`Rafey S. Balabanian (SBN 315962)
`rbalabanian@edelson.com
`EDELSON PC
`150 California Street, 18th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Tel: 415.212.9300
`Fax: 415.373.9435
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`04/11/2022
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: JACKIE LAPREVOTTE
`Deputy Clerk
`
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`SAMAN MOLLAEI, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`CGC-22-599118
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`
`(1) Violation of Cal. Penal Code § 637.7
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`OTONOMO INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Saman Mollaei brings this Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`against Defendant Otonomo, Inc. for unlawfully tracking automobile drivers’ locations and
`movements without their permission or consent. Plaintiff alleges as follows upon personal
`knowledge as to himself and his own acts and experiences and, as to all other matters, upon
`information and belief.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`Defendant Otonomo Inc. is a data broker that secretly collects and sells real-time
`GPS location information from more than 50 million cars throughout the world, including from
`tens of thousands in California. This data allows Otonomo—and its paying clients—to easily
`pinpoint consumers’ precise locations at all times of day and gain specific insight about where
`they live, work, and worship, and who they associate with. Not surprisingly, Otonomo never
`requests (or receives) consent from drivers before tracking them and selling their highly private
`and valuable GPS location information to its clients.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`2.
`Of course, Otonomo cannot simply ask drivers for permission to track their GPS
`locations and sell them to scores of unknown third parties. Very few (if any) drivers would
`voluntarily provide a data broker like Otonomo unfettered access to their daily personal lives. As
`such, Otonomo has partnered with at least sixteen car manufacturers—including BMW, General
`Motors, Ford, and Toyota—to use electronic devices in their cars to send real-time GPS location
`data directly to Otonomo through a secret “always on” cellular data connection. In this way,
`drivers never even realize electronic tracking devices have been attached to their cars or that
`anybody is tracking their real-time movements, let alone a data broker.
`3.
`All the while, tens of thousands of unsuspecting California drivers are being
`tracked while they drop their kids off at school, go to work, pick up groceries, visit with friends,
`and otherwise go about their daily lives. These individuals are not suspects of any investigations,
`not part of any state or federal watchlists, and not subjects of any legitimate government
`surveillance programs. Nor do they have any notice that they are under constant surveillance by
`Otonomo or that Otonomo is turning around and selling their real-time movements to its paying
`clients.
`4.
`By secretly tracking the locations of consumers in their cars, Otonomo has
`violated and continues to violate the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), which
`specifically prohibits the use of an “electronic tracking device to determine the location or
`movement of a person” without consent. California Penal Code § 637.7(a).
`5.
`Plaintiff Mollaei is one of tens of thousands of individuals in California being
`tracked and exploited by Otonomo. This putative class action lawsuit seeks to put an end to
`Otonomo’s illegal and dangerous conduct and to hold the company accountable for their blatant
`violation of California law.
`
`PARTIES
`6.
`Plaintiff Saman Mollaei is a natural person and citizen of the State of California.
`7.
`Defendant Otonomo is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`State of Delaware with its principal place of business located at 2443 Fillmore Street, San
`Francisco, California 94115.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`8.
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Article VI, Section 10 of
`the California Constitution.
`9.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it conducts business
`in this State, and the conduct alleged in this Complaint occurred in, and/or emanated from, this
`State.
`
`10.
`Venue is proper in this Court because the conduct at issue occurred in, and/or
`emanated from, this County.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`The California Invasion of Privacy Act
`11.
`In 1967, the California Legislature declared that “advances in science and
`technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques for the purpose of
`eavesdropping upon private communications and that the invasion of privacy resulting from the
`continual and increasing use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to the
`free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a free and civilized society.” Cal.
`Penal Code § 630. As a result, the Legislature passed the California Invasion of Privacy Act “to
`protect the right of privacy of the people of this state.” Id.
`12.
`In recognition of the dangers posed by the increasing power, sophistication, and
`availability of modern computer and communications technologies, CIPA expressly prohibits the
`use of an “electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person” without
`consent. Cal. Penal Code § 637.7(a). “Electronic tracking device” is defined as “any device
`attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals its location or movement by the
`transmission of electronic signals.” Id. § 637.7(d).
`Otonomo Secretly Tracks Real-Time Locations and Movements In Violation of CIPA
`13.
`Otonomo is a data broker that collects a multitude of data generated by
`automobile drivers, including specifically, real-time GPS location data. Though it is not a
`consumer-facing company and provides no information to drivers about the data it is collecting
`from them and selling, Otonomo proudly admits that it collects 4.1 billion data points per day
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`and has already tracked 330 billion miles of travel. See Figure 1 below, show ing a screenshot of
`
`the marketing materials Otonomo provides to potential investors and customers.
`
`One Platfo rm. Unlim ited Potential.
`Car data opens up a whole wor l d of possjbilities,
`from bringing
`h@ightened safety and efficiency to transportat/011 to delighting dr ivers
`and passengers w itn brartd-new expe ri ences.
`
`ThO Otonomo Automotive Data Scrv,ccs Platform paves the woy for apps
`and services that beneftt d'1vers, passengers, service providers, and the
`transportation ecosystem.
`
`Data from 22M+
`vehicles wor ldw ide
`
`--.
`•
`
`100+ ecosystem
`
`partne rs e
`
`12 OEMS on the
`platform, incl uding
`BMW, Daimler,
`FCA& MMC
`
`Ingesting 4B+ data
`po ints/day
`
`(I
`
`300B + mites
`
`-Track ing
`-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Global partnership
`with Avis Budget
`Group
`
`112 count ries
`
`(Figure 1.)
`
`14.
