Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.1 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
`Neal J. Deckant (State Bar No. 322946)
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
`
` ndeckant@bursor.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`DRICKEY JACKSON, individually and
`on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`v.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`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
`
`
`'20
`
`CV2365
`
`BGS
`
`BEN
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.2 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Drickey Jackson (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of himself
`and all others similarly situated, by and through his attorneys, makes the following
`allegations pursuant to the investigation of his counsel and based upon information
`and belief, except as to allegations specifically pertaining to himself and his counsel,
`which are based on personal knowledge.
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`This is a class action suit brought against Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.
`(“Amazon” or “Defendant”) for wiretapping the electronic communications of
`Amazon Flex Drivers’ (“Flex Drivers”) closed Facebook groups. The wiretaps are
`used by Defendant to secretly observe and monitor Flex Drivers’ electronic
`communications and confidential postings in their closed Facebook groups, through
`the use of monitoring tools, automated software, and dedicated employees with
`backgrounds in signals intelligence and communications intelligence. As such,
`Defendant has violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal
`Code § 631 and 635, have intruded upon the seclusion of Plaintiff, and violated class
`members’ privacy rights under the California Constitution.
`2. Mr. Jackson is an Amazon Flex Driver. He communicated with other
`Flex Drivers in closed Facebook groups that were monitored by Defendant. Amazon
`monitored these closed groups secretly and gathered information about planned
`strikes or protests, unionizing efforts, pay, benefits, deliveries, warehouse conditions,
`driving conditions, and whether workers had been approached by researchers
`examining Amazon’s workforce. Amazon conducted this monitoring by hiring
`employees and investigators with backgrounds in intelligence, particularly signals
`intelligence (“SIGINT”) and communications intelligence (“COMINT”), who
`deployed automated tools and monitoring software as part of their SIGINT and
`COMINT duties on behalf of Amazon.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`1
`
`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 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.3 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`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
`
`
`3.
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of all persons
`whose electronic communications through the closed Facebook groups were
`monitored by Defendant’s wiretaps.
`THE PARTIES
`4.
`Plaintiff Drickey Jackson is a resident of San Diego, California with an
`intent to remain there, and is therefore a domiciliary of California. Throughout 2020,
`prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Mr. Jackson communicated with Flex Drivers
`through closed Facebook groups while they were being monitored by Amazon. Mr.
`Jackson was in San Diego when he used the closed Facebook groups subject to
`Amazon’s monitoring. During his use of the Facebook groups, Mr. Jackson’s
`electronic communications, including communications about planned strikes or
`protests, pay, benefits, deliveries, driving and warehouse conditions, unionizing
`efforts, and whether workers had been approached by researchers examining
`Amazon’s workforce, were intercepted in real time and were disclosed through
`Amazon’s wiretap. Mr. Jackson was unaware at the time that his electronic
`communications, including the information described above, were being intercepted
`in real-time and would be disclosed to Amazon, nor did Mr. Jackson consent to the
`same.
`
`5.
`Defendant Amazon is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
`business at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109.
`6.
`Amazon engages in the retail sale of consumer products and
`subscriptions and makes the majority of its sales through its online platform,
`Amazon.com.
`7.
`Amazon does business throughout California and the entire United
`States.
`8.
`In addition to its own drivers, Amazon contracts out to over 800 service
`delivery partners. These contract drivers are referred to as Flex Drivers.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.4 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`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
`
`
`9.
`Amazon discourages its employees, delivery partners, and contract
`drivers from unionizing.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`1332(d)(2)(A) because this case is a class action where the aggregate claims of all
`members of the proposed class are in excess of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest
`and costs, and at least one member of the proposed class is a citizen of a state
`different from Defendant.
`11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant
`has purposefully availed itself of the laws and benefits of doing business in this State,
`and Plaintiff’s claims arise out of each of Defendant’s forum-related activities.
`Furthermore, a substantial portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims
`occurred in this District.
