Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bobbie J. Wilson, Bar No. 148317
`BWilson@perkinscoie.com
`Sunita Bali, Bar No. 274108
`SBali@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`505 Howard Street, Suite 1000
`San Francisco, CA 94105-3204
`Telephone: 415.344.7000
`Facsimile: 415.344.7050
`Attorneys for Defendants Alphabet Inc.
`and Google LLC
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE GOOGLE ASSISTANT PRIVACY
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-04286-BLF
`DEFENDANTS ALPHABET INC. AND
`GOOGLE LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT
`Date:
`Time:
`Dept.:
`Judge:
`
`October 20, 2022
`9:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
`Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`
`
`
`158043066.3
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 2 of 33
`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 2 of 33
`
`—"SoOaYNDneeWNY
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`T.
`
`INTRODUCTION.000..ooceccccccccceccceccccccescesseeseeesecseeseceaceeacesecaeesacesscaeesateseseseeeeceaeceaeeesteeeesteees 1
`
`Il. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS...0.0..cccccccccccececcceseeeceeseeeseeeseesecseeeeeseceseeeeeseenstenes 2
`
`A. Google Assistant ..............ccccccccescceseceesceeseeeeecesecesaecesecessecssecessecesecesaecesecessesesecesseeseeeesseeeeeess 2
`1. How Assistant’s voice activation technology WOrKS ..................c.:cccecceeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeseeees 2
`2. Google’s ongoing efforts to improveits speech models andlimit Assistant
`MUSACTIVATIODS..... eee cece e cece eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeceeeeeeeeeeeceeeeeeeaeeseeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeseeseeeeeeeeeeeeeees 3
`
`3. Google offers a range of settings that allows users to control what information Google
`collects via Assistant and how that information is used ............0..0..ccccceeeeeseeeeeeseeeeeeeees 5
`
`B. Summary of Plaintiffs’ Claims .22.....0...00..ccececceeccecceeceesceeseeeeeeseeseeeseceaecaeeaeceaeeeeeeeseaeeeseeaees 6
`C. Facts Relating to Individual Plaintiffs..........0.....cceceecececeeccecceeccesceeseeseeeaeeesceseeeseeeseeeeeeaeeeees 7
`1. Melissa Spurr (“Spurr”) and B.S..........0.ccecccceecceeeceecceesceeseeceseceseecescceeceeaecesseesseceseceeseeees 7
`2. Lourdes Galvan (“L. Galvan”) .............ccccccccceeccesccesceceseeeseeceecceseeceseceeeceseeesseceseeceseeeseeees 8
`3. Eleeanna Galvan (“E. Galvan”) .0..........ccccccecccecccescceeceeesceeeeceseeeeeceaeceseeeseeeseeeseeesseeeaes 8
`4. Asif Kumaran «00.2.0... cecccccceccecceeccesceccesceesecsseseceaeeseceaecsaeeseceaecaeeseceseeeaseeceaeeeseeneeeseees 8
`
`TH. ARGUMENT .00020.....ccccccccccccceccesceecceseeeseeesecseceaessaesecsseesacaecsaecseeeseceaeseateseceaeeeeseseceaeeseteeeeseeees 8
`
`A. The Undisputed Evidence Shows NoViolation of the Wiretap Act........0...00..0:ccceseeeeeeeeeee 8
`1. There Was No Unlawful Interception...........0...0...cccccecceecceesceeseeeeseeeeeceeseceseeeseeeseeeeseeens 9
`2. Plaintiffs’ “Use” and “Disclosure” Claims Also Fall. .0......0....0e:ccecceeceeseeeeeeeeeteeeeeeeeee 13
`
`B. Plaintiffs’ Stored Communications Act Claim Fals......0.......ceccecceecceeceesceeseeeeeeeeeseeeseeeeees 14
`
`1. Plaintiffs lack evidence to prove their SCA claim as pled. ............0...00ccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 14
`2. Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their SCA claim............0....ceccecceeceecceseeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeees 15
`3. Plaintiffs cannot show that Google provided an “electronic communication service” in
`this COMtEXE. 22... ce eeeeecceceeceeceesceesceseeeseeseeseceseeaecsaeessceaecaeeseceaeceaeeseeeseceaeeeeseeeeaeeeseesees 16
`
`C. Plaintiffs’ CIPA Claim Fails Because There Is No Evidenceofan Intentional Interception
`of a Confidential Communication..................ccceecceeceeseeeseeseeeseeseeeseeesecsaceseeeseseeeeseeeseenseeaees 17
`
`D. The Undisputed Evidence Shows That No Intrusion Upon Seclusion or Invasion of Privacy
`Has Occurred. ..........ceccecccescceccesceescesseeseeseeseeeseesseesseeseeeseesseeseeeaecesecseeeseeeeeeeeeaeeeseeeeeeeeeeaeeess 17
`
`E. Plaintiffs’ Breach of Contract Claim Fails as a Matter of Law....0............ccesceeceeseeeeeeeeeeeees 20
`
`1. Plaintiffs cannot show that any contractual provision was breached.........................-. 20
`2. Plaintiffs Did Not Incur Any Damagesas a Result of Any Breach of Google’s Privacy
`POLICY. 022. ceeececceeecesceeseesecseesseeseesecsacsecaecsacesecaecsaeesseeaseaceseseaecsecsaeeseceaeeseeeeeeeaeeeseeaees 20
`F. Plaintiffs’ UCL Claims Fail on Multiple Grounds. .............0....ccecccesceeccesceeseeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeeeens 23
`1. Lack of actual reliance dooms Plaintiffs’ claims. ............0...ceceeceeseeeceeseeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 23
`
`2. Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution under the UCL...............ceceeceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 24
`
`3. Plaintiffs’ UCL unlawful and unfair claims necessarily fail.............0....0.ecceeeceeeeeeeeees 25
`
`158043066.3
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO.5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 3 of 33
`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 3 of 33
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`TV. CONCLUSION..000.....ccccccccccccccessccesceesseeesecessecsecessccsecessecascesseesaecessecesesesseeesesesseeeseeseeeeeeees 25
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-04286-BLF
`
`158043066.3
`
`si
`
`OA&_WwWNO
`OowoNYDW
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 4 of 33
`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 4 of 33
`
`SoOaYNDn&—WwVY
`
`NONYONYNYWNNYKNNOROwwmmmememetetetoOoJNDOOOFeWwNYOFXOFOooOJNDBDeHeeWYNYKFOC
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Baghdasarianv. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. CV 05-8060 2009 WL 4823368 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2009) .0.....eeceeeeceeceeeeceseeeeeeteeeeeeeees24
`
`Banga v. Experian Info. Sols.,
`No. 08-cv-04147, 2010 WL 11531066 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010) .2......eeeeceeceeeceeteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees25
`
`Blackmanv. Omak Sch. Dist.,
`466 F. Supp. 3d 1172 (E.D. Wa. 2020).......cccccccececcceccescescceseteseceeeesecaeceeeesecesecseceseeeseeeeeeseeess23
`
`Courtesy Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`329 F. Appx. 73 (9th Cir. 2009) 00... ceccecececcescceccesceeseeeceeseeseeseeeseceaeesaecseeeaeeeaeeaeeeaeesseeneeeseeeees20
`
`Delaney v. Aurora LoanServicing, Inc.,
`No. C 09-3131, 2010 WL 11583448 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2010) .0....ceeeeceeeeeeeeeeteeeeeeteeeeeeeeees25
`
`Deteresa v. Am. Broad. Cos.,
`121 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 1997)o.oo ccccccceeccescesecesceeeeseceseesseesecaeeseceseeeaeeseeeseeeaeeeeeeseeneteneees 18, 20
`
`Federal Agric. Mortg. Corp. v. It’s A Jungle Out There, Inc.,
`No. C 03-3721, 2005 WL 3325051 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2005) 202.0... cceceeeeeeeceeeeteeeeeeeeeteeeeeeeees22
`
`Genesis Ins. Co. v. Magma Design Automation, Inc.,
`No. 06-cv-05526, 2017 WL 4642443 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 16, 2017) .2.....ccececceeceeeeceeeeeeeteeeeeeeeees23
`
`Harmoushv. Allstate Ins. Co.,
`No. CV 10-4664, 2012 WL 13005929 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2012) .0....eceeeeceeceeeeeeeeteeeeeeeees21
`
`Hayes v. SpectorSoft Corp.,
`No. 08-cv-187, 2009 WL 3713284 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 3, 2009) .........eeeeeeceeeeeeceeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 10
`
`Heldt v. GuardianLife Ins. Co. ofAm.,
`No. 16-cv-885, 2019 WL 651503 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2019) .2.....occecceececcceeceseceeceeeeeeeeeeeees20
`
`Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc..,
`AT Cal. 4th 272 (2009) oo..eeeecccceccceccescceccesceeseesceeseessecseeeseesaeeseceseceaeeseeeseeeseeseeeseeeeteseeees 18, 19, 20
`
`Hill v. Nat’! Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,
`7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994) (em banc) 20.2... eee eeeeceeeceesceesceeesecessccsccessccesecessceeseceseeesecessceeseeesseeeseeeees 19
`
`158043066.3
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO.5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 5 of 33
`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 5 of 33
`
`Oo&WwNO
`OoOonNDD
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Huffv. Spaw,
`794 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2015)... .ecceeececececcecceceescescesceseesceseeeeceeceeceeceeeeeceeseeeeseceeeseesesseeseeseeseeees 12
`
`In re Google Assistant Priv. Litig.,
`457 F. Supp. 3d 797 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ......cecceececceecceceeceeceeseeseeseeseeseeseeseeeeeeceseeseeseeseens9, 13, 19
`
`In re Google Assistant Priv. Litig.,
`A457 F. Supp. 3d at 818-19 oo.eeeeeccccccecee cee ceccesceseeseeseeseeeeeseeeeeseeseceeeseeaeeseeaecsecececeeseeseeseeteaeeass 13
`
`In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig.,
`No. 13-MD-02430, 2013 WL 5423918 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 26, 2013) -0.......eeeeeeeeeeteeeeeeeteeeees 13
`
`In re iPhone ApplicationLitig.,
`6 F. Supp. 3d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2013) o2...eeecceceecceccceccecceceeceecesesseseeseeseeseeseeseceeeeeeeeesseseeseetenees24
`
`In re iPhone ApplicationLitig.,
`844 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .0...ececccecccccceccecceccecceeceeceseeseeeceaeeeeeeeceeeeseeseeseeseeseeteaee 19
`
`In re Pharmatrak, Inc..,
`329 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2003) 0... cecececceccecceseeseeseeseeseeseeseeseeesesseeseeseaeeacesecseeseeeeeaeeseeseeseeaeeaes9,10
`
`Jayne v. Bosenko,
`No. 08-cv-02767, 2014 WL 2801198 (E.D. Cal. June 19, 2014) 00... eeeeeeeeeeeeteeeeeeeees 10
`
`Joffe v. Google, Inc.,
`746 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2013) .....ceececcccccceceeceeceeceeseeseeseeseseeseeseeseeseeseesaceaeeseesecseeseceeeeceseesteaseaeeaes9
`
`Katz v. United States,
`389 U.S. 347 (1967) ooo. cecceccesccscesccecesseseessessesseeseeseeseesecsecsecsecsaeseeeseeseeseeaeeaesseseeeeseesesseseeeeeateaees 12
`
`Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,
`39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006) 2... eeeceece cece cee cecceceeseeeceseeeeeseeseceeceeeeeceaceeseeseeseeeeaeeeeseeseseseeseeeeesseeeeeeeees 17
`
`Khasin v. Hershey Co.,
`No. 12-cv-01862, 2014 WL 1779805 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2014) .......eeeeeeceeceeceeeeseeseeeeteeeeseees24
`
`Kirch v. Embarq Mgmt. Co.,
`702 F.3d 1245 (LOth Cir. 2012) ....eceeececcececcecceccesceseeseeseeeeceeeeeeeeeeseeeeeaeesecseceeseseeseeseeteeseeteeees 13
`
`Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
`29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003) oo...eeececccccceccecceceeseeseeseeseeseeseeseesecscesacseceaeaeeseesecseesecseeeeteeeesseseeeeeeeees25
`
`Lopez v. Apple, Inc.,
`519 F. Supp. 3d 672 (N.D. Cal. 2021) oo..ecececeecceceecceccceceeceeceeseeseeseeeeeseeseceeeeeeeeeeseeseeeeeeseaees 17, 18
`
`158043066.3
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO.5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 6 of 33
`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 6 of 33
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp..,
`900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012) oo....cccccecccceccceccecccescceececeececeseeeseeeeaeeeseeeeeeesseeeaees 16, 19
`
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`No. 11-cv-01468, 2011 WL 5509848 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2011) .....ccceeeee cece eeeeeeeeeeeeee 16
`
`Mastel v. Miniclip SA,
`549 F. Supp. 3d 1129 (E.D. Cal. 2021)... ..ccccccccecccccccecccceccesceeesecesceeseeceseceseeceseeeeseceseeeseeeeseeeees 19
`
`NorthBay Healthcare Grp. - Hosp. Div. v. Blue Shield of Cal. Life & Health Ins.,
`342 F. Supp. 3d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2018) 2.....cccccecccccccccceeccecececeseeeseesecesecsaeeseeesecseeeseseseceseeneeeseeeass25
`
`Palmerv. Stassinos,
`348 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (N.D. Cal. 2004) 222....ccccccccccccceccccesccecceeseeeseeeseceseceseceseceeseeeseeesseeeeeeees25
`
`People v. Superior Ct. ofLos Angeles Cnty.,
`70 Cal.2d 123 (1969) (em banc) 20.2... cece ceeccceeceeeeeeeseceseeeaeceseeceaecesceceeeceseeseaeceeeesseeeseeeeeeeees 17
`
`Pratt v. Securus Techs., Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-00295, 2021 WL 5094907 (D. Me. 2021) ..........ccccceccceeceesccesceeesecesecesseeeseeesseeesees 10
`
`Rahmanv. Mott’s LLP,
`No. CIV 13-3482, 2014 WL 5282106 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014)... ceeeeeeeeeeeeeteeeeeees23
`
`Reynolds v. City and Cnty. ofSan Francisco,
`No. C 09-0301 RS, 2012 WL 1143830 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012) .00.0..eceeeeceeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 18
`
`Romanv. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc.,
`No. C 16-05961, 2022 WL 3046758 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2022) .00.......ecceececeeceeseeeseeeseeeesseeeeees 15
`
`Ruiz v. Gap, Inc.,
`380 F. App’x 689 (9th Cir. 2010) .2......eccceececec cece cceecceeceeeseceseeeeeceseeesaeceaeceseeeeeesseeeseeeseeens 19, 23
`
`Sanchez v. L.A. Dep’t of Transp.,
`No. CV 20-5044, 2021 WL 1220690 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2021), aff'd, 35 F.4th
`721 (Oth Cir, 2022) ooo. eee ceccccccceceeccescceeseceseceesecessceesecesscessccesseeesecesaecesecesseeesecesseeesecesseeeseeeess 16
`
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
`578 U.S. 330 (2016)... ceccecccccceccesccesceeesceesscesecesseessecesecessecesecesseceseceaecesecesseeeseceeseeeeeesseeeseeeess 15
`
`Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Victor,
`43 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ....0cccccecccceccee cece ceeeceesceeseeccecesceceseceseeeesceeeeesseeesseeeseeeees9
`
`158043066.3
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO.5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`Oo&WwNO
`OoOonNDD
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 7 of 33
`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 7 of 33
`
`Oo&WwNO
`OoOonNDD
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`United States v. Christensen,
`828 F.3d 763 (Oth Cir. 2015)... ccccceccececeeccceceeseceeseceseeceecescecceeesceceaeceseeseseeesseeeseeeseeeeeeeses9,10
`
`United States v. Florida,
`No. 14-cr-00582, 2016 WL 3999593 (N.D.Cal. July 26, 2016) .2......cceeceecceeeeeeeeseeeeeeteeeeeeeees 11
`
`United States v. Ganoe,
`538 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2008)... cece cceec cece cceeccecceeecceseeeeseeeseecesecesaecesecessecesecesseeeseeesseeeseeeses 12
`
`United States v. Lustyik,
`57 F. Supp. 3d 213 (S.D.N-Y. 2014) .o...ccecccccccceccccceccesceeseceseesecesecseceseseaecseeseceaeseseesaeeeeeeeeeateees 15
`
`United States v. Nazemzadeh,
`No. 11-cr-5726, 2013 WL 544054 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2013) .0........ceceeeeeceeseceseeeeeeeeseeesseeesees 16
`
`Wasco Prods., Inc. v. Southwall Techs., Inc.,
`435 F.3d 989 (Oth Cir. 2006)... cecceccccccecccescceeseeeseeceaeeeseeceaeeeseceesecesaeceseeeseeeeseeesseesaeeeseeees 15
`
`West v. Palo Alto Hous. Corp.,
`No. 17-CV-00238, 2019 WL 2549218 (N.D.Cal. June 20, 2019) 200... eeeeeeseeeeeeeeeees25
`
`Wilsonv. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.,
`260 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (N.D. Cal. 2017) 20....0cccccccccccceccceccesccesceeesceeseeceseeeseecesceeeeeeseeeseeeesseeseeees24
`
`16
`
`STATUTES
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`18 U.S.C. § 251002) oo.ceecceccccccccceccesccescesecesecseeesecsecsecesecaeesecesecsaecseceaecaeesecesesasesseeaeseaeeseseseesseeseeees ll
`
`18 U.S.C. § 251 O(4) oo. cce cece ccce cece cesccesceceseeeseecesceesaeceseecsaecesseesaeceseeeeseceseeesseeeeeseaeeesseesaeeeseeeeaeeeses 12
`
`18 ULS.C. § 2510(5)(a)(il) «2... cee eee cccccecceseceescceseeeseceseceaecessecsaeceseceesecesacesseseseeseseeeeseesseeeseeeeseeeses 13
`
`18 U.S.C. § 251015) ooeccececccccceeceeccecceseceseeseceseeseesecesecsaecseceaecsaecsecesecsaeeseceseseaeeseceaeceaseeeeaeeneteaeeess 16
`
`18 ULS.C. § 25111)(a) .2eeeecceeceeccecceecceeeceeeceeseeceseceseeceaeeeseecaeceseeceaeceseeceseceseeesseeeseeeeseeeseeeesees6,9, 11
`
`18 U.S.C. § 25LUA)(C) ..eeeeccececcee cece cecceseceeseceseeesseceseecsaeceseeesaecesecesaeceseeessecesecesaeceseeessesesecesseeeeeeneeees6
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2SLL(1)(A) once cecceccecceccecceccesceeseesseeseesaeesetsecsaeesaceseceaeessceseseaeeateseseseseaeeseseaeeseeeeeeeseenees6
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1) .o.eec ee ceeccecceccesccesceseeesecescesecsecseeesecaecsseeseseseesaeeseseaeceaeesseeseseaeessseeeeaeeeeees 7,14
`
`Cal. Penal Code § 632(a) 2.........ccccccceccccesccescceeseeesseceeeceseecsecesseceseceseecaecesaeceaseeseeeeseeeeeeeseeesseeeseeeees 17
`
`158043066.3
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO.5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 8 of 33
`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 8 of 33
`
`—_
`>
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`3,||Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1) «--.--:-eeseceeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneseeneeneneeneenenens 14, 16
`
`4 ||RULEs
`
`5
`
`6
`
`©
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`[PFed. R. Civ. P. 56 oo.eececececcecceccececeeeseeseeseeseeesesseesessesaeesecsecsecsecsecsassaseaeeseesesaeeeesseseeeeseeseateeseaseseaees 1
`
`158043066.3
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO.5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 20, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3 of the
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California, at 280 South 1st Street, San
`Jose, California 95113, Defendants Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC (collectively, “Google”) move,
`under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, and
`specifically their first through seventh claims for relief. Plaintiffs’ eighth, ninth, and tenth claims
`have already been dismissed without leave to amend. See ECF 138, 35–36; ECF 152, 25:14–15.
`This motion is based on this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below, the
`declarations of Sunita Bali, Françoise Beaufays, Yair Cohen, Nino Tasca, and Terry Tai, and the
`exhibits thereto, all materials in the record, any oral argument, and any other information and
`evidence on which the Court may rely.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Despite more than three years of litigation, well over 3,000,000 pages of documents
`produced by Google, and fourteen depositions of Google’s witnesses on a wide range of topics, the
`undisputed evidence shows that Plaintiffs cannot maintain any of their claims.
