Ingrao v. AddShoppers, Inc.

1

AMELIA INGRAO AND ELISABETH PACANA, Plaintiffs, v. ADDSHOPPERS, INC., NUTRISYSTEM, INC., AND VIVINT, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 24-1022

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

November 25, 2024

OPINION

SLOMSKY, J.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................................................3

II. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................................................................5

A. Parties......................................................................................................................................................................................................5

B. Factual Background...............................................................................................................................................................................6

1. Defendant AddShoppers' “SafeOpt” Program ...........................................................................................................................................6

2. Plaintiff Amelia Ingrao's Allegations............................................................................................................................................................7

3. Plaintiff Elisabeth Pacana's Allegations.......................................................................................................................................................8

C. Procedural Background .......................................................................................................................................................................8

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW ...............................................................................................................................................................9

A. Standard on a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) ......................................9

B. Standard on a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) ..........10

C. Standard on a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (12)(b)(6) ................................................................11

IV. ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................................................................................12

A. Plaintiffs Lack Article III Standing to Bring Their Claims Against Defendants ...............................................................................12

B. The Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendant AddShoppers .............................................................................................17

1. The Court Does Not Have Specific Jurisdiction Over Defendant AddShoppers Under the Calder “Effects” Test.........................................19

2. The Court Does Not Have Specific Jurisdiction Over Defendant AddShoppers Under the Traditional Test.................................................23

C. Plaintiffs Failed to State a Claim Under WESCA, CIPA and the CDAFA ..........................................................................................25

1. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim Under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act .................................................25

a. Plaintiff Ingrao's Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act Claim Against Defendant Nutrisystem ............................26

b. Plaintiff Pacana's Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act Claims Against Defendant AddShoppers and Defendant Vivint....27

2. Plaintiff Ingrao Fails to State a Claim Under the California Invasion of Privacy Act .........................................................................................30

3. Plaintiff Ingrao Fails to State a Claim Under the California Computer Access and Data Fraud Act ...................................................................32

V. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................................................................34

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of Defendant AddShoppers, Inc.'s (“Defendant AddShoppers” or “AddShoppers”) alleged surreptitious tracking of Plaintiff Amelia Ingrao's (“Plaintiff Ingrao” or “Ingrao”) and Plaintiff Elisabeth Pacana's (“Plaintiff Pacana” or “Pacana”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) internet browsing activity. (See Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege Defendant AddShoppers, through its partnerships with retailers such as Defendant Nutrisystem, Inc. (“Defendant Nutrisystem” or “Nutrisystem”) and Defendant Vivint, Inc. (“Defendant Vivint” or “Vivint”), impermissibly tracked Plaintiffs' internet browsing activity and compiled their personal information into consumer profiles. (Id. at ¶¶ 36-37.) Through these profiles, AddShoppers allegedly linked Plaintiffs' online browsing activity with their personal information, such as their email addresses, in order to send Plaintiffs targeted ads based on their browsing activity. (Id.)

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant AddShoppers, Defendant Nutrisystem, and Defendant Vivint (collectively “Defendants”), alleging claims under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“WESCA”) (Counts I, II, and III), the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) (Count IV) and California's Computer Access and Data Fraud Act (“CDAFA”) (Count V). (Id. at ¶¶ 81-148.)

Specifically, in Count I, Plaintiff Ingrao alleges a WESCA claim against Defendant Nutrisystem. (Id. at ¶¶ 81-95.) Similarly, Plaintiff Pacana brings WESCA claims against Defendant AddShoppers and Defendant Vivint in Counts II and III, respectively. (Id. at ¶¶ 96125.) In Count IV, Plaintiff Ingrao alleges a CIPA claim against Defendant Nutrisystem. (Id. at ¶¶ 126-34.) Finally, in Count V, Plaintiff Ingrao brings a CDAFA claim against Defendants AddShoppers and Nutrisystem. (Id. at ¶¶ 135-48.) In response, Defendants each filed Motions to Dismiss the Complaint. (Doc. Nos. 25, 26, 31.)

Defendant Vivint argues dismissal is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because Plaintiffs lack Article III standing. (Doc. No. 26 at 11-14.) Defendant AddShoppers submits dismissal is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. (Doc. No. 31-1 at 11-17.) And each of the three Defendants argues for dismissal because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See generally Doc. Nos. 25, 26, 31.)

As explained more thoroughly below, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 25, 26, 31) will be granted for the following reasons.^[1]First, Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient harm to establish Article III standing. Plaintiffs argue Defendants' action of collecting their internet browsing activity and personal email addresses is sufficient to establish harm because it is analogous to the capture of sensitive personal information protected by common law privacy torts. (Doc. No. 39 at 15; Doc. No. 69 at 7-8.) But this Court joins other courts, including courts in the Third Circuit, that have held that a person's internet browsing activity and email address is not sufficiently sensitive information to support the concrete injury requirement for Article III standing.^[2]Second, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant AddShoppers because AddShoppers' actions satisfy neither the Calder “effects” test nor the traditional test for specific jurisdiction. Finally, because Plaintiffs fail to plead both that Defendants intercepted their communications in Pennsylvania, and that Defendants intercepted the contents of their communications, they fail to state a claim under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“WESCA”) and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). Similarly, because Plaintiff Ingrao fails to allege she suffered the requisite damage or loss, she fails to state a claim under the California Computer Access and Data Fraud Act (“CDAFA”).

II. BACKGROUND

A. Parties

The named Plaintiffs in this Class Action Complaint are Plaintiff Amelia Ingrao and Plaintiff Elisabeth Pacana. (See Doc. No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff Ingrao is a resident and domiciliary of California. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff Pacana is a resident and domiciliary of Pennsylvania. (Id. at ¶ 7.)

Defendant AddShoppers is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in North Carolina. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Defendant Nutrisystem is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Defendant Vivint is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Utah. (Id. at ¶ 10.)

B. Factual Background

1. Defendant AddShoppers' “SafeOpt” Program

Defendant AddShoppers is alleged to run a marketing program called “SafeOpt” that tracks individuals' internet browsing activity, collects their personal information gleaned from their browsing activity, such as their email addresses, and then uses this information to send them targeted advertisements.^[3](Id. at ¶¶ 2, 3.) SafeOpt is available to both consumers and businesses. (Id. at ¶ 3.) For consumers, SafeOpt is marketed as a service they “can voluntarily opt into to ‘receive verified offers from SafeOpt's brand partners.'” (Id.) For businesses, SafeOpt is marketed as an “opportunity to ‘send 3-5x...