Crano v. Sojern, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Sojern’s motion to transfer venue based on forum-selection clauses in Hilton’s website and loyalty-program agreements. The court held that Sojern had not established that Plaintiff agreed to those provisions. The court granted Sojern’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiff inadequately pleaded claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the federal Wiretap Act, while denying the Article III standing challenge without prejudice.

Holdings

1. The motion to transfer was denied because Sojern failed to establish the existence of a valid agreement between Plaintiff and Hilton containing an enforceable forum-selection clause.
2. An online agreement is enforceable under an inquiry-notice theory only when the website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms and the consumer takes an action unambiguously manifesting assent; Sojern did not establish those requirements.
3. The motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing was denied without prejudice because Defendant's argument challenged the sufficiency of Plaintiff's claims rather than standing.
4. Plaintiff failed to state a claim under California Penal Code § 631(a)(2) because she did not plausibly allege that Sojern intercepted her communications while they were in transit; the derivative § 631(a)(3) claim therefore also failed.
5. Plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Federal Wiretap Act because the alleged crime-tort exception to one-party consent was unsupported by the inadequately pleaded CIPA claim, and Plaintiff did not plausibly allege that the information constituted protected guest records under California Civil Code § 53.5.
6. Plaintiff failed to state a California constitutional invasion-of-privacy claim because she did not show that the tracked information was covered by California Civil Code § 53.5.
7. Plaintiff failed to state a UCL claim under either the unlawful or unfair prong because the predicate statutory claims failed and the unfair-prong allegations were conclusory.
8. Plaintiff failed to state an unjust enrichment claim because she did not state a claim for unlawful conduct underlying the alleged benefit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the action should be transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) based on forum-selection clauses in Hilton's Site Usage Agreement and Hilton Honors Terms and Conditions.
2. Whether Plaintiff adequately alleged Article III standing.
3. Whether Plaintiff adequately stated claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
4. Whether Plaintiff adequately stated a claim under the federal Wiretap Act.
5. Whether Plaintiff adequately stated a claim for invasion of privacy under the California Constitution.
6. Whether Plaintiff adequately stated a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law.
7. Whether Plaintiff adequately stated an unjust enrichment claim.

Disposition

other