`Plaintiffs’ case rests on the theory that the Google Assistant activates when no hotword is
`spoken and users do not manually activate their device, causing Google to record private
`communications without consent. First, the evidence shows that such recordings are an infrequent
`and incidental effect of providing Assistant, rather than an intentional interception, and that Google
`invests significant time and resources into limiting misactivations. As a result, Plaintiffs’ Wiretap
`Act and CIPA claims fail. Second, Plaintiffs cannot show that they had a reasonable expectation of
`privacy in any of the communications that were allegedly intercepted, which is required for their
`Wiretap Act, CIPA, and invasion of privacy claims, given that they used Assistant devices when
`they knew or should have known that misactivations may occur without taking reasonable steps to
`reduce misactivations. Third, Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their SCA claim and cannot establish
`that Assistant is an electronic communications service. Finally, Plaintiffs’ breach of contract and
`-1-
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`158043066.3
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`II.
`A.
`
`UCL claims fail because the evidence conclusively establishes that Plaintiffs have not been
`damaged or suffered any lost money or property as a result of occasional misactivations.
`For all of these reasons, summary judgment should be granted in favor of Google.
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`Google Assistant
`Google Assistant (“Assistant”), which launched in May 2016, is a virtual personal assistant
`that can help users with a variety of tasks, including setting reminders, making telephone calls,
`answering questions, looking up the weather, playing music, and getting driving directions.
`Declaration of Françoise Beaufays (“Beaufays Decl.”) ¶ 3; see also Declaration of Sunita Bali
`(“Bali Decl.”), Ex. 9 (April 22, 2022 Deposition of Françoise Beaufays (“Beaufays Dep. II”)) at
`88:23–89:4, 97:13–21. It is available on a wide range of Google and third-party Google Assistant
`enabled devices (“GAEDs”), including smart speakers and displays, smartphones, laptops, tablets,
`cars, televisions, and more. Beaufays Decl. ¶ 4. Users can generally activate Assistant by saying a
`hotword (“OK Google” or “Hey Google”) or manually activating it on their device (e.g., pressing a
`button). Id. ¶ 5. If a user does not want the ability to access Assistant by voice, users can mute the
`microphone on their smart speaker or smart display or turn off hotword functionality on their
`Android phone or tablet. Id. ¶ 6.
`1.
`How Assistant’s voice activation technology works
`Assistant is powered by complex speech technologies that have been in development since
`long before Assistant launched. Id. ¶ 7; Beaufays Dep. II at 294:7–12. Assistant is designed to wait
`in standby mode until it detects an activation, such as a hotword. Beaufays Decl. ¶ 8; see also Bali
`Decl., Ex. 10; Beaufays Dep. II at 99:12–100:3. Assistant does not send any audio data to Google’s
`servers when in standby mode. Beaufays Decl. ¶ 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`158043066.3
`
`-2-
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`
`Once Assistant is activated, a visual or audible status indicator on the user’s device will let the user
`know Assistant is activated. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`Google’s ongoing efforts to improve its speech models and limit Assistant
`misactivations
`Google is constantly working to improve the accuracy of its speech technology, including its
`hotword model and its ASR system. Beaufays Decl. ¶ 15. Google is constantly developing new
`models and testing and evaluating those models to determine whether they perform better than the
`-3-
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`158043066.3
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`models in use. Id. ¶ 16; see also, e.g., Beaufays Dep. II at 117:24–119:5; Bali Decl., Ex. 12
`(Deposition of Alex Gruenstein (“Gruenstein Dep.”)) at 52:5–53:6.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`158043066.3
`
`-4-
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`Google offers a range of settings that allows users to control what information
`Google collects via Assistant and how that information is used
`Google offers a variety of settings that allow users to control what data Google collects from
`users’ Assistant interactions and what Google does with that data. Declaration of Nino Tasca
`(“Tasca Decl.”) ¶ 2. For example, the Web & App Activity (“WAA”) setting controls whether
`Google stores users’ activity on Google’s services, including Assistant, to their Google accounts. Id.
