Hubbard v. Google LLC

Background

Google LLC and YouTube, LLC operate YouTube, where users can post and watch videos without paying an access fee. The opinion states that Google collects information from YouTube users and uses it to generate advertising revenue for Google and owners of some popular channels.

The plaintiffs are minor children represented by their parents and legal guardians. They alleged that, from July 1, 2013, through April 1, 2020, Google collected data from children under 13 who watched YouTube videos without their parents' consent. The alleged data included information collected through cookies and persistent identifiers, such as internet-protocol addresses, browsing activity, videos watched, advertisements viewed, interactions with content and advertisements, and other information.

The plaintiffs filed a putative class action asserting 50 causes of action under the laws of 20 states. The claims generally fell into three groups: unjust enrichment, intrusion upon seclusion, and violations of consumer-protection statutes. They sought damages and equitable relief, including deletion or sequestration of the collected information, an audit and accounting, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and creation of a trust.

The defendants moved to dismiss. The court evaluated the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim for relief. The court accepted the complaint's factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but did not accept conclusory statements or unreasonable inferences.

Equitable Relief and Unjust Enrichment

The court dismissed all requests for equitable relief and all unjust-enrichment claims. It held that the plaintiffs primarily alