Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 1 of 45 Page ID #:372
`
`
`
`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
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
`Joel D. Smith (State Bar No. 244902)
`1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
`
` jsmith@bursor.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`
`Date: May 28, 2021
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Ctrm: 2
`Judge: Hon. John W. Holcomb
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 2 of 45 Page ID #:373
`
`
`
`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 CONTENTS
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Plaintiff Sufficiently Alleges A Violation Of § 631(a)........................... 1
`A. QM Was Not A Party To The Communications .......................... 1
`Lululemon Is Liable For Enabling QM’s
`B.
`Wiretapping .................................................................................. 7
`Plaintiffs’ Website Interactions Are
`“Communications” Under Moosejaw, In re
`Facebook, and In re Zynga ........................................................... 9
`D. QM’s Software Intercepted Plaintiff’s Electronic
`Communications “In Transit” ..................................................... 11
`Lululemon’s Privacy Policy Does Not Support
`Dismissal ..................................................................................... 16
`Plaintiff Was Wiretapped Before The
`1.
`Hyperlink To The Privacy Policy Appeared
`On Plaintiff’s Screen ........................................................ 16
`The Privacy Policy Arguments Fail Under
`Nguyen .............................................................................. 18
`At Best, Whether The Privacy Policy
`Discloses The Wiretapping Is A Question Of
`Fact ................................................................................... 20
`Plaintiff States A Claim For Violations Of CIPA § 635
`And Federal Wiretap Act § 2512 .......................................................... 23
`III. Plaintiff States A Claim For Invasion Of Privacy ................................ 28
`A. Dismissal Of The Invasion Of Privacy Claim Would
`Be Reversible Error Under In re Facebook ................................ 28
`B. Defendants’ Arguments And Authorities Do Not
`Support Dismissal ....................................................................... 30
`IV. Khoja And F.R.E. 208 Require Denial Of Defendants’
`Request For Judicial Notice .................................................................. 33
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 35
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`II.
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 3 of 45 Page ID #:374
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ades v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp.,
`46 F. Supp. 3d 999 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ....................................................................... 28
`
`
`Berman v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC,
`2020 WL 5210912 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2020) .......................................................... 20
`
`
`Bonnichsen v. United States,
`367 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`
`Brown v. Google LLC,
`2021 WL 949372 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2021) .......................................................... 22
`
`
`Bunnell v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am.,
`567 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ............................................................. 15, 16
`
`
`Byrd v. Aaron’s, Inc.,
`2012 WL 12887775 (W.D. Pa. 2012) ...................................................................... 13
`
`
`Cabral v. Supple, LLC,
`2012 WL 12895825 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2012) .......................................................... 33
`
`
`Campbell v. Facebook Inc.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 836 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................. 5, 22, 31
`
`
`Casey v. Proctor,
`59 Cal. 2d 97 (1963) ................................................................................................ 17
`
`
`Colgate v. JUUL Labs, Inc.,
`402 F. Supp. 3d 728 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ..................................................................... 19
`
`
`Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc.,
`467 F. Supp. 3d 604 (N.D. Ill. 2020) ....................................................................... 18
`
`
`Cullinane v. Uber Tech., Inc.,
`893 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................... 19
`
`
`Dufour v. Allen,
`748 F. App’x 150 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 21
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 4 of 45 Page ID #:375
`
`
`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
`
`ENTTech Media Grp. LLC v. Okularity, Inc.,
`2021 WL 916307 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021) ....................................................... 5, 31
`
`
`Farrell v. Boeing Employees Credit Union,
`761 F. App’x 682 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 34
`
`
`Fleury v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.,
`2021 WL 1124309 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2021) .......................................................... 17
`
`
`Foglestrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
`195 Cal. App. 4th 986 (2011) .................................................................................. 32
`
`
`Franco v. Greystone Ridge Condominium,
`39 Cal. App. 5th 221 (2019) .................................................................................... 18
`
`
`Fredenburg v. City of Fremont,
`119 Cal. App. 4th 408 (2008) .................................................................................. 33
`
`
`Gollehon v. Mahoney,
`626 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 27
`
`
`Graham v. Noom, Inc.,
`2021 WL 1312765 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2021) ......................................................... 5, 6
`
`
`Harris v. Harris,
`935 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2019) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`
`Heeger v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2020 WL 7664459 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2020) ................................................... 32, 33
`
`
`Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n.,
`7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994) ............................................................................................. 30, 33
`
`
`In re Carrier IQ, Inc.,
`78 F. Supp. 3d 1051, (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................ Passim
`
`
`In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig.,
`956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) ........................................................................... Passim
`
`
`In re Google Assistant Priv. Litig.,
`457 F. Supp. 3d 797 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................... 21, 29
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 5 of 45 Page ID #:376
`
`
`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 Google Inc.,
`2013 WL 5423918 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2013) ................................................ Passim
`
`
`In re Google Location Hist. Litig.,
`428 F. Supp. 3d 185 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ..................................................................... 33
`
`
`In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litig.,
`58 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ....................................................................... 33
`
`
`In re iPhone Application Litig.,
`844 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2012) .............................................. 21, 33
`
`
`In re Lenovo Adware Litig.,
`2016 WL 6277245 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2016) ........................................................... 8
`
`
`In re Pharmatrak, Inc.,
`329 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................ 10
`
`
`In re Vizio, Inc. Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`238 F. Supp. 3d 1204 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ................................................................... 30
`
`
`In re Yahoo Mail Litig.,
`7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ....................................................................... 33
`
`
`In re Zynga Privacy Litig.,
` 750 F.3d 1098, 1107 (9th Cir. 2014) (9th Cir. 2014) ....................................... 10, 11
`
`
`In re: Zoom Video Commcn’s Inc. Privacy Litig.,
`2021 WL 930623 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021) .......................................................... 33
`
`
`Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson,
`110 Cal. App. 3d 868 (1980) ................................................................................... 24
`
`
`Javier v. Assurance IQ, LLC,
`2021 WL 940319 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2021) ...................................................... 18, 20
`
`
`Kauders v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`2019 WL 510568 (Mass. Super. Ct. Jan. 3, 2019)................................................... 17
`
`
`Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc.,
`133 Cal. App. 4th 26 (2005) .................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 6 of 45 Page ID #:377
`
`
`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
`
`Keck v. Bank of Am.,
`2008 WL 1743445 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2008) ......................................................... 16
`
`
`Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) ....................................................................... 33, 34, 35
`
`
`Koala v. Khosla,
`931 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................... 11
`
`
`Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.,
`302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................. 13, 14
`
`
`Leaf v. City of San Mateo,
`104 Cal. App. 3d 398 (1980) ................................................................................... 17
`
`
`London v. New Albertson’s Inc.,
`2008 WL 4492642 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2008) ......................................................... 33
`
`
`Lopez v. Apple, Inc.,
`2021 WL 823122 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021) ............................................................. 3
`
`
`Luis v. Zang,
`833 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... Passim
`
`
`Maghen v. Quicken Loans, Inc.,
`2014 WL 12586447 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2014)........................................................ 28
`
`
`Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
`519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 16
`
`
`Maree v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG,
`2021 WL 267853 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2021) ............................................................ 19
`
`
`Mastronardo v. Mastronardo,
`2018 WL 495246 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 22, 2018) ..................................................... 17
`
`
`Matera v. Google Inc.,
`2016 WL 5339806 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016) .......................................................... 3
`
`
`Matera v. Google Inc.,
`2016 WL 8200619 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016) .................................................. 26, 27
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 7 of 45 Page ID #:378
`
`
`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
`
`McAdory v. M.N.S. & Assocs., LLC,
`952 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................... 6, 7, 10, 15
`
`
`McCoy v. Alphabet, Inc.,
`2021 WL 405816 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2021) ....................................................... 22, 33
`
`
`Membrila v. Receivables Performance Mgmt., LLC,
`2010 WL 1407274 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2010) .............................................................. 4
`
`
`Moreno v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Trans. Dist.,
`2017 WL 6387764 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2017) ......................................................... 19
`
`
`Motley v. ContextLogic, Inc.,
`2018 WL 5906079 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2018) .......................................................... 20
`
`
`Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc.,
`763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 19, 20
`
`
`Opperman v. Path, Inc.,
`87 F. Supp. 3d 1018 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................... 29, 32
`
`
`Opperman v. Path, Inc.,
`205 F. Supp. 3d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ........................................................... Passim
`
`
`People v. Snyder,
`22 Cal. 4th 304 (2000) ............................................................................................... 8
`
`
`People v. Windham,
`145 Cal. App. 4th 881 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) .............................................................. 3
`
`
`Plevy v. Haggerty,
`38 F.Supp.2d 816 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ......................................................................... 34
`
`
`Powell v. Union Pac. Railroad Co.,
`864 F. Supp. 2d 949 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2012) ......................................................... 4
`
`
`Rainsy v. Facebook, Inc.,
`311 F. Supp. 3d 1101 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ................................................................... 10
`
`
`Revitch v. New Moosejaw, LLC,
`2019 WL 5485330 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019) ................................................. Passim
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 8 of 45 Page ID #:379
`
`
`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
`
`Ribas v. Clark,
`38 Cal. 3d 355 (1985) ............................................................................................ 2, 8
`
`
`Rogers v. Ulrich,
`52 Cal. App. 3d 894 (1975) ....................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Romero v. Securus Techs., Inc.,
`216 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (S.D. Cal. 2016) .................................................................... 25
`
`
`Roney v. Miller,
`705 F. App’x 670 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 36
`
`
`Russell v. Citigroup, Inc.,
`748 F.3d 677 (6th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 18
`
`
`S.D. v. Hytto Ltd.,
`2019 WL 8333519 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2019) ............................................... 3, 10, 11
`
`
`Salgado v. Carrows Rest., Inc.,
`33 Cal. App. 5th 356 (2019) .................................................................................... 18
`
`
`Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Cmte. v. City of Santa Monica,
`784 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 34
`
`
`Sheski v. Shopify (USA) Inc.,
`2020 WL 2474421 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2020) ......................................................... 33
`
`
`Smith v. LoanMe,
`2021 WL 1217873 (Cal. April 1, 2021) ........................................................ 2, 26, 27
`
`
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins,
` 136 S. Ct. 5140 (2016) (2016) ................................................................................ 25
`
`
`Theofel v. Farey-Jones,
`359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................. 15
`
`
`United States v. Arreguin,
`453 F. App’x 678 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 17
`
`
`United States v. Eady,
`648 F. App’x 188 (3rd Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 9 of 45 Page ID #:380
`
`
`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
`
`United States v. Forrester,
`512 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................... 10
`
`
`United States v. Johnson,
`875 F.3d 1265 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................. 17
`
`
`United States v. LeCoe,
`936 F.2d 398 (9th Cir. 1991) ................................................................................... 27
`
`
`United States v. Monday,
`614 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................... 28
`
`
`United States v. Staves,
`383 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................... 22
`
`
`United States v. Walker River Irrigation Dist.,
`890 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................. 28
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2511 ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`47 U.S.C. § 605 ........................................................................................................... 28
`
`47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4) ................................................................................................. 28
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1542 ................................................................................................. 17
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1654 ........................................................................................... 21, 23
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140(v) ....................................................................................... 4
`
`Cal. Penal Code § 631......................................................................................... Passim
`
`Cal. Penal Code § 635............................................................................... 24, 25, 27, 28
`
`Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(b) ......................................................................................... 24
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).................................................................................................... 34
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1)-(2) ......................................................................................... 34
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 10 of 45 Page ID #:381
`
`
`
`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
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Lululemon hired QM to secretly make recordings of everything anyone does
`on its website, lululemon.com, using a tool called “Session Replay.” According to
`QM’s patent, this technology works by “monitor[ing] changes to the website and
`user interactions, such as mouse clicks, mouse movements, scrolling, and keyboard
`entry to relay action and changes through the initiation of additional browser
`requests to the web server.” FAC ¶¶ 32-34. This monitoring occurs in real time, and
`can even monitor users across multiple devices. Id. ¶¶ 23, 26. Using this tool,
`Defendants are able to “pull up any user who had visited [a] website and watch their
`journey as if [the company] was standing over their shoulder.” Id. ¶ 18. This
`technology also allows website owners to track anonymous visitors and send them
`email saying “We see you looking,” and encouraging them to come back and buy
`products. Id. ¶ 42. This is a problem because, even though QM was not a party to
`Plaintiff’s communications with the website, it now has a recording of Plaintiff’s
`entire private shopping experience. Id. ¶¶ 20-34. Lululemon is not off the hook
`either, as it enabled QM’s wrongdoing. Id. ¶¶ 38-43. QM’s technology is not
`normal, not safe, and “far exceeds user expectations.” Id. ¶ 59; see also id. ¶¶ 36-37.
`It also violates California’s wiretap laws and right to privacy under the California
`Constitution. Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied in full.
`ARGUMENT
`Plaintiff Sufficiently Alleges A Violation Of § 631(a)
`A. QM Was Not A Party To The Communications
`1. QM’s Position Is Contrary To California Supreme Court and
`Ninth Circuit Authorities, And To The Text of § 631
`Defendants argue that QM is a party to the communication because it was
`“acting on Lululemon’s behalf,” and “stands in the shoes of Lululemon.” MTD at
`8:3-11. The notion that a company can hire third parties to secretly monitor
`communications between the company and its customers is contrary to the law for
`three separate reasons.
