Case 2:21-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`
`SUSAN LENEHAN and JODI BRUST, on
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Susan Lenehan and Jodi Brust (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action on behalf of
`
`themselves, and all others similarly situated against Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon” or
`
`“Defendant”). Plaintiffs make the following allegations pursuant to the investigation of their
`
`counsel and based upon information and belief, except as to the allegations specifically
`
`pertaining to herself, which are based on personal knowledge.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a class action lawsuit brought against Defendant for wiretapping the verbal
`
`communications of Plaintiffs and other consumers using Defendant’s smart devices and third-
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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 2:21-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`party manufactured smart devices (collectively, the “Alexa Devices”) and their internal software
`
`technology. The wiretaps, which are embedded in the software technology, are used by
`
`Defendant to secretly observe and record users’ verbal communications, including personal
`
`information. By doing so, Defendant has violated the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510, et
`
`seq., the Florida Security of Communications Act (“FSCA”), Fla. Stat. Ann. § 943.01, et seq.,
`
`and violated California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 632.
`
`2.
`
`In or about December 2019, Plaintiff Lenehan purchased an Alexa Device.
`
`Likewise, in or about August 2017, July 2020, and November 2020, Plaintiff Brust purchased
`
`Alexa Devices. The Alexa Devices are only supposed to record communications when a trigger
`
`word is used. Nonetheless, the Alexa Devices recorded, stored, and divulged to Defendant the
`
`contents of Plaintiffs’ communications with others, even when no trigger word was used to
`
`activate the device and provide consent to be recorded.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a Class of all persons
`
`whose verbal communications were intercepted through the use of Defendant’s wiretap on the
`
`Alexa Devices when the trigger word was not used.
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Susan Lenehan is a resident of St. Augustine, Florida and has an intent to
`
`remain there, and is therefore a domiciliary of Florida. In or about December 2019, prior to the
`
`filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff Lenehan purchased and Echo Dot (3rd Generation)—one of the
`
`Alexa Devices—and installed the device in her home in her living room/kitchen area. Plaintiff
`
`Lenehan’s Alexa Device was installed from December 2019 through June 2021. During the time
`
`in which her Alexa Device was installed, Plaintiff Lenehan has held numerous conversations
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with others in the presence of the Alexa Device. These conversations included topics such as
`
`telephone calls with doctors about medical issues, telephone calls with financial institutions and
`
`lawyers, and telephone calls with friends and family about private or intimate matters. During
`
`these conversations, Plaintiff Lenehan did not intend to trigger her Alexa Device, nor she did
`
`intentionally say the trigger word. Nonetheless, upon information and belief, the Alexa Device
`
`was always listening to and recording Plaintiff Lenehan’s private conversations with others, even
`
`when Plaintiff Lenehan did not trigger the Alexa Device. Further, Plaintiff Lenehan has
`
`experienced a number of instances when her Alexa Device would activate even when Plaintiff
`
`Lenehan did not say the trigger word. Plaintiff Lenehan would only realize that her conversation
`
`had been recorded by the Alexa Device because the Alexa Device would ping or speak after
`
`Plaintiff finished her sentence. The Alexa Device sent Plaintiff Lenehan’s communications to
`
`Defendant, even when it was unintentionally triggered. Plaintiff Lenehan did not provide
`
`affirmative consent to Defendant to record her private conversations when she did not trigger her
`
`Alexa Device.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Jodi Brust is a resident of Kelseyville, California and has an intent to
`
`remain there, and is therefore a domiciliary of California. In or about August 2017, prior to the
`
`filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff Brust purchased an Echo Dot (2nd Generation)—one of the Alexa
`
`Devices. Likewise, in or about July 2020, Plaintiff Brust purchased an Echo Dot (3rd
`
`Generation)—one of the Alexa Devices. Finally, in or about November 2020, Plaintiff Brust
`
`purchased an Echo Dot (4th Generation) and Echo Show 8—both Alexa Devices. Plaintiff Brust
`
`installed these Alexa Devices in her bedroom, living room, kitchen, and dining room. Plaintiff
`
`Brust’s Alexa Devices were installed from August 2017 through present. During the time in
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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 2:21-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which her Alexa Devices were installed, Plaintiff Brust has held numerous conversations with
`
`others in the presence of the Alexa Devices. These conversations included topics such as
`
`telephone calls with doctors about medical issues, telephone calls with financial institutions and
`
`lawyers, and telephone calls with friends and family about private or intimate matters. During
`
`these conversations, Plaintiff Brust did not intend to trigger her Alexa Devices, nor she did
`
`intentionally say the trigger word. Nonetheless, upon information and belief, the Alexa Device
`
`was always listening to and recording Plaintiff Brust’s private conversations with others, even
`
`when Plaintiff Brust did not trigger the Alexa Devices. The Alexa Device sent Plaintiff Brust’s
`
`communications to Defendant, even when it was unintentionally triggered. Plaintiff Brust did
`
`not provide affirmative consent to Defendant to record her private conversations when she did
`
`not trigger her Alexa Devices.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Amazon is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and principal
`
`place of business at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109. Amazon
`
`manufacturers, develops, and sells the Alexa Devices, and has access to all communications
`
`recorded by the Alexa Devices.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`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 interests and costs, and at least one member of
`
`the proposed class is citizen of state different from Defendant.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because Defendant
`
`maintains its principal place of business in Washington.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`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-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, this Court is the proper venue for this action
`
`because Defendant resides in this District.