`12. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, this Court is the proper venue for this
`action because a substantial part of the events, omissions, and acts giving rise to the
`claims herein occurred in this District.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Overview Of The Wiretaps
`13. Amazon Flex is a program by which Amazon pays regular people to
`deliver packages.
`14. Amazon Flex drivers have complained about a myriad of issues
`surrounding their employment, including a lack of job security, little to no benefits,
`and low pay.
`15.
`In order to discuss these issues with colleagues, many Flex Drivers,
`including Plaintiff, formed or joined private Facebook groups.
`16. The idea of these Facebook groups is that they are only populated with
`Flex Drivers, not other persons, and certainly not employees or personnel of
`Defendant.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.5 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`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
`
`
`17. Unbeknownst to Flex Drivers, however, Defendant has been secretly
`monitoring and wiretapping these closed Facebook groups.
`18. An Amazon document, called “social media monitoring,” lists forty-
`three closed Facebook groups and pages run by Flex Drivers in different cities in the
`United States that Amazon monitors. The document reads that “[t]he following
`social forums mentioned in the table are to be monitored during the Social media
`process.”
`19. Defendant confirmed that this document came from a sophisticated and
`secret program that surveils dozens of private Facebook groups set up by workers.
`Defendant later confirmed that this program is part of its Orwellian-sounding
`Advocacy Operations Social Listening Team (“Advocacy Operations”). Amazon
`recruits members of the Advocacy Operations from individuals who have
`backgrounds and experience in SIGINT and COMINT. The purpose of this program
`is to monitor information about planned strikes or protests, unionizing efforts,
`warehouse conditions, pay, benefits, and whether workers have been approached by
`researchers examining Amazon’s workforce.
`20. Posts are monitored or intercepted in real time. Advocacy Operations
`describes how it captures relevant information from closed Facebook groups
`(included but not limited to the groups listed below) using automated monitoring
`tools:
`
`GO PS
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.6 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`STEP
`
`WHATTODO
`
`poru
`
`·ch r ui
`
`2. Al
`
`the eKisting gr ups . pages
`
`Find h Ii t o
`
`In e Source a1Xe$'$ oc
`
`r po t
`
`6. Andi
`
`r nt ol
`
`of
`
`8. U
`
`for ne rt
`
`ft
`
`nt
`
`to I)@
`
`21.
`Issues raised by the Drivers in these closed Facebook groups are
`compiled into reports and delivered to Amazon’s Corporate Department. The reports
`are then filtered and categorized through a tool called the “Social Media Bank.”
`Reports detailing driving and warehouse conditions, strikes, pay, deliveries, benefits,
`unionizing, being approached by researchers examining Amazons workforce, and/or
`protests are flagged by Advocacy Operations.1
`22. The below screenshot is an example of a post by Amazon Flex drivers
`complaining about not receiving delivery slots that was intercepted by Amazon:
`
`1 Id.
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.7 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`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
`
`
`ISSUE: DPs were complaining of not receiving blocks. Many were of the view that the block
`count has reduced since the holiday and the volume is being taken away by white vans. They
`are confirming it by asking the station staff. Few have also opined that the decrease in the
`offers have been noticed not at all stations. Some are definitely being impacted while the rest
`are just working fine .
`
`TOTAL POSTS: 03, COMMENTS: 52
`
`23. Amazon asked its employees to keep this monitoring program secret and
`created a special login page to access the reports. In fact, on the login page for Social
`Media Bank, Defendant admits that “most of the Post/Comment screenshots within
`the site are from closed Facebook groups. It will have a detrimental effect if it falls
`within the reach of any of our Delivery partners. DO NOT SHARE without proper
`authentication”2:
`
`PASSWORD
`
`Password
`
`TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE
`
`come o Social Media Bank. hese are our terms and condi ons for using the site
`g the informat10r1 presented 1n 1t.
`and acce
`
`- The 111formation related ro different posts reported our from various social forums are
`classified. DO NOT SHARE witnoot proper authentication.