`
`I.
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 11 of 45 Page ID #:382
`
`
`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
`
`First, the California Supreme Court has twice explained—including just this
`month—that the “express objective” of CIPA is to “protect a person placing or
`receiving a call from a situation where the person on the other end of the line
`permits an outsider to tap his telephone or listen in on the call.” Ribas v. Clark,
`38 Cal. 3d 355, 364 (1985) (emphasis added). “As [the California Supreme Court]
`explained in Ribas … a substantial distinction has been recognized between the
`secondhand repetition of the contents of a conversation and its simultaneous
`dissemination to an unannounced second auditor, whether that auditor be a
`person or mechanical device.” Smith v. LoanMe, --- P.3d --- 2021 WL 1217873, at
`*8 (Cal. April 1, 2021) (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit similarly explained in
`In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589, 608 (9th Cir. 2020) (“In re
`Facebook”), that one of the purposes of wiretapping statutes is “to prevent the
`acquisition of the contents of a message by an unauthorized third-party or ‘an
`unseen auditor’”—like QM here. See also id. at 598 (explaining similar legislative
`goals of CIPA and the federal Wiretap Act).
`The outcome in Revitch v. New Moosejaw, LLC, 2019 WL 5485330 (N.D. Cal.
`Oct. 23, 2019) (“Moosejaw”) is instructive because it followed Ribas (as reaffirmed
`by Smith) and denied a motion to dismiss under similar facts. Like here, a retail
`website operator (Moosejaw) hired a third party software company (NaviStone) to
`“eavesdrop[] on [plaintiff’s website] communications with Moosejaw.” Moosejaw,
`2019 WL 5485330, at *1. The Moosejaw court held NaviStone was not a party to
`the communication because “it cannot be that anyone who receives a direct signal
`escapes liability by becoming a party to the communication. Someone who presses
`up against a door to listen to a conversation is no less an eavesdropper just because
`the sound waves from the next room reach his ears directly. That person remains a
`third party, even as a direct recipient of the speaker’s communication.” Id., at *2.
`Second, unlike its federal counterpart, § 631(a) requires the consent of “all
`parties,” and thus “both parties—the sender and the recipient of the
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 12 of 45 Page ID #:383
`
`
`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
`
`communication—must consent to the alleged interception.” Matera v. Google Inc.,
`2016 WL 5339806, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016) (explaining difference between
`CIPA § 631(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2511); see also People v. Windham, 145 Cal. App.
`4th 881, 889 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (“The Privacy Act differs from Title III in that it
`forbids wiretapping … unless all parties to a communication consent, while Title III
`permits a conversation to be intercepted or recorded where only one person has
`consented.”). Defendants’ argument that QM was “acting on Lululemon’s behalf” is
`just another way of saying that Lululemon consented to (or authorized) QM to
`monitor communications between Lululemon and its customers. But that is not
`enough to comply with CIPA given that it is a two-party consent statute, and Plaintiff
`did not consent as explained below.
`Third, QM cannot be a party to the communication because Plaintiff alleged
`she intended to communicate only with Lululemon. See FAC ¶¶ 1, 4, 46, 54. “[A]
`defendant does not actually participate in a conversation unless his presence is
`known to the other participants.” United States v. Eady, 648 F. App’x 188, 192 (3rd
`Cir. 2016); see also S.D. v. Hytto Ltd., 2019 WL 8333519, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. May
`15, 2019) (rejecting similar argument Defendants make here because “[a]t no point
`does that FAC allege that users communicated with Hytto or with the Body Chat app
`itself.”); Lopez v. Apple, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2021 WL 823122, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
`Feb. 10, 2021) (rejecting argument that Apple was the intended recipient of
`communications because “Plaintiffs allege[d] that they did not intend Apple to
`receive their private communications, but that Apple ‘captured’ such
`communications using the software in their devices.”).
`Defendants’ Arguments That QM Was A Party To The
`2.
`Communications Lack Legal Support
`First, Defendants do not cite a single case holding that a company in
`Lululemon’s position can hire a third party to secretly monitor that company’s
`communications with customers. Defendants cite In re Facebook, 956 F.3d at 607,
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 13 of 45 Page ID #:384
`
`
`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
`
`for the general proposition that a party to the communication is exempt from liability
`(subject to aiding and abetting liability addressed below). Yet the In re Facebook
`court rejected the same argument Defendants make here, and as noted in Section
`I.A.1 above, In re Facebook supports Plaintiff’s position. See In re Facebook, 956
`F.3d at 608 (“Permitting an entity to engage in the unauthorized duplication and
`forwarding of unknowing users’ information would render permissible the most
`common methods of intrusion, allowing the exception to swallow the rule.