`
`Not only does Otonomo collect enormous amounts of data from unsuspecting
`
`drivers , it also sells the data to various third patties , includin g softwai·e applicat ion developers,
`
`23
`
`insurance companies , and adve1tisers, among many others.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15.
`
`To collect the highly private and valuable location data from automobi les without
`
`the drivers knowing, Otonomo paitners with automob ile manufacturers-such
`
`as BMW-to
`
`26
`
`install electronic tracking devices in their cai·s. These electronic tracking devices typically take
`
`27
`
`the fo1m of telematics contro l units ("TCUs") that feature persistent internet connections . These
`
`28
`
`devices collect info1mation from the vai·iety of sensors and radios-including
`
`the GPS sensors-
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`to determine the car’s precise physical GPS location. The devices then transmit the data over the
`persistent cellular data connection to Otonomo, which, in turn, allows Otonomo—and its paying
`clients—to pinpoint the location and movement of every similarly connected car and driver.
`16.
`Unfortunately, Otonomo does not obtain—or even try to obtain—consent from
`the tens of thousands of California drivers it tracks.
`FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF MOLLAEI
`17.
`Plaintiff Mollaei is a California resident that drives a 2020 BMW X3.
`18. When Plaintiff’s vehicle was delivered to him, it contained an attached electronic
`tracking device that allowed Otonomo to track its real-time GPS locations and movements, and
`to transmit the data wirelessly to Otonomo.
`19.
`Otonomo has used the attached electronic tracking device to the collect Mollaei’s
`real-time GPS locations and movements.
`20.
`At no time did Otonomo receive—or even seek—Plaintiff’s consent to track his
`vehicle’s locations or movements using an electronic tracking device.
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`Class Definition: Plaintiff Saman Mollaei brings this action on behalf of himself
`21.
`and a class defined as follows:
`
`All California residents who own or lease a vehicle and whose GPS data has been
`collected by Otonomo.
`
`The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding
`over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents,
`successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling
`interest and their current or former officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and
`file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have
`been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and
`Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such
`excluded persons.
`Numerosity: The exact number of Class members is unknown and not available
`22.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`5
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`to Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and
`belief, Defendant has used electronic tracking devices to determine the locations or movements
`of millions of people who fall into the definition of the Class. Class members can be identified
`through Defendant’s records.
`Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact
`23.
`common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any
`questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class
`include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:
`a) Whether Defendant used an “electronic tracking device” to collect the
`locations or movements of Plaintiff and the Class; and
`b) Whether Defendant obtained consent from Plaintiff and the Class.
`Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and
`24.
`protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex
`litigation and class actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and
`Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to
`vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Class and have the financial
`resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel have any interest adverse to those of the
`other members of the Class.
`Predominance and Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class
`25.
`certification because class proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and
`efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all parties is impracticable. The
`damages suffered by the individual members of the Class will likely be relatively small,
`especially given the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation
`necessitated by Defendant’s actions. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual
`members of the Class to obtain effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct. Even if members
`of the Class could sustain such individual litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class
`action because individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the
`complex legal and factual controversies presented in this Complaint. By contrast, a class action
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`6
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication,
`economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single Court. Economies of time, effort,
`and expense will be fostered, and uniformity of decisions ensured.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of Cal. Penal Code § 637.7
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
`26.
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`27.
`CIPA prohibits any person or entity in the State of California from using “an
`electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person” without consent.
`Cal. Penal Code § 637.7(a)-(b).
`28.
`Defendant is a corporation and therefore an “entity” under CIPA.
`29.
`Defendant uses “electronic tracking devices” under CIPA to determine the
`locations or movements of vehicles through TCUs, which are electronic devices attached to
`automobiles that can transmit the location or movement of such vehicles using electronic
`signals—here, cellular data connections.
`30.
`Defendant therefore uses an electronic tracking device to determine the location
`or movement of drivers.
`31.
`Defendant collects Plaintiff’s and the Class’s location and movement data for its
`own commercial purposes.
`32.
`Defendant did not obtain—or even seek—consent from Plaintiff and the Class
`before collecting their locations or movements.
`33.
`On behalf of himself and the Class, Plaintiff Mollaei seeks: (1) injunctive and
`equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the Class by requiring
`Defendant to comply with CIPA’s requirements for the use of electronic tracking devices in
`determining the location or movement of a person; and (2) damages of $5,000 for each violation
`pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Saman Mollaei, on behalf of himself and the Class, respectfully
`
`request that this Court enter an order:
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`Certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Class defined above,
`appointing Plaintiff Mollaei as class representative of the Class, and appointing his counsel as
`Class Counsel;
`B.
`Declaring that Otonomo’s actions, as described above, violate CIPA;
`C.
`Awarding statutory damages of $5,000 for each violation of CIPA pursuant to
`Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(a), or three times the amount of actual damages, whichever is greater;
`D.
`Awarding injunctive and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the
`interests of the Class as authorized by Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(b);
`E.
`Awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable litigation expenses and
`attorneys’ fees;
`F.
`Awarding Plaintiff and the Class pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent
`allowable; and
`G.
`Awarding such other and further relief as equity and justice may require.
`JURY TRIAL
`Plaintiff Saman Mollaei requests a trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SAMAN MOLLAEI, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Rafey S. Balabanian
` One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys
`Rafey S. Balabanian (SBN 315962)
`rbalabanian@edelson.com
`EDELSON PC
`150 California Street, 18th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Tel: 415.212.9300
`Fax: 415.373.9435
`
`J. Eli-Wade Scott*
`ewadescott@edelson.com
`Schuyler Ufkes*
`sufkes@edelson.com
`EDELSON PC
`350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Tel: 312.589.6370
`8
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 11, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fax: 312.589.6378
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
`
`*Admission pro hac vice to be sought.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`9
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`