, contrary to Plaintiff’s allegations, sensitive
`information like payment card information, is not captured.
`Plaintiff’s attempt to criminalize this behavior on the grounds that it
`constitutes illegal “eavesdropping” should be rejected, and her claims under the
`California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Cal. Penal Code sections 631 and 635,
`and for invasion of privacy under California’s constitution should be dismissed.
`II.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Plaintiff’s CIPA Claims. Plaintiff’s Section 631 claim fails for multiple
`
`
`
`
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 10 of 38 Page ID #:74
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`reasons. First, both Lululemon and Quantum fit within the well-established party
`exception to CIPA, as both were parties to the alleged “communication”
`(Plaintiff’s alleged visit to and purchase on Lululemon’s website). Second,
`Plaintiff fails plausibly to allege that the “contents” of her “communication” were
`intercepted at all, let alone intercepted “in transit.” And third, Lululemon discloses
`in its Privacy Policy that it uses analytics services like Quantum’s and that it
`collects certain aspects of a customer’s visit to its website. As such, Plaintiff
`manifested her assent to the capture of the alleged information.
`Plaintiff’s claim under Section 635 is equally unsuccessful, as there is no
`private right of action under that section and Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to
`bring a claim even if she could. Moreover, by Plaintiff’s own admission,
`Quantum’s platform is for “marketing analytics”; as such, it does not constitute a
`“device” primarily or exclusively designed for eavesdropping.
`Plaintiff’s Invasion of Privacy Claim. Plaintiff also fails plausibly to allege
`that Lululemon’s use of Quantum’s platform meets the “high bar” required to state
`a claim for invasion of privacy under the California Constitution. Plaintiff was on
`notice that Defendants were collecting the information at issue, which she
`voluntarily provided when she decided to make a purchase on Lululemon’s
`website. As noted, Quantum’s platform does not collect any highly sensitive or
`confidential information, like credit card information, and any other manually
`entered personally identifying information (PII) that is captured is encrypted before
`it leaves the user’s device, with only Lululemon having the ability to decrypt it.
`Courts have consistently held that the collection (and disclosure, which Plaintiff
`does not even allege occurred here) of the type of information captured by
`Quantum’s platform does not constitute the egregious breach of the social norms
`necessary to establish an invasion of privacy claim.
`For these reasons, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with
`
`
`
`
`2
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 11 of 38 Page ID #:75
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`prejudice.
`III. BACKGROUND
`A. What Quantum’s Platform Actually Does and How
`Lululemon Uses It.
`Quantum creates software that allows companies to understand a customer’s
`experience on their websites. (See Compl. ¶¶ 14–21.) Companies use Quantum’s
`platform to, for example, discover and resolve technical issues that frustrate
`customers and impact their ability to complete their intended transactions, help
`customers with customer service requests, and respond to customer feedback..
`(Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. A at 5 (Abstract); Compl. ¶ 16.)1
`Quantum thus helps companies identify what works and what doesn’t on their
`websites, and ensure a better user experience for anyone visiting their websites.
`Quantum’s software does not “record the user” or provide anyone other than
`the owner of the website with access to personally identifiable information (PII).
`As Plaintiff alleges, Quantum’s platform uses “millisecond-level chunks of data”
`to reconstruct a customer’s experience during a visit to a company’s website.
`(Compl. ¶ 16.) But the reconstruction is just that — a reconstruction, not a
`recording. This reconstruction (i.e., Session Replay) can display “mouse
`movements, scrolling” and “errors and events” such as a link that does not work or
`an error code at checkout. (RJN Ex. B at 31.)2
`
`
`1 “Court[s] have [] found the contents of patents to be the appropriate subject of
`judicial notice because patents are documents issued by the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, a source whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.”
`Foster Poultry Farms v. Alkar-Rapidpak-MP Equip., Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 983,
`990 (E.D. Cal. 2012). Defendants accordingly request the Court take judicial
`notice of certain of Quantum’s patents, as set forth in their Request for Judicial
`Notice.
