A California district court rejected the defendants’ motions to dismiss in a case where the plaintiff claimed her privacy rights were violated through the use of a recording software.
02/02/2024 2:15 P.M.
2.5 minute read
In a recent court order (PDF), a California district court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss a second amended complaint in a case involving allegations of unlawful recording and violation of privacy. The hearing, originally scheduled for Jan. 12, 2024, was deemed unnecessary by the court.
Background
The case revolves around the plaintiff, Loretta Williams, who contends that her personal information, including her name, address and phone number, was recorded without her consent when she visited a website belonging to DDR Media LLC. The recording allegedly occurred through the use of a software code named TCPA Guardian, provided by the defendant Lead Intelligence, Inc., doing business as Jornaya.
In a prior order from Aug. 18, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the first amended complaint but allowed the plaintiff to amend her claims. The central issue in the court’s previous ruling was whether Jornaya, through TCPA Guardian, acted as a third-party “eavesdropper.” The court had determined that Jornaya resembled a tape recorder vendor rather than an eavesdropper, leading to the dismissal of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) claims against both defendants.
However, Williams filed a second amended complaint on Sept. 20, 2023, focusing on new allegations based on marketing information from Jornaya’s parent website about TCPA Guardian. The plaintiff argued that Jornaya must read or attempt to read the contents of communications for TCPA Guardian to function, thereby constituting a violation of the CIPA.
Discussion
Jornaya argued that the software does not capture and store personally identifiable consumer data but operates more like a bank safety deposit box, where data is stored and provided to customers upon request without Jornaya reading the contents. Additionally, Jornaya highlighted the use of hashing techniques to verify data without accessing its content.
Decision
While the court acknowledged the defendants’ arguments, it concluded that a fuller factual record is necessary to determine the accuracy of the claims. The court emphasized that, as a matter of undisputed fact and law, it cannot conclude whether Jornaya did or did not read the contents of the communications in question. The court also suggested that targeted discovery and an early summary judgment motion could help resolve this question, prompting discussion with the parties at the upcoming case management conference.
Despite the court finding Jornaya’s arguments persuasive, it ultimately sided with the plaintiff, asserting that a more comprehensive factual record is required for a conclusive resolution. The court believes that the allegations presented by the plaintiff were sufficient at this stage and denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
ACA’s Take
As technology continues to advance, courts will likely grapple with defining the boundaries of surveillance and data collection, particularly in cases where innovative tools like TCPA Guardian are involved.
The upcoming case management conference on Feb. 9 will provide an opportunity for further discussion and clarification on the path this case will take.
Remember, subscribe to ACA Daily and Member Alerts under your My ACA profile when logged in to acainternational.org to receive updates on the ACA Huddle.