Ariel Gilligan, et al. v. Experian Data Corporation, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denies Experian’s motion to stay the putative class action pending related arbitration proceedings. The court denies dismissal of Plaintiffs’ intrusion upon seclusion, CIPA wiretap and pen register, and ECPA claims, concluding that the alleged tracking and collection of full-string URLs and related data plausibly state claims and establish standing. The court dismisses the unjust enrichment claim with leave to amend because Plaintiffs did not allege that they lacked an adequate remedy at law.

Holdings

1. A stay of the entire action was not warranted because defendants did not show that the related arbitration would bind the court as to the nonarbitrable putative class claims, affect the arbitration, or produce an efficiency benefit sufficient to justify delay.
2. Plaintiffs adequately alleged a concrete privacy injury and stated an intrusion upon seclusion claim by alleging unauthorized, widespread tracking across websites, collection of detailed browsing information, and creation and commercial disclosure of user profiles.
3. Plaintiffs adequately stated CIPA and ECPA wiretap claims by alleging that Experian intercepted full-string URLs and related information containing the contents of communications while the communications were in transit, read or learned that information, and used or disclosed it.
4. The CIPA pen-register claim could not be dismissed at the pleading stage because CIPA provides a private right of action for section 638.51 violations and the alleged Internet tracking technology plausibly falls within the statutory definition of a pen register.
5. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed with leave to amend because plaintiffs did not allege that they lacked an adequate remedy at law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the action should be stayed pending arbitration of related individual claims in Zhen v. Experian Data Corporation.
2. Whether plaintiffs adequately alleged Article III standing and an intrusion upon seclusion claim based on alleged cross-website tracking and profiling.
3. Whether plaintiffs adequately alleged that Experian intercepted the contents of communications in transit in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
4. Whether plaintiffs stated a California Invasion of Privacy Act pen-register claim and whether the alleged Internet tracking technology falls within the statutory definition of a pen register.
5. Whether plaintiffs adequately alleged that they lacked an adequate remedy at law to support an unjust enrichment claim.

Disposition

other