`2 “[C]ourts must consider the complaint in its entirety,” including “documents
`incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may
`take judicial notice.” See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S.
`308, 322 (2007). The incorporation-by-reference doctrine “prevents plaintiffs from
`selecting only portions of documents that support their claims, while omitting
`portions of those very documents that weaken — or doom — their claims.” Khoja
`
`
`3
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 12 of 38 Page ID #:76
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Contrary to Plaintiff’s allegations, however, the Session Replay cannot
`display any payment card information. (See Compl. ¶ 34(e).) As stated explicitly
`on Quantum’s website at the time Plaintiff filed her Complaint, “there are clear
`situations when sensitive data should not be captured, for example, personally
`identifiable information (PII) such as . . . credit card numbers.” (RJN Ex. B at 36.)
`“Quantum Metric automatically blocks capture of sensitive data,” and businesses
`like Lululemon “can easily set up additional data that should never be captured.”
`(Id. (emphasis added).) As for the limited universe of user-entered data that a
`company may want captured, “for example, a user’s name and address or a
`purchase order number,” Quantum encrypts it, which pseudonymizes the data.
`(Id.) This anonymization and encryption happens on the user’s device before any
`data is transmitted from the user’s device. (See RJN Ex. C at 17 (6:33–35) (“[T]he
`capture agent can strip sensitive information before transmitting the event records
`to the server-side web session storage engine”); see also Compl. ¶ 19.) Further, as
`Quantum described it to customers on its website: “[T]o protect identifiable data
`and stay compliant with [privacy laws], we use public / private key pair encryption,
`and only you own the private key to decrypt sensitive data.” (RJN Ex. B at 36.)
`The graphic below illustrates the encryption process:
`
`
`v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 1002 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied,
`Hagan v. Khoja, 139 S. Ct. 2615 (2019). Here, Plaintiff’s entire description of
`Quantum’s software is based on what she elected to include from Quantum’s
`website (Compl. ¶¶ 14–21); it is proper for the Court to consider the portions she
`chose not to include. Defendants accordingly request the Court take judicial notice
`of certain portions of Quantum’s website, as set forth in their Request for Judicial
`Notice.
`
`
`
`
`4
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 13 of 38 Page ID #:77
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`(Id. at 37.)
`
`B. Allegations Related to Plaintiff Yoon.
`Mary Yoon is a California resident who alleges that in April 2020 she visited
`Lululemon’s website and made a purchase. (Compl. ¶ 4.) As part of this visit,
`Plaintiff alleges that she submitted her payment card information to Lululemon
`through its website. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that her “communications” with the
`website were “intercepted in real time” and disclosed to Lululemon and Quantum
`
`
`
`
`5
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 14 of 38 Page ID #:78
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`through a “wiretap.” (Id.)3
`Plaintiff does not allege that Quantum did anything with her
`“communications” other than make them available to Lululemon, the very entity
`with which Plaintiff directly interacted. Plaintiff also does not allege that Quantum
`or Lululemon sold or otherwise disclosed her “communications” to any third
`parties, or that she was injured or otherwise affected in any way by the alleged
`conduct. Nonetheless, she asserts claims for violation of Sections 631 and 635 of
`the California Invasion of Privacy Act and for invasion of privacy under the
`California Constitution. (Compl. ¶¶ 45–72.)
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD
`A complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff either fails to state a cognizable
`legal theory or has not alleged sufficient facts establishing a claim to relief that is
`“plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
`Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc.,
`876 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 2017). “[C]onclusory allegations without more are
`insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss . . . .” McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co.,
`845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, the Court must not assume the truth of
`legal conclusions merely because they are pleaded in the form of factual
`allegations, nor should it accept as true allegations contradicted by judicially
`noticeable facts. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677–79; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
`(“[P]laintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’
`requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
`elements of a cause of action will not do” (second alteration in original).).