`- M<Jsr of the Post/Comment screenshots within the sit 811!! from cJossd Facebook
`groups. It will haVti a detnmental Etff&ct d ,t falls within ffl8 rBaCIJ of any of our Delivery
`partners. DO NOT SHARE without proper oothenticstion
`
`Please click the box an response to your agreement on above-mentioned poin ers.
`
`Submit
`
`2 Id.
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.8 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`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
`
`
`24. These processes, as currently employed by Amazon, function as a
`wiretap.
`Defendant Wiretapped Plaintiff’s Electronic Communications
`25. Since 2016, Plaintiff has been a member of closed Facebook groups for
`Amazon Flex drivers.
`26. Plaintiff communicated to other Flex Drivers in the closed Facebook
`groups.
`27. Plaintiff communicated about such topics as Amazon missing payments,
`driving routes, checking into the warehouse five minutes before shifts started, no
`breaks during driving shifts, delivers, and having to drive after shifts ended to finish
`delivering packages, which resulted in subsequent labor disputes with Amazon.
`28. Plaintiff’s posts were tracked and intercepted by Defendant in real time
`using the aforementioned processes.
`29. Amazon intercepted these posts without Plaintiff’s consent. The
`Facebook groups were closed, and Plaintiff believed he was only communicating
`with other Flex Drivers.
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`30. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all California Flex Drivers who
`were members of the closed Facebook groups, and whose electronic communications
`were intercepted by Defendant (the “Class”). Plaintiff reserves the right to modify
`the class definition as appropriate based on further investigation and discovery
`obtained in the case.
`31. Members of the Class are so numerous that their individual joinder
`herein is impracticable. On information and belief, members of the Class number in
`the thousands. The precise number of Class members and their identities are
`unknown to Plaintiff at this time but may be determined through discovery. Class
`members may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail and/or publication
`through the distribution records of Defendant.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.9 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`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
`
`
`32. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and
`predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members. Common legal
`and factual questions include, but are not limited to, whether Defendant has violated
`the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 635,
`has intruded upon the seclusion of Plaintiff, and violated class members’ privacy
`rights under the California Constitution.
`33. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class
`because the named Plaintiff, like all other class members, was a member of one of the
`closed Facebook Groups and had his electronic communications intercepted and
`disclosed to Defendant through the use of
`Amazon’s wiretaps.
`34. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because his interests
`do not conflict with the interests of the Class members he seeks to represent, he has
`retained competent counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and he intends
`to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of Class members will be fairly and
`adequately protected by Plaintiff and his counsel.
`35. The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and
`efficient adjudication of the claims of Class members. Each individual Class member
`may lack the resources to undergo the burden and expense of individual prosecution
`of the complex and extensive litigation necessary to establish Defendant’s liability.
`Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and multiplies
`the burden on the judicial system presented by the complex legal and factual issues of
`this case. Individualized litigation also presents a potential for inconsistent or
`contradictory judgments. In contrast, the class action device presents far fewer
`management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of
`scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court on the issue of Defendant’s
`liability. Class treatment of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and
`claimants are before this Court for consistent adjudication of the liability issues.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.10 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`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
`
`
`36. Plaintiff brings all claims in this action individually and on behalf of
`members of the Class against Defendant.
`COUNT I
`Violation Of The California Invasion Of Privacy Act,
`Cal. Penal Code § 631
`37. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as
`if fully set forth herein.
`38. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
`the proposed Class against Defendant.
`39. To establish liability under section 631(a), a plaintiff need only establish
`that the defendant, “by means of any machine, instrument, contrivance, or in any
`other manner,” does any of the following:
`
`
`
`Intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection,
`whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively or
`otherwise, with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable,
`or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument
`of any internal telephonic communication system,
`
`Or
`Willfully and without the consent of all parties to the
`communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads or
`attempts to read or learn the contents or meaning of any
`message, report, or communication while the same is in
`transit or passing over any wire, line or cable or is being
`sent from or received at any place within this state,
`
`Or
`Uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose,
`or to communicate in any way, any information so
`obtained,
`
`Or
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.11 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`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
`
`
`Aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or
`persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any
`of the acts or things mentioned above in this section.
