Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

690 F.Supp.3d 1064

John DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 22-cv-03580-WHO

United States District Court, N.D. California

Signed September 7, 2023

Jeffrey Alan Koncius, Mahnam Ghorbani, Nicole Ramirez Jones, Kiesel Law LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, San Francisco, CA, Amanda M. Steiner, Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA, Amy Collignon Gunn, Pro Hac Vice, Elizabeth S. Lenivy, Pro Hac Vice, The Simon Law Firm, P.C., St. Louis, MO, Jay Barnes, Pro Hac Vice, Simmons Hanly Conroy, St. Louis, MO, An V. Truong, Pro Hac Vice, Eric Steven Johnson, Pro Hac Vice, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, New York, NY, Claire L. Torchiana, Eric Alfred Kafka, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, New York, NY, Andre Michel Mura, Hanne Jensen, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA, Geoffrey Aaron Graber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Jennifer M. Paulson, Pro Hac Vice, Simmons Hanly Conroy, Alton, IL, Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Beverly Hils, CA, Stephen M. Gorny, Pro Hac Vice, Gorny Dandurand, LC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff John Doe.

Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, San Francisco, CA, Andre Michel Mura, Hanne Jensen, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA, Claire L. Torchiana, Eric Alfred Kafka, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, New York, NY, Geoffrey Aaron Graber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Jeffrey Alan Koncius, Mahnam Ghorbani, Nicole Ramirez Jones, Kiesel Law LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff John Doe, II.

Andre Michel Mura, Hanne Jensen, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA, Claire L. Torchiana, Eric Alfred Kafka, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, New York, NY, Geoffrey Aaron Graber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Jeffrey Alan Koncius, Mahnam Ghorbani, Nicole Ramirez Jones, Kiesel Law LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiffs Jane Doe I, Jane Doe, II, Jane Doe, III.

Geoffrey Aaron Graber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Andre Michel Mura, Hanne Jensen, Julia Lorraine Gonzalez, Rosemary M. Rivas, Sara DeLaney Brooks, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA, Claire L. Torchiana, Eric Alfred Kafka, Pro Hac Vice, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, New York, NY, John A. Yanchunis, Ryan McGee, Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Tampa, FL, Joseph P. Brent, Brent & Fiol, LLP, San Rafael, CA, Michael Kipp Mueller, Brent & Fiol, LLP, Pasadena, CA, Michael Francis Ram, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Doe.

Gary F. Lynch, Hannah N. Barnett, Pro Hac Vice, Jamisen A. Etzel, Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Jae K. Kim, Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Pasadena, CA, Hanne Jensen, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff Malinda Smidga.

David S. Casey, Jr., Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, San Diego, CA, Hanne Jensen, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff Michael Krackenberger.

Jennie Lee Anderson, Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP, San Francisco, CA, Alison D. Hawthorne, Pro Hac Vice, W. Daniel Miles, III, Pro Hac Vice, Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery, AL, Andre Michel Mura, Hanne Jensen, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA, Eric Alfred Kafka, Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC, New York, NY, Geoffrey Aaron Graber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Rachel Nichole Minder, Pro Hac Vice, Atlanta, GA, Rebecca Diane Gilliland, Pro Hac Vice, Beasley Allen et al., Mobile, AL, for Plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2.

Gabriel G. Snyder, Janet Ward Black, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, Hanne Jensen, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff C.C.

David J. Cohen, Stephan Zouras, Philadelphia, PA, Hanne Jensen, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA, James Zouras, Stephan Zouras, LLP, Chicago, IL, Leah Lin Jones, Thierman Buck LLP, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff David Smart.

Yana A. Hart, Clarkson Law Firm PC, Malibu, CA, for Plaintiff C. M.

Amanda Grace Fiorilla, Christian Levis, Margaret C. MacLean, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., White Plains, NY, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Adamski Moroski Madden Cumberland & Green LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, San Francisco, CA, Frank H. Busch, Wagstaffe, Von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick LLP, San Francisco, CA, Michael A. Caddell, Caddell & Chapman, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff Jane Doe.

Michael Graham Rhodes, Caroline A. Lebel, Kyle C. Wong, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA, Abigail Augus Barrera, Elizabeth Katharine McCloskey, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Andrew M. Kasabian, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA, Darcy Caitlyn Harris, Pro Hac Vice, Lauren R. Goldman, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, Gregg Costa, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Houston, TX, Trenton James Van Oss, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.

Teresa Carey Chow, Alexander Vitruk, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant The Regents of the University of California.

Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Jennifer K. Van Zant, Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey and Leonard LLP, Greensboro, NC, David Balser, Robert Griest, King & Spalding, Atlanta, GA, Marisa Maleck, King & Spalding, Washington, DC, Steven Wilson Quick, Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard LLP, Raleigh, NC, for Defendant Novant Health, Inc.

David A. Carney, Baker Hostetler LLP, Cleveland, OH, Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Joshua Michael Fliegel, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

Michael Graham Rhodes, Caroline A. Lebel, Kyle C. Wong, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA, Abigail Augus Barrera, Elizabeth Katharine McCloskey, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Lauren R. Goldman, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, Matthew Lawrence Kutcher, Cooley LLP, Chicago, IL, Trenton James Van Oss, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants Facebook Holdings, LLC, Facebook Operations, LLC, Instagram LLC.

Edward J. McAndrew, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant Main Line Health.

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

William H. Orrick, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs challenge defendant Meta Platform, Inc.'s alleged use of proprietary computer code to obtain certain healthcare-related information of Facebook users: according to plaintiffs, the Meta Pixel allows Meta to intercept personally identifiable medical information and the content of patient communications from Facebook users, which Meta then monetizes for its own financial gain. Plaintiffs have brought several federal and state law claims, some of which they have plausibly alleged and others which need more specificity. As explained below, Meta's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are five Facebook users who are proceeding anonymously due to the sensitive nature of this litigation. Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CCAC," Dkt. 185) ¶¶ 24-28. They allege that Meta improperly acquires their confidential health information in violation of state and federal law and in contravention of Meta's own policies regarding use and collection of Facebook users' data. Id. ¶¶ 1-2, 5, 7.

Each of plaintiffs' healthcare providers—MedStar Health System, Rush University System for Health, WakeMed Health & Hospitals, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, and North Kansas City Hospital—allegedly installed the Meta Pixel on its patient portals. See id. ¶¶ 24-28. Plaintiffs claim that when they logged into their patient portal on their medical provider's website, the Pixel transmitted information to Meta. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8-13, 22. They contend that this information, contemporaneously redirected to Meta, revealed their status as patients and was monetized by Meta for use in targeted advertising. Id. ¶¶ 9, 13.

Plaintiffs initially moved for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 46. I denied that motion, finding that while plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of a "weighty injury," the scope of their injury and technical feasibility of plaintiffs' proposed solutions were not clear and the balance of equities and public interest factors did not support injunctive relief based on the record at that juncture. Dkt. No. 159 ("PI Order").

In February 2023, Interim Class Counsel filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Dkt. No. 185. In the CCAC, plaintiffs expand the scope of their suit and bring 13 claims: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; (3) violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA" or "Wiretap Act"); (4) violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); (5) intrusion upon seclusion; (6) California constitutional invasion of privacy; (7) negligence per se; (8) trespass to chattels; (9) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (10) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (11) larceny; (12) violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"); and (13) unjust enrichment.

Defendant has moved to dismiss each of the claims asserted in the CCAC.¹

LEGAL STANDARD

Under FRCP 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that "allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citation omitted). There must be "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. While courts do not require "heightened fact pleading of specifics," a plaintiff must allege facts...