Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 48 Filed 10/18/21 Page 1 of 54
`
`
`
`THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED
`COMPLAINT
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`December 2, 2021
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`KAELI GARNER, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES,
`LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO.: 2:21-CV-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 48 Filed 10/18/21 Page 2 of 54
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Alexa Service ....................................................................................................3
`
`How Alexa Works ....................................................................................................4
`
`Overview Of Alexa Registration And Consent Process ..........................................5
`
`The Plaintiffs And Their Claims ..............................................................................6
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................................7
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................8
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO ADEQUATELY PLEAD ILLEGAL
`RECORDING. .........................................................................................................8
`
`FOR REGISTERED USERS, WASHINGTON LAW GOVERNS AND
`ALL OTHER STATE LAW CLAIMS MUST BE DISMISSED. ........................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The COUs Bind All Registered Alexa Users. ............................................11
`
`The Amazon COUs Require Application Of Washington Law. ................13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This Dispute Has A Substantial Relationship To
`Washington. ...................................................................................15
`
`Washington Law Does Not Contradict Any Fundamental
`Policy Expressed By The Non-Washington States’
`Wiretapping Laws. .........................................................................15
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Washington And Every Alternative All-Party
`Consent States Proscribe Similar Activities in
`Similar Ways. .....................................................................16
`
`Mere Differences In Outcome Or Remedies Are
`Not Different Fundamental Policies. .................................17
`
`3.
`
`No State Has A Materially Greater Interest Than
`Washington. ...................................................................................20
`
`C.
`
`The Choice-Of-Law Clause Applies To All Claims By Registered
`Users Relating To Their Alexa Devices. ...................................................21
`
`III.
`
`REGISTERED USERS CONSENTED TO RECORDING TO PROVIDE,
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO.: 2:21-CV-00750-RSL
`
`
`- i -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 48 Filed 10/18/21 Page 3 of 54
`
`
`
`PERSONALIZE, AND IMPROVE THE ALEXA SERVICE. .............................22
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Expressly Consented To Recordings In The Registration
`Process. ......................................................................................................22
`
`The Alexa Terms Disclose That Amazon Retains Recordings. .................24
`
`All Plaintiffs Impliedly Consented To Recording Under
`Washington Law. .......................................................................................27
`
`IV.
`
`PLAINTIFFS STATE NO CLAIM UNDER THE WASHINGTON
`CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT. .....................................................................30
`
`A.
`
`The Complaint Does Not Plead That Amazon Committed “Unfair
`or Deceptive Acts.” ....................................................................................31
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Rule 9(b) Requires That Plaintiffs Plead Misrepresentations
`With Specificity. ............................................................................31
`
`Plaintiffs Do Not Plead Misrepresentations With
`Particularity. ...................................................................................32
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs Suffered No Compensable Injury For Purposes Of The
`WCPA. .......................................................................................................34
`
`PLAINTIFFS STATE NO CLAIM UNDER THE FEDERAL WIRETAP
`ACT........................................................................................................................36
`
`PLAINTIFFS STATE NO CLAIM UNDER THE FEDERAL STORED
`COMMUNICATIONS ACT. ................................................................................38
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Failed To Allege That Alexa Is An Electronic
`Communication Service Under The SCA. .................................................39
`
`Plaintiffs Fail To Allege That Alexa Recordings Are “In Electronic
`Storage.”.....................................................................................................40
`
`Plaintiffs Make No Plausible Allegation That Any Alexa
`Recordings Were “Divulged” From Electronic Storage To A Third
`Party. ..........................................................................................................42
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO.: 2:21-CV-00750-RSL
`
`
`- ii -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 48 Filed 10/18/21 Page 4 of 54
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`
`CASES
`ACD Distrib. LLC v. Wizards of the Coast LLC,
`No. 20-35828, 2021 WL 4027805 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2021) .....................................................14
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...............................................................................................................7, 8
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...............................................................................................................7, 8
`Benavidez v. Cty. of San Diego,
`993 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................................8
`Branch v. Tunnell,
`14 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................34
`Brazil v. Dell Inc.,
`585 F.Supp.2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .........................................................................18, 20, 21
`Brotherson v. Professional Basketball Club, L.L.C.,
`604 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (W.D. Wash. 2009) ...............................................................................35
`Carideo v. Dell, Inc.,
`520 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2007) ...............................................................................15
`Carideo v. Dell, Inc.,