`
`A.
`
`Overview Of The Alexa Devices
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`10.
`
`Defendant Amazon develops software technology and smart devices.
`
`Defendant’s software product, Alexa, is a “cloud-based voice service available on hundreds of
`
`millions of devices from Amazon and third-party device manufacturers.”1
`
`11.
`
`Alexa is a “voice AI” which listens for verbal cues, commands, and questions and
`
`uses a simulated voice to respond to the user’s communication.2 The Alexa software enables
`
`users to verbally interact with Amazon devices rather than physically.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant draws a distinction between its software and devices as: “Alexa puts
`
`the smart in … speakers, screens and wearables. Alexa lives in the cloud, which means [the
`
`user] can ask Alexa for help wherever [the user] find[s] Alexa.”3
`
`13.
`
`Defendant produces a number of Alexa compatible devices, such as Amazon
`
`Smart Oven, AmazonBasics Microwave, Echo Dot, Echo Frames, Echo Glow, Echo Input, and
`
`Fire TV, to name a few. In addition, Alexa is compatible with third-party manufactured devices,
`
`
`1 WHAT IS ALEXA?, https://developer.amazon.com/en-US/alexa.
`
`2 ALEXA FEATURES, https://www.amazon.com/alexa-skills/b/?ie=UTF8&node=13727921011&
`tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=480592914378&hvpos=&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=95567699
`38982265414&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=90
`31951&hvtargid=kwd-326574424274&ref=pd_sl_5ufl908g5h_e.
`
`3 Id.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such as cameras, cooking appliances, residential security systems, thermostats, toys, and
`
`vehicles.
`
`14.
`
`As of January 2020, Amazon has sold “hundreds of millions of Alexa-enabled
`
`devices” and had “already integrated [Alexa] into more than 100,000 [third-party manufactured]
`
`smart home products from over 9,500 brands.”4
`
`15.
`
`To set up an Amazon or third-party manufactured Alexa compatible device
`
`(collectively, “Alexa Devices”), a user must download the Alexa application (“Alexa App”) to a
`
`smartphone or tablet. Then, the user must create and log into an Amazon account to use the
`
`Alexa App. Once in the Alexa App, the user is prompted to set up the Alexa Device, which pairs
`
`the Alexa Device with the Alexa App. Once paired, the Alexa Device is ready to be used by
`
`anyone, including people who do not have an Amazon account.
`
`16.
`
`To use an Alexa Device, a user must say a “trigger word” (e.g., “Alexa” or
`
`“Echo”), which prompts the Alexa Device to record the user’s verbal communication that comes
`
`after the trigger word (e.g., “what is the temperature outside?”). Then, the Alexa Device sends
`
`the recording to Defendant’s servers, which interprets and processes the communication,
`
`receives the relevant information, and the Alexa Device responds accordingly to the user (e.g.,
`
`“it is seventy-two degrees”).
`
`
`4 Ben F. Rubin, Amazon Sees Alexa Devices More Than Double In Just One Year, CNET, Jan. 6,
`2020, https://www.cnet.com/home/smart-home/amazon-sees-alexa-devices-more-than-double-in-
`just-one-year/.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17.
`
`In other words, Alexa Devices are not supposed to record any communications
`
`that are not proceeded by the trigger word. So, an Alexa Device will record “Alexa, what is the
`
`temperature outside?”, but not simply, “What is the temperature outside?”.