`
`40. Section 631(a) is not limited to phone lines, but also applies to “new
`technologies” such as computers, the Internet, and email. See Matera v. Google Inc.,
`2016 WL 8200619, at *21 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016) (CIPA applies to “new
`technologies” and must be construed broadly to effectuate its remedial purpose of
`protecting privacy); Bradley v. Google, Inc., 2006 WL 3798134, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal.
`Dec. 22, 2006) (CIPA governs “electronic communications”); In re Facebook, Inc.
`Internet Tracking Litigation, 956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) (reversing dismissal of
`CIPA and common law privacy claims based on Facebook’s collection of consumers’
`Internet browsing history).
`41. Amazon’s processes, including its live tool and Social Media Bank, are a
`“machine, instrument, contrivance, or … other manner” used to engage in the
`prohibited conduct at issue here.
`42. At all relevant times, by using the live tool and Social Media Bank,
`Defendant intentionally tapped, electrically or otherwise, the lines of internet
`communication between Plaintiff and class members.
`43. At all relevant times, by using the live tool and Social Media Bank,
`Defendant intentionally tapped willfully and without the consent of all parties to the
`communication, or in any unauthorized manner, read or attempted to read or learn the
`contents or meaning of electronic communications of Plaintiff and putative Class
`Members, while the electronic communications were in transit or passing over any
`wire, line, or cable, or were being sent from or received at any place within
`California.
`44. Defendant implemented the live tool and Social Media Bank to
`accomplish the wrongful conduct at issue here.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.12 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`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
`
`
`45. Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to any of Defendant’s
`actions in implementing the wiretaps in the closed Facebook groups. Nor have
`Plaintiff or Class Members consented to Defendant’s intentional access, interception,
`reading, learning, recording, and collection of Plaintiff and Class Members’
`electronic communications.
`46. The violation of section 631(a) constitutes an invasion of privacy
`sufficient to confer Article III standing.
`47. Unless enjoined, Defendant will continue to commit the illegal acts
`alleged here. Plaintiff continues to be at risk because he frequently uses the closed
`Facebook groups to communicate to Flex Drivers. Plaintiff continues to desire to use
`the Facebook groups for that purpose, but cannot without being unwillingly
`monitored by Defendant. Plaintiff may or is likely to visit the closed Facebook
`groups in the future. As such, he has no practical way to know if his communications
`will be monitored or recorded by Defendant.
`48. Plaintiff and Class Members seek all relief available under Cal. Penal
`Code § 637.2, including injunctive relief and statutory damages of $5,000 per
`violation.
`
`COUNT II
`Violation Of The California Invasion Of Privacy Act,
`Cal. Penal Code § 635
`49. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as
`if fully set forth herein.
`50. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
`the proposed Class against Defendant.
`51. California Penal Code § 635 provides, in pertinent part:
`
`Every person who manufactures, assembles, sells, offers for
`sale, advertises for sale, possesses, transports, imports, or
`furnishes to another any device which is primarily or
`exclusively designed or intended for eavesdropping upon the
`communication of another, or any device which is primarily
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.13 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`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
`
`
`or exclusively designed or intended for the unauthorized
`interception or reception of communications between
`cellular radio telephones or between a cellular radio
`telephone and a landline telephone in violation of Section
`632.5, or communications between cordless telephones or
`between a cordless telephone and a landline telephone in
`violation of Section 632.6 , shall be punished by a fine not
`exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars.
`
`52. At all relevant times, by using the live tool and Social Media Bank,
`Defendant intentionally manufactured, assembled, sold, offered for sale, advertised
`for sale, possessed, transported, imported, and/or furnished a wiretap device that is
`primarily or exclusively designed or intended for eavesdropping upon the
`communication of another.