`706 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (W.D. Wash. 2010) ...............................................................................21
`Caro v. Weintraub,
`618 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2010).......................................................................................................38
`Casillas v. Cypress Ins. Co.,
`770 F. App’x 329 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................41
`Cousineau v. Microsoft Corp.,
`992 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (W.D. Wash. 2012) .........................................................................34, 35
`Crowley v. CyberSource Corp.,
`166 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (N.D. Cal. 2001) ...................................................................................39
`Dajani v. Dell Inc.,
`No. C 08-5285, 2009 WL 815352 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2009) ...........................................20, 21
`Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n,
`629 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................33
`Del Vecchio v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. C11-366RSL, 2012 WL 1997697 (W.D. Wash. June 1, 2012) ..................................33, 36
`Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc.,
`823 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................12
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO.: 2:21-CV-00750-RSL
`
`
`- iii -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 48 Filed 10/18/21 Page 5 of 54
`
`
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`Donohue v. Apple, Inc.,
`871 F. Supp. 2d 913 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .....................................................................................32
`Ekin v. Amazon Servs., LLC,
`84 F. Supp. 3d 1172-73 (W.D. Wash. 2014) ...........................................................................11
`Erie Ins. Exch. v. Heffernan,
`925 A.2d 636 (Md. 2007) ..................................................................................................18, 20
`Erwin v. Cotter Health Ctrs.,
`161 Wn.2d 676, 167 P.3d 1112 (2007) ..............................................................................14, 21
`Facebook, Inc. v. Profile Tech., Ltd.,
`No. 5:13–cv–0459–PSG, 2014 WL 492369 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2014) ....................................20
`Fagerstrom v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`141 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (S.D. Cal. 2015) ....................................................................................17
`Fid. Mortg. Corp. v. Seattle Times Co.,
`213 F.R.D. 573 (W.D. Wash. 2003) ........................................................................................31
`Gierke v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
`No. C19-0071JLR, 2019 WL 4849494 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 1, 2019) ......................21, 24, 25, 26
`Goodman v. HTC America, Inc.,
`No. C11-1793MJP, 2012 WL 2412070 (W.D. Wash. June 26, 2012) ..............................32, 36
`Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., Inc.,
`942 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (W.D. Wash. 2013) .........................................................................34, 35
`Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co.,
`105 Wn.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531 (1986) ......................................................................................31
`Harbers v. Eddie Bauer, LLC,
`No. C19-1012JLR, 2019 WL 6130822 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 19, 2019) ....................................13
`Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. C11–1709MJP, 2012 WL 1088165 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 30, 2012) ...................................30
`Hoefs v. Sig Sauer Inc.,
`No. 3:20-cv-05173-RBL, 2020 WL 3488155 (W.D. Wash. June 26, 2020) ...........................31
`In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig.,
`956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................37, 41
`In re Google Assistant Priv. Litig.,
`No. 19-cv-04286-BLF, 2021 WL 2711747 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2021) ..........................35, 36, 42
`In re Google Assistant Privacy Litig.,
`457 F. Supp. 3d 797 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2020) ................................................................. passim
`In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`806 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................37, 40
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO.: 2:21-CV-00750-RSL
`
`
`- iv -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 48 Filed 10/18/21 Page 6 of 54
`
`
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`In re: JetBlue Airways Corp. Privacy Litig.,
`379 F. Supp. 2d 299 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) .....................................................................................39
`In re Marriage of Farr,
`87 Wn. App. 177, 940 P.2d 679 (1997) ...................................................................................29
`In re Sony Grand Wega KDF-E A10/A20 Series Rear Projection HDTV
`Television Litig.,
`758 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ......................................................................................7
`In re Toys R Us, Inc., Privacy Litig.,
`No. 00-cv-2746, 2001 WL 34517252 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2001) ..............................................41
`Innovation Ventures, L.L.C. v. Custom Nutrition Labs., L.L.C.,
`No. 12-13850, 2015 WL 5679879 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2015)..............................................18
`Ins. Auto Auctions, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.,
`No. C09-1522RAJ, 2010 WL 11688494 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 16, 2010) ............................15, 20
`Kearney v. Kearney,
`95 Wn. App. 405, 974 P.2d 872 (1999) ...................................................................................30
`Keithly v. Intelius Inc.,
`764 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (W.D. Wash. 2011) ...............................................................................40
`Keyes v. Bollinger,
`31 Wn. App. 286, 640 P.2d 1077 (1982) .................................................................................34
`KSA Elecs., Inc. v. M/A-COM Tech. Sols., Inc.,
`No. 15–10848–FDS, 2015 WL 4396477 (D. Mass. July 17, 2015) ........................................19
`Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l,
`854 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................8
`Lee v. Ticketmaster L.L.C.,
`817 F. App’x 393 (9th Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................12, 13
`Lessard v. Clarke,
`736 A.2d 1226 (N.H. 1999) .....................................................................................................18
`Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`350 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................7
`Lopez v. Apple,
`519 F. Supp. 3d 672 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .................................................................................9, 40
`Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
`519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................8
`Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.,
`761 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2000).......................................................................................................19
`McGowan v. Weinstein,
`505 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (C.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................................38
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`- v -
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`CASE NO.: 2:21-CV-00750-RSL
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`
`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 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 48 Filed 10/18/21 Page 7 of 54
`
`
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`Minnick v. Clearwire US, LLC,
`683 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (W.D. Wash. 2010) ...............................................................................34
`Nemykina v. Old Navy, LLC,
`461 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (W.D. Wash. 2020) ...............................................................................31
`Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.,
`763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................12
`Nguyen v. Doak Homes, Inc.,
`140 Wn. App. 726, 167 P.3d 1162 (2007) ...............................................................................31
`Opperman v. Path, Inc.,
`87 F. Supp. 3d 1018 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .....................................................................................36
`Percival v. Poon,
`No. C20-1040-JCC, 2021 WL 962701 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 15, 2021) .....................................38
`Pulte Home Corp. v. TIG Ins. Co.,
`794 F. App’x 587 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................19
`Robinson v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.,
`106 Wn. App. 104, 22 P.3d 818 (2001) ...................................................................................31
`Schnall v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc.,
`171 Wn.2d 260, 259 P.3d 129 (2011) ................................................................................13, 20
`Selden v. Airbnb, Inc.,
`4 F.4th 148 (D.C. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................................13
`Selden v. Airbnb, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-00933 (CRC), 2016 WL 6476934 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2016) .....................................13
`Silver v. Stripe Inc.,
`No. 4:20-cv-08196-YGR, 2021 WL 3191752 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2021) ...............................26
`State v. Glant,
`13 Wn. App. 2d 356, 465 P.3d 382 (2020) ........................................................................27, 29
`State v. John Smith,
`189 Wn.2d 655, 405 P.3d 997 (2017) ................................................................................27, 29
`State v. Racus,
`7 Wn. App. 2d 287, 299-300, 433 P.3d 830 (2019) ...........................................................27, 29
`State v. Roden,
`179 Wn.2d 893, 321 P.3d 1183 (2014) ....................................................................................16
`State v. Townsend,
`147 Wn.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002) ................................................................................ passim
`Stephens v. Omni Ins. Co.,
`138 Wn. App. 151, 159 P.3d 10 (2007) ...................................................................................31
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO.: 2:21-CV-00750-RSL
`
`
`- vi -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 48 Filed 10/18/21 Page 8 of 54
`
`
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`Surles v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
`No. C 06-05807 WHA, 2007 WL 164548 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2007) ......................................19
`Sussman v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.,
`186 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................38
`Taylor v. E. Connection Operating, Inc.,
`988 N.E.2d 408 (Mass. 2013) ..................................................................................................18
`Theofel v. Farey-Jones,
`359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) ...........................................................................................41, 42
`Weimin Chen v. Sierra Trading Post, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-cv-1581-RAJ, 2019 WL 3564659 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2019) ...............................11
`Wesch v. Yodlee, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-05991-SK, 2021 WL 1399291 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2021) ......................................41
`William Insulation Co. Inc. v. JH Kelly LLC,
`No. C21-5083 BHS, 2021 WL 1894092 (W.D. Wash. May 11, 2021) ...................................14
`Williams v. Facebook, Inc.,
`384 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .............................................................................15, 19
`Wiseley v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`709 F. App’x 862 (9th Cir. 2017). .........................................................................12, 15, 18, 26
`Workhouse Media, Inc. v. Ventresca,
`No. 75373-8-I, 2017 WL 959534 (Wash. App. Mar. 13, 2017) ..............................................15
`Yakima Cty. (W. Valley) Fire Prot. Dist. No. 12 v. City of Yakima,
`122 Wn.2d 371, 858 P.2d 245 (1993) ......................................................................................13
`Zamber v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`No. 16-23901-CV, 2020 WL 1445479 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2020) ...........................................26
`STATUTES AND RULES
`42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5524(7)..................................................................................................17
`18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 .........................................................................................................16, 30