`
`18.
`
`However, Alexa Devices—including the devices owned by Plaintiffs—will
`
`monitor, intercept, record, and store communications even when users do not say the trigger
`
`word. This is despite Amazon’s claim that “Alexa is not designed to record [] conversations.”5
`
`19.
`
`Amazon does state there is a “small chance” an Alexa Device will record
`
`communication without the trigger word. But in practice, there is more than a “small” chance. It
`
`is reportedly very common for Alexa to monitor, intercept, record, and store communications
`
`without a user saying a trigger word. Indeed, Alexa Devices have been falsely activated by
`
`entirely different words, such as “congresswoman,” “Kevin’s car,” “pickle,” “cash transfers,”
`
`and “I’m saying.”6
`
`20.
`
`Bloomberg reports that there are at least 100 transcripts of conversation recorded
`
`and uploaded by Alexa Devices each day, and Defendant employs thousands of employees to
`
`listen to these recordings.7
`
`
`5 IS ALEXA RECORDING?, https://www.amazon.com/is-alexa-recording-conversations/
`b?ie=UTF8&node=21219697011.
`
`6 Jennifer Jolly, It’s Not You, It’s Them: Google, Alexa and Siri May Answer Even if You
`Haven’t Called, USA TODAY, Feb. 25, 2020, https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/conferences/
`2020/02/25/google-alexa-siri-randomly-answer-even-without-wake-word-study-says/
`4833560002/.
`
`7 Matt Day et al., Amazon Workers Are Listening to What You Tell Alexa, BLOOMBERG, Apr. 10,
`2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-10/is-anyone-listening-to-you-on-
`alexa-a-global-team-reviews-audio.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`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-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Although Alexa Devices have “far-field microphones” meant to listen for trigger
`
`words, Alexa Devices’ large range eavesdropping is occurring much more frequently.8 Alexa
`
`Devices have recorded PIN codes typed into phones,9 a family’s conversations about
`
`medication,10 and sexually intimate moments (and potentially sexual assault).11 An Alexa
`
`Device has even mistakenly recorded a family’s private conversation and forwarded the
`
`recording to someone in the family’s digital contact book.12
`
`22.
`
`Once an Alexa Device records a user’s communication, Defendant permanently
`
`stores a copy of the recording on its own servers.13 In a letter to Senator Chris Coons of
`
`Delaware, Defendant admitted that the company does not delete recordings from its servers even
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`if a user chooses to delete his or her recordings.14 Even more troubling, in response to
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`8 Grant Clauser, Amazon’s Alexa Never Stops Listening to You. Should You Worry?, N.Y. TIMES,
`Aug. 8, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/amazons-alexa-never-stops-listening-to-
`you/
`
`9 Aditya Saroha, Alexa Can Hear and Record What is Typed in Nearby Devices, Study Finds,
`THE HINDU, Dec. 28, 2020, https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/alexa-can-hear-and-
`record-what-is-typed-in-nearby-devices-study-finds/article33435660.ece.
`
`10 Geoffrey A. Fowler, Alexa Has Been Eavesdropping On You This Whole Time, THE
`WASHINGTON POST, May 6, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/06/
`alexa-has-been-eavesdropping-you-this-whole-time/.
`
`11 Asher Stockler, Amazon Alexa Capturing Audio of People Having Sex, Possible Sexual
`Assaults: Report, NEWSWEEK, Aug. 1, 2019, https://www.newsweek.com/amazon-alexa-
`recordings-romania-sex-privacy-1452173.
`
`12 Carley Lerner, Is Alexa Really Always Listening, READER’S DIGEST, May 28, 2021,
`https://www.rd.com/article/is-alexa-really-always-listening/
`
`13 Makena Kelly & Nick Statt, Amazon Confirms It Holds on to Alexa Data Even if You Delete
`Audio Files, THE VERGE, July 3, 2019, https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/3/20681423/amazon-
`alexa-echo-chris-coons-data-transcripts-recording-privacy.
`
`14 Id.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant’s letter, Senator Coons shared that Defendant did not answer to what extent
`
`Defendant is sharing this personal data with third-parties, and how those third-parties are using
`
`that information.15
`
`23.