`Therefore, we conclude that Facebook is not exempt from liability as a matter of law
`under the Wiretap Act or CIPA as a party to the communication”).
`Defendants cite Rogers v. Ulrich, 52 Cal. App. 3d 894, 899 (1975), and
`Membrila v. Receivables Performance Mgmt., LLC, 2010 WL 1407274 (S.D. Cal.
`Apr. 6, 2010), both of which are distinguishable because they involved a case of one
`person recording another, with no third-party involvement. In both cases, the
`manufacturer of the recording devices were not defendants because, unlike QM here,
`they played no role in making the recording. Likewise, the court in Powell v. Union
`Pac. Railroad Co., 864 F. Supp. 2d 949, 955 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2012), determined
`there was no “third party” involved where two Union Pacific officers who were
`jointly conducting a company investigation participated in a phone call with another
`Union Pacific employee. Hence, the Moosejaw court correctly rejected Defendants’
`interpretation of Powell. See Moosejaw, 2019 WL 5485330 at *2 n.2.
`Second, Defendants argue CIPA must be reconciled with the later-enacted
`California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140(v), which
`defines “service providers” as entities that “process[] information on behalf of [the]
`business[.]” MTD at 8:12-15. As a preliminary matter, nothing in § 1798.140(v)
`immunizes service providers under the CCPA. Even if it did, however, the CCPA
`does not narrow the application of CIPA because the CCPA was enacted to further
`privacy rights, and provides that “in the event of a conflict between other laws and
`the provisions of this title, the provisions of the law that afford the greatest protection
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 14 of 45 Page ID #:385
`
`
`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
`
`for the right of privacy for consumers shall control.” Civ. Code. § 1798.175. CIPA
`broadly permits liability for “any person,” without restriction on who they are or
`whether they are a service provider. Cal. Penal Code § 631(a). As shown in section
`I.B. below, the term “any person” cannot be construed narrowly.
`Third, Defendants resort to hyperbole when they claim “Plaintiff’s
`interpretation of § 631” would criminalize “myriad software services businesses
`routinely used to power and enhance the functionality of their websites.” MTD at
`10:11-15. That argument cannot support dismissal because it contradicts the
`allegations—which must be accepted as true—that QM’s code is “not ubiquitous,
`routine Internet activity” and that it “far exceeds user expectations.” FAC ¶¶ 35-37,
`59; see also ENTTech Media Grp. LLC v. Okularity, Inc., 2021 WL 916307, at 3
`(C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021) (Holcomb, J.) (On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “[a]ll
`allegations of material fact are taken as true ….”). The arguments also are based on
`unsupported factual assertions about how QM’s technology works, and which cannot
`be resolved on a 12(b)(6) motion. See Campbell v. Facebook Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d
`836, 841 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (defendant’s factual assertions about how its technology
`works cannot support 12(b)(6) motion); Moosejaw, 2019 WL 5485330 at *3 (same).
`Finally, on reply, Defendants will cite Graham v. Noom, Inc., 2021 WL
`1312765 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2021) and two other, related decisions issued by the
`same magistrate judge. Notably, Graham appeared to agree with Moosejaw’s
`holding that a company can be liable for secretly permitting a third party to
`eavesdrop on communications between the company and its customers. See id. at *6
`(discussing Moosejaw). However, the Graham court dismissed with leave to amend
`after concluding there were insufficient allegations that the session recording
`company at issue there (FullStory) “intercepted and used the data itself.” Graham,
`2021 WL 1312765, at *5. Thus, the court held further allegations were necessary to
`confirm that the session recording company had actually intercepted the
`communications, as opposed to simply providing a tool that allowed website
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 25 Filed 04/22/21 Page 15 of 45 Page ID #:386
`
`
`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
`
`operators to analyze their own data. Id. As a preliminary matter, Graham erred
`because it does not matter whether QM used or sold the data: § 631(a) has four
`independent liability prongs, only one of which turns on whether someone sold or
`used data. See Cal. Penal Code § 631(a).
`In any event, Graham is distinguishable because here, QM argues at length
`that it “was a party to the communication.” MTD at 7:1-10:25. QM cannot
`simultane