`18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5725 ...............................................................................................................16
`18 U.S.C. § 2510 ..........................................................................................................38, 39, 40, 41
`18 U.S.C. § 2511 ..........................................................................................................16, 36, 37, 38
`18 U.S.C. § 2702 ............................................................................................................................43
`18 U.S.C. § 2711(1) .......................................................................................................................39
`Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340 ............................................................................................................17
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO.: 2:21-CV-00750-RSL
`
`
`- vii -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 48 Filed 10/18/21 Page 9 of 54
`
`
`
`PAGE(S)
`STATUTES AND RULES
`Cal. Penal Code §§ 631-632 ..............................................................................................16, 17, 30
`Cal. Penal Code § 637.2 .................................................................................................................17
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) ...........................................................................................32
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) .....................................................................................31, 32
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 ...................................................................................... passim
`Federal Wiretap Act ............................................................................................................... passim
`Fla. Stat. Ann. § 934.03 .....................................................................................................16, 17, 30
`Fla. Stat. Ann. § 934.10(3) .............................................................................................................17
`Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-202 .......................................................................................................17
`Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/14-2.....................................................................................................16, 17, 30
`Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/14-6.................................................................................................................17
`Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 260, § 2A ............................................................................................17
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 ................................................................................................16, 30
`Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 ....................................................................................17
`Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402 ......................................................................16, 17, 30
`Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539 ............................................................................................16, 17, 30
`N.H. Rev. Stat. § 508:4 ..................................................................................................................17
`N.H. Rev. Stat. § 570-A:2 ..................................................................................................16, 17, 30
`RCW § 4.16.080(2) ........................................................................................................................17
`RCW § 9.73.030 .................................................................................................................... passim
`RCW § 19.86.20 .................................................................................................................... passim
`RCW § 19.86.90 .................................................................................................................... passim
`RCW § 9.73.060 .............................................................................................................................17
`Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2702)................................................................... passim
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-calls-and-
`conversations/ ..........................................................................................................................16
`Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws Section 187 (1971) ................................................. passim
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`- viii -
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`CASE NO.: 2:21-CV-00750-RSL
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`
`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 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 48 Filed 10/18/21 Page 10 of 54
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In the Consolidated Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Amazon’s popular Alexa voice service
`records people’s voices without their knowledge or consent. Plaintiffs are wrong, and their
`Complaint should be dismissed.
`Alexa is a transformative technology. It allows users to access an essentially unlimited
`array of online services and information by using their voices instead of a keyboard, mouse, or
`touchscreen. Hundreds of millions of people around the world use Alexa to make their lives more
`convenient, efficient, and entertaining. At one level, while being able to talk to your computer is
`new, voice prompts are just another way of giving instructions to a computer. At another level, it
`is revolutionary, just as it was revolutionary when PCs replaced a keystroke with a mouse-click,
`and when mobile phones replaced a mouse-click with a tap or swipe. Today, voice assistants allow
`users to interact with computers and access the internet without using their hands at all.
`Nevertheless, all of these methods are merely different ways to input commands to computers so
`that they can digitally record, process, and respond to those commands.
`Plaintiffs claim that the inherent functionality of the Alexa service—i.e., that it records a
`user’s voice in order to process her commands—violates various state and federal laws. But as
`explained in this Motion, Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law because they are based on false
`premises. The central conceit of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is that the Alexa service records “secretly,”
`that Plaintiffs were genuinely surprised to learn about those recordings, and that they were harmed.