`And the Voice and Audio Activity (“VAA”) setting (which is a subsetting under WAA) allows users
`to choose whether Google saves audio activity, including Assistant audio data, in their Google
`accounts. Id. ¶ 3. Users who enable VAA can delete their audio data at any time either through the
`My Activity page of their Google account, by issuing a voice command to Assistant, or by selecting
`an auto-delete option. Bali Decl., Exs. 35–36. Although the language of VAA has changed over
`time, since at least May 2016 when Assistant launched, users have been informed that by enabling
`-5-
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`158043066.3
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 14 of 33
`
`
`
`VAA, they are consenting to Google saving and using their audio data to improve Google’s speech
`technologies. Tasca Decl. ¶ 3. VAA has always been “off” by default unless users turn it on. Id.
`Google also allows users on mobile devices to control whether Assistant can be activated by
`a hotword at all. Beaufays Decl. ¶ 27; Tasca Decl. ¶ 4; see also, e.g., Bali Decl., Ex. 25. If the user
`does not consent, Assistant will not activate on their mobile devices in response to a hotword. Tasca
`Decl. ¶ 4
`In April 2020, Google released the hotword Sensitivity Slider, which allows users to control
`how sensitive their device is to a hotword. Id. ¶ 5; Beaufays Decl. ¶ 28; see also Beaufays Dep. II at
`221:22–227:12; Bali Decl., Ex. 16-17. When this feature launched, 83% of users who changed their
`setting made it more sensitive—meaning that they were willing to trade a possible increase in false
`accepts for fewer false rejects. Tasca Decl. ¶ 5; Bali Decl., Ex. 17.
`Further, in January 2021, Google launched “guest mode” for users of shared devices, such
`as smart speakers and smart displays. Tasca Decl. ¶ 6; Beaufays Decl. ¶ 29. When guest mode is on,
`Google does not save Assistant queries or audio recordings in users’ Google accounts, even if the
`device owner has VAA enabled. Tasca Decl. ¶ 6; Beaufays Decl. ¶ 29. Anyone can enter guest mode
`by voice, such as by saying “Hey Google, turn on Guest Mode.” Id.
`B.
`Summary of Plaintiffs’ Claims
`Plaintiffs claim that their statutory and other rights are violated when Assistant misactivates
`because it identifies a hotword when no hotword was spoken. See Dkt. 141 ¶¶ 102–107 & 124.
`Plaintiffs allege that Google further violates their rights by using third-party human reviewers to
`listen to these audio recordings to improve Google’s speech technologies, and by using them to
`target personalized advertising to users. Id. ¶¶ 123–124.
`Plaintiffs assert claims for: (1) violations of the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C.
`§§ 2511(1)(a), (c), and (d) (Dkt. 141 ¶¶ 156–180); (2) violations of the federal Stored
`Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1) (Dkt. 141 ¶¶ 181–201); (3) violations of the
`California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code § 632 (Dkt. 141 ¶¶ 202–216); (4)
`intrusion upon seclusion (Dkt. 141 ¶¶ 217–228); (5) invasion of privacy under the California
`constitution (Dkt. 141 ¶¶ 229–242); (6) breach of contract (Dkt. 141 ¶¶ 243–264); and (7) violations
`-6-
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`158043066.3
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 15 of 33
`
`
`
`of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (Dkt. 141
`¶¶ 265–270). For the Court’s convenience, a chart summarizing which claims are asserted by which
`Plaintiffs is attached to the Bali Decl. at Ex. 1.
`C.
`Facts Relating to Individual Plaintiffs
`The remaining Plaintiffs include Melissa Spurr, B.S., Lourdes Galvan, Eleeanna Galvan,
`and Asif Kumandan; Edward Brekhus and Jon Hernandez dismissed their claims. Dkt. 243.
`
`
`
`
`. Bali Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. 7; ¶ 10
`
`& Ex. 8.
`1.
`
`Melissa Spurr (“Spurr”) and B.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`158043066.3
`
`-7-
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 16 of 33
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Lourdes Galvan (“L. Galvan”)
`
`
`Eleeanna Galvan (“E. Galvan”)
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Asif Kumandan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`The Undisputed Evidence Shows No Violation of the Wiretap Act.
`Plaintiffs allege Google violated the Wiretap Act by (1) intentionally intercepting Plaintiffs’
`oral communications; and (2) disclosing and using those communications knowing or having
`-8-
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`158043066.3
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 17 of 33
`
`
`
`reason to know they were obtained through an unlawful interception. Dkt. 141 ¶¶ 168, 171, 174.