`53. The live tool and Social Media Bank are “devices” that are “primarily or
`exclusively designed” for eavesdropping. That is, the live tool and social media bank
`are designed to gather private postings on Facebook and other electronic
`communications.
`54. Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to any of Defendant’s
`actions in implementing wiretaps.
`55. Unless enjoined, Defendant will continue to commit the illegal acts
`alleged here. Plaintiff continues to be at risk because he frequently uses the closed
`Facebook groups to communicate to Flex Drivers. Plaintiff continues to desire to use
`the Facebook groups for that purpose, but cannot without being unwillingly
`monitored by Defendant. Plaintiff may or is likely to visit the closed Facebook
`groups in the future. As such, he has no practical way to know if his communications
`will be monitored or recorded by Defendant.
`56. Plaintiff and Class Members seek all relief available under Cal. Penal
`Code § 637.2, including injunctive relief and statutory damages of $5,000 per
`violation.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.14 Page 14 of 16
`
`
`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
`
`
`COUNT III
`Intrusion Upon Seclusion
`57. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as
`if fully set forth herein.
`58. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
`the proposed Class against Defendants.
`59. At all relevant times, by implementing the wiretaps on the Facebook
`groups, Defendant intentionally intruded upon the seclusion of Plaintiff and Class
`Members.
`60. Defendant’s deception was deliberate.
`61. When visiting the private Facebook groups, Plaintiff and Class Members
`had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy.
`62. Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to any of Defendant’s
`actions in implementing the wiretaps on the Facebook groups.
`63. Defendant’s intentional intrusion on Plaintiff’s and Class Members’
`solitude or seclusion without consent would be highly offensive to a reasonable
`person.
`
`COUNT IV
`Invasion Of Privacy Under California’s Constitution
`64. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as
`if fully set forth herein.
`65. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
`the proposed Class against Defendant.
`66. Plaintiff and Class Members have an interest in: (1) precluding the
`dissemination and/or misuse of their confidential posts on Facebook; and (2) making
`personal decisions and/or conducting personal activities without observation,
`intrusion or interference, including, but not limited to, the right to visit and join
`Facebook groups and communicate with other members without being subjected to
`wiretaps without Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ knowledge or consent.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.15 Page 15 of 16
`
`
`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
`
`
`67. At all relevant times, by implementing wiretaps in the closed Facebook
`groups, Defendant intentionally invaded Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ privacy
`rights under the California Constitution.
`68. Plaintiff and Class Members had a reasonable expectation that their
`communications, personally-identifiable information, and other data would remain
`confidential and that Defendant would not install wiretaps on the closed Facebook
`groups.
`69. Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to any of Defendant’s
`actions in implementing the wiretaps in the closed Facebook groups.
`70. This invasion of privacy is serious in nature, scope and impact.
`71. This invasion of privacy alleged here constitutes an egregious breach of
`the social norms underlying the privacy right.
`72. Plaintiff and Class Members seek all relief available for invasion of
`privacy claims under California’s Constitution.
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated, seeks judgment against Defendant, as follows:
`(a) For an order certifying the Class under Rule 23 and naming Plaintiff as the
`representative of the Class and Plaintiff’s attorneys as Class Counsel to
`represent the Class;
`(b) For an order declaring that the Defendant’s conduct violates the statutes
`referenced herein;
`(c) For an order finding in favor of Plaintiff and the Class on all counts
`asserted herein;
`(d) For compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages in amounts to be
`determined by the Court and/or jury;
`(e) For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded;
`(f) For an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief;
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/04/20 PageID.16 Page 16 of 16
`
`(g) For injunctive relief as pleaded or as the Court may deem proper; and
`(h) For an order awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable attorneys’
`fees and expenses and costs of suit.
`DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by
`jury of all issues so triable.
`
`Dated: December 4, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`
`By: /s/ Neal J. Deckant
` Neal J. Deckant
`L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
`Neal J. Deckant (State Bar No. 322946)
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
` ndeckant@bursor.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`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
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`15
`
`