`
`Defendant asserts that the recordings are saved and analyzed to improve Alexa’s
`
`artificial intelligence, but reports agree that Defendant is vague in explaining to what extent it
`
`stores users’ data and why Defendant does not actually scrub its servers of recordings upon
`
`users’ request.16 Further, Defendant cannot use user communications that were unintentionally
`
`provided to “improve its services.” And, as a large e-commerce company, Defendant stands to
`
`massively profit from using the information from these recordings through targeted advertising,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`whether or not these recordings were lawfully obtained.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant has the technological ability to have Alexa Devices request consent
`
`from users before recording and storing data, yet Defendant does not take steps in protecting
`
`users’ privacy. The Alexa Devices do not warn users that the Alexa Devices are monitoring,
`
`intercepting, recording, and storing their communications. Or, at the very least, users will not
`
`know the Alexa Devices were monitoring their communications until after the communication
`
`has already been recorded, and the Alexa Device responses to an unintended prompt.
`
`
`15 Alfred Ng, Amazon Alexa Keeps Your Data With No Expiration Date, and Shares It Too,
`CNET, July 2, 2019, https://www.cnet.com/home/smart-home/amazon-alexa-keeps-your-data-
`with-no-expiration-date-and-shares-it-too/
`
`16 Id.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Further, the storage of the recordings is unsecure. Reporting indicates that
`
`Defendants’ storage is vulnerable for cyber-attacks, meaning that hackers could access users’
`
`voice history and personal information.17
`
`26.
`
`In short, the Alexa Devices intercepted, recorded, and stored, the communications
`
`of Plaintiffs and other users, even when Plaintiffs and other users did not use the trigger word to
`
`activate their Alexa Devices. These communications were then accessed by Defendant and
`
`potentially transferred to further third parties for advertising purposes.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as all persons in the United States who
`
`purchased the Alexa Devices and had their communications recorded without using the trigger
`
`word (the “Nationwide Class”).
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Lenehan seeks to represent a class defined as all Florida residents who
`
`purchased the Alexa Devices and had their communications recorded without using the trigger
`
`word (the “Florida Class”).
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Brust seeks to represent a class defined as all California residents who
`
`purchased the Alexa Devices and had their communications recorded without using the trigger
`
`word (the “California Class”).
`
`30.
`
`Collectively, the Nationwide Class, the Florida Class, and the California Class
`
`shall be known as the “Classes.”
`
`
`17 Dikla Barda et al., Keeping the Gate Locked on Your IoT devices: Vulnerabilities Found on
`Amazon’s Alexa, CHECK POINT RESEARCH, Aug. 13, 2020, https://research.checkpoint.com/2020/
`amazons-alexa-hacked/
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`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-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31. Members of the Classes are so numerous that their individual joinder herein is
`
`impracticable. On information and belief, members of the Classes number in the tens or
`
`hundreds of thousands. The precise number of members of the Classes and their identities are
`
`unknown to Plaintiffs at this time but may be determined through discovery. Members of the
`
`Classes may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail and/or publication through the
`
`distribution records of Defendant.
`
`32.
`
`Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes and
`
`predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Classes. Common legal
`
`and factual questions include, but are not limited to, whether Defendant has violated the FSCA,
`
`Fla. Stat. Ann. § 934.01, et seq., whether Defendant has violated the California Invasion of
`
`Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 632, and whether members of the Classes are
`
`entitled to actual and/or statutory damages for the aforementioned violations.
`
`33.
`
`The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Classes because
`
`the named Plaintiffs, like all other members of the Classes, used an Alexa Device and had their
`
`communications monitored, intercepted, recorded, stored, and accessed by Defendant.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiffs are an adequate representative of the Classes because their interests do
`
`not conflict with the interests of the members of the Classes they seek to represent, they have
`
`retained competent counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and they intend to
`
`prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of members of the Classes will be fairly and
`
`adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel.
`
`35.
`
`The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of the claims of the Classes. Each individual member of the Classes may lack the
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`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-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I
`Violation Of The Federal Wiretap Act,
`18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`36.
`
`set forth herein.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiffs brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the
`
`proposed Classes against Defendant.
`
`38.
`
`As alleged herein, Defendant intentionally intercepted the electronic
`
`communications of Plaintiffs and the proposed Classes.
`
`39.
`
`Each of Defendant’s wiretaps, automatic monitoring tools and software described
`
`herein, is an “electronic, mechanical, or other device” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5), and is
`
`primarily used for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of electronic communications.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant intercepts the electronic communications contemporaneously as they
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`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-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`are sent.
`
`41.
`
`Defendant receives and stores these messages through the employment of a
`
`mechanical or electrical tool or apparatus that is considered a device under 18 U.S.C § 2510, et
`
`seq.