`
`
`3 Plaintiff’s allegation that Lululemon uses Quantum’s software for email
`marketing is unsupported and unsupportable. (See Compl. ¶ 27.)
`
`
`
`
`6
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 15 of 38 Page ID #:79
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`V. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Under CIPA Section 631
`(Count 1).
`
`Plaintiff’s Section 631 claim fails for at least four independent reasons:
`(1) Quantum and Lululemon were both parties to the communication;
`(2) Quantum’s platform does not collect “contents” of communications as defined
`by CIPA; (3) Quantum’s platform does not collect communications “in transit” as
`defined by CIPA; and (4) Plaintiff agreed to Lululemon’s privacy policy, which
`discloses Lululemon’s use of Quantum’s services.
`Preliminarily, Defendants note that the “analysis for a violation of CIPA is
`the same as that under the federal Wiretap Act.” Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo,
`329 F. Supp. 3d 1000, 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Underhill v. Kornblum, No.
`16–CV–1598–AJB–WVG, 2017 WL 2869734, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2017));
`see also Brodsky v. Apple Inc., 445 F. Supp. 3d 110, 127 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
`(analysis of communication’s “contents” is the same under both statutes).
`Defendants accordingly cite cases analyzing both CIPA and the federal Wiretap
`Act.
`
`1.
`
`Both Quantum and Lululemon were parties to
`Plaintiff’s alleged communication
`
`Both the Wiretap Act and CIPA contain “exemption[s] from liability for a
`person who is a ‘party’ to the communication . . . .” In re Facebook, Inc. Internet
`Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589, 607 (9th Cir. 2020) (Facebook III), petition for cert.
`filed, Nov. 25, 2020 (No. 20-727); Powell v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 864 F. Supp. 2d
`949, 955 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (“Published cases are in accord that section 631 applies
`only to third parties and not participants.”). This exemption from liability applies
`even when a party to a communication records the communication without the
`knowledge or consent of another party.
`
`
`
`
`7
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4405532
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 18 Filed 02/08/21 Page 16 of 38 Page ID #:80
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`In Membrila v. Receivables Performance Mgmt., LLC, the plaintiff brought a
`CIPA Section 631 claim arising out of multiple phone conversations that the
`defendant recorded and monitored without notifying the plaintiff or obtaining his
`consent. No. 09-cv-2790, 2010 WL 1407274, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2010). The
`court found that the defendant could not be liable because it was a party to the
`conversation and Section 631 “applies only to eavesdropping by a third party and
`not to recording by a participant to a conversation.” Id. at *2. Similarly, in Rogers
`v. Ulrich, the defendant used a tape recorder to record a phone conversation
`without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent and then shared the recording with
`others. 52 Cal. App. 3d 894, 898–99 (1975). The court concluded that the
`defendant could not be held liable under Section 631 because he was a party to the
`conversation. Id. These cases are analogous, except unlike Membrila and Rogers,
`Quantum did not share the communication at issue with anyone other than
`Lululemon (which was also a party to the communication), and, as discussed
`below, Plaintiff was on notice that her communication may be recorded.4 Further,
`the capture of visitors’ communications with Lululemon’s website is simply the
`modern-day equivalent of the defendants’ recording of telephone conversations in
`Membrila and Rogers, or even more aptly, a sales associate observing a shopper in
`a brick-and-mortar retail store and offering to help the shopper if a need arises.
`Here, based on Plaintiff’s own allegations, both Quantum and Lululemon
`were parties to her purported April 2020 “communication” with Lululemon’s
`website. Plaintiff alleges that she visited Lululemon’s website, where Quantum’s
`
`
`4 Plaintiff may argue that Lululemon is liable under Section 631 as someone
`“who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with” anyone to violate the Section.
`See Cal. Penal Code § 631. But this argument necessarily fails because as
`established, Quantum did not violate Section 631. Th