`Discovery has disproved each of these theories.
`1.
`There Was No Unlawful Interception.
`The Wiretap Act imposes liability for “intentionally intercept[ing] . . . any wire, oral, or
`electronic communication.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a); Joffe v. Google, Inc., 746 F.3d 920, 924–25
`(9th Cir. 2013), as amended (Dec. 27, 2013). Plaintiffs contend that Google violated this provision
`because Assistant intentionally “intercept[s]” their “confidential oral communications” when it
`activates without a hotword or manual activation. Dkt. 141 ¶¶ 167–69. This theory fails for multiple
`reasons.
`
`a.
`Google did not “intentionally intercept” Plaintiffs’ communications.
`An interception “must be intentional, as opposed to inadvertent.” Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v.
`Victor, 43 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1030 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Indeed, Congress amended the Wiretap Act,
`raising the state of mind requirement from “willful” to “intentional,” to “underscore that inadvertent
`interceptions are not a basis for criminal or civil liability.” In re Pharmatrak, Inc., 329 F.3d 9, 23
`(1st Cir. 2003). The “operative question,” then, “is whether the defendant acted consciously or
`deliberately with the goal of intercepting wire communications.” United States v. Christensen, 828
`F.3d 763, 775 (9th Cir. 2015), as amended (July 8, 2016).
`Although Plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act claim is premised on unintentional misactivations, this
`Court permitted the claim to proceed past the pleadings, because Plaintiffs alleged that Google
`knew of these inadvertent recordings but took no steps to prevent them or destroy them when
`discovered. See In re Google Assistant Priv. Litig., 457 F. Supp. 3d 797, 815–816 (N.D. Cal. 2020).
`The Court also recognized that “some de minimis error rate may be tolerated without exposing
`[Google] to liability; after all, even the human ear misinterprets words and sounds at times.” Id. at
`815. At summary judgment, evidence of intent to intercept is required, and “[a]n act is not
`intentional if it is the product of inadvertence or mistake.” Jayne v. Bosenko, No. 08-cv-02767, 2014
`WL 2801198, at *26 (E.D. Cal. June 19, 2014) (quoting Pharmatrak, 329 F.3d at 23); see also
`Hayes v. SpectorSoft Corp., No. 08-cv-187, 2009 WL 3713284, at *8 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 3, 2009);
`Pratt v. Securus Techs., Inc., No. 20-cv-00295, 2021 WL 5094907, at *3, *5 (D. Me. 2021).
`-9-
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`158043066.3
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 18 of 33
`
`
`
`Discovery is now complete, and there is nothing in the record suggesting that Google “acted
`consciously or deliberately with the goal of intercepting” Plaintiffs’ communications. Christensen,
`828 F.3d at 775. Plaintiffs have identified no more than a de minimis number of recordings that
`might originate from hotword initiated misactivations. Virtually all of the misactivations identified
`by Kumandan and the Galvans were
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, the undisputed evidence shows that Google has taken extensive steps to limit all
`misactivations,
`
`
` See supra Section III.A.2. These steps include: (1)
` Beaufays Dep. II at 117:24–119:5, 203:2–205:6, 207:5–
`, Beaufays
`208:2; Bali Decl., Exs. 13–16; (2)
`Dep. II at 106:6–107:16, 107:20–108:18, 146:20–147:19, 149:14–156:5, 157:3–12; (3) offering
`settings that allow users to control when Assistant activates, whether audio is saved, and how it’s
`used, including whether to enable “Hey Google” on Android mobile devices, guest mode, and the
`hotword Sensitivity Slider, Beaufays Dep. II at 221:22–227:12; Bali Decl., Ex. 16; and (4)
`
`
`Deposition of Yair Cohen (“Cohen Dep.”) at 54:21–58:12; Horling Dep. at 148:6–151:6; Bali Decl.,
`Ex. 22; see also, e.g., Beaufays Dep. II at 318:20–320:12.
`And Google’s work has paid off.
`
`
`
`
`
`158043066.3
`
`-10-
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:19-CV-04286-BLF
`
`
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 245 Filed 08/22/22 Page 19 of 33
`
`
`
` Cohen Decl. ¶¶ 5–6.
`
`
`
`
`. Cohen Decl.
`
`¶ 6.
`
`There is no evide