`
`42.
`
`Defendant’s interception and internment of electronic communications sent by
`
`Plaintiffs and members of the Classes is intentional, as alleged herein.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant’s conduct violated 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and therefore gives rise to a claim
`
`under 18 U.S.C. § 2520.
`
`44.
`
`Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520, Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to the greater
`
`of actual damages or statutory damages of not less than $100 a day for each day of violation or
`
`$10,000, whichever is greater.
`
`COUNT II
`Violation of the Florida Security of Communications Act,
`Fla. Stat. Ann. § 934.03
`
`Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`45.
`
`set forth herein.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff Lenehan brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
`
`the proposed Florida Class against Defendant.
`
`47.
`
`It is a violation of the FSCA to “intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any
`
`other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication.”
`
`Fla. Stat. Ann. § 934.03(1)(a).
`
`48.
`
`Further, it is a violation to intentionally use, or endeavor to use, “the contents of
`
`any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`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-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in
`
`violation of this subsection.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 934.03(1)(d).
`
`49.
`
`The FSCA defines “intercept” as the “acquisition of the contents of any wire,
`
`electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other
`
`device.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 934.02(3).
`
`50.
`
`The FSCA defines “electronic communication” as “any transfer of signs, signals,
`
`writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a
`
`wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system that affects intrastate,
`
`interstate, or foreign commerce.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 934.02(12).
`
`51.
`
`Defendant violated § 934.03(1)(a) of the FSCA by intercepting Plaintiff
`
`Lenehan’s and members of the Florida Class’s oral communications when they spoke in hearing
`
`range of an Alexa Device.
`
`52.
`
`Defendant intercepted Plaintiff Lenehan’s and members of the Florida Class’s
`
`oral communications without their prior consent.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant violated § 934.03(1)(d) of the FSCA by using the unlawfully
`
`intercepted communications.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff Lenehan and members of the Florida Class had an expectation of privacy
`
`while in the vicinity of an Alexa Device and not using the trigger word, which Defendant
`
`violated by intercepting their oral communications with the Alexa Device. Fla. Stat. Ann.
`
`§ 934.01(4).
`
`55.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s conduct, and pursuant to § 934.01 of the FSCA,
`
`Plaintiff Lenehan and members of the Florida Class were harmed and are each entitled to
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`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-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000,
`
`whichever is higher.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 934.10(b).
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff Lenehan and members of the Florida Class are also entitled to
`
`“reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.” Fla. Stat. Ann. §
`
`934.10(d).
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff Lenehan and members of the Florida Class are also entitled to injunctive
`
`relief.
`
`COUNT III
`Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act,
`Cal. Penal Code § 631
`
`Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`58.
`
`set forth herein.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff Brust brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the
`
`proposed California Class against Defendant.
`
`60.
`
`To establish liability under section 631(a), Plaintiff Brust need only establish that
`
`Defendant, “by means of any machine, instrument, contrivance, or in any other manner,” did 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
`
`the
`to
`the consent of all parties
`Willfully and without
`communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads or attempts
`to read or learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`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-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 16 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`The California Supreme Court has twice explained that the “express objective” of
`
`61.
`
`CIPA is to “protect a person placing or receiving a call from a situation where the person on the
`
`other end of the line permits an outsider to tap his telephone or listen in on the call.” Ribas v.
`
`Clark, 38 Cal. 3d 355, 364 (1985); Smith v. LoanMe, 11 Cal. 5th 183, 200 (2021) (“As [the
`
`California Supreme Court] explained in Ribas … a substantial distinction has been recognized
`
`between the secondhand repetition of the contents of a conversation and its simultaneous
`
`dissemination to an unannounced second auditor, whether that auditor be a person or mechanical
`
`device.”). The Ninth Circuit similarly explained that one of the purposes of wiretapping statutes
`
`is “to prevent the acquisition of the contents of a message by an unauthorized third-party or ‘an
`
`unseen auditor.’” In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589, 608 (9th Cir. 2020).
`
`62.
`
`Alexa’s software is a “machine, instrument, contrivance, or … other manner”
`
`used to engage in the prohibited conduct at issue here.
`
`63.
`
`At all relevant times, by using the Alexa Devices, Defendant intentionally tapped,
`
`electronically or otherwise, the lines of internet communication between Plaintiff Brust and
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 06/28/21 Page 17 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`members of the California C