`But nothing about Alexa’s recording functionality is a secret: Amazon clearly discloses how Alexa
`works and, from the day Alexa launched in 2014, the media reported the fact that the service
`records users’ voices and stores those recordings until the user deletes them. Alexa-enabled
`devices also use visual and audio cues to alert users when the devices are activated and sending
`audio to the cloud.
`Nor should Plaintiffs have been surprised (if they were in fact recorded, which most do not
`even allege). Alexa users purchase voice-activated devices, place them in their homes, connect
`them to the internet, and make voice requests to the Alexa service that those users expect and want
`the service to digitally record, process, and respond to. When users sign up and activate the Alexa
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO.: 2:21-CV-00750-RSL
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 48 Filed 10/18/21 Page 11 of 54
`
`
`
`service, the very first thing Amazon tells those users is that Alexa retains their audio inputs in the
`cloud to improve the service. And users are notified of and consent to that recording, in multiple
`ways, through Amazon’s service terms.
`Finally, Plaintiffs have not been harmed. Nowhere in the Complaint do Plaintiffs allege
`any injury to their money or property. To the contrary, their households have evidently enjoyed
`the myriad benefits of the Alexa service for years to enrich their lives. And if the prospect of
`having their voice recordings stored is troubling in some way, Plaintiffs have the power to opt out
`and delete their recordings, individually or en masse, with a click or a voice command.
`All of Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed for one or more reasons. There are two
`categories of Plaintiffs: those who signed up for the Alexa service and registered Alexa-enabled
`devices, and those who purportedly used the Alexa service without themselves registering. As a
`threshold matter, all Plaintiffs’ wiretap claims fail because none of them allege that their
`confidential communications were recorded without their consent. Indeed, the vast majority do
`not allege any recording of their voices at all, merely that they live in households with Alexa
`devices. That is not sufficient to plead illegal wiretapping.
`With respect to Plaintiffs who registered for the Alexa service, Washington law applies to
`this dispute because the parties agreed that it would. Plaintiffs acknowledge that fact and seek to
`represent a nationwide class under Washington law. As such, those Plaintiffs’ claims under the
`laws of various other all-party-consent states must be dismissed. In any event, no court in
`Washington or anywhere else has ever concluded that recording routine, intentional instructions
`to a computer constitutes actionable wiretapping. If a typed command to the Alexa service would
`not violate the law, the exact same command transmitted orally does not either. As explained
`below, Plaintiffs have alleged nothing that would support a claim under Washington’s wiretap
`statute. Plaintiffs’ Washington Consumer Protection Act claim also fails because Plaintiffs have
`not alleged or suffered any injury to their business or property as the statute requires.
`Plaintiffs’ Federal Wiretap Act claim fails as a matter of law because, as the intended
`recipient of users’ commands to the Alexa service, Amazon cannot illegally “intercept” those
`communications. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ Federal Stored Communications Act claim fails because
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO.: 2:21-CV-00750-RSL
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 48 Filed 10/18/21 Page 12 of 54
`
`
`
`the statute does not apply to voice requests made to the Alexa service. But even if it did, Amazon
`is the intended recipient of user commands and does not disclose them to any third party.
`In sum, Plaintiffs have not pled any viable cause of action. That is not surprising, because
`Plaintiffs are misapplying laws enacted in a different time to address a different problem. Amazon
`is not wiretapping or secretly recording its customers. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
`the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint.
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`The Alexa Service
`Amazon’s Alexa is a cloud-based voice service that allows users to access online resources
`and make commands and queries to computers by voice instead of using a keyboard, mouse, or
`touchscreen. See Consolidated Complaint (Dkt. No. 22) (“CC”) ¶¶ 6, 39, 44. Some Alexa-enabled
`devices are sold by Amazon, primarily its Echo line of “smart speaker” products; many other
`Alexa-enabled devices are made and sold by other companies. CC ¶ 4. With those devices, users
`can choose to listen to music or books, check the weather or news, control smart-home devices
`like thermostats or lights, create timers or lists, and access hundreds of other convenient and
`entertaining features. See Amazon’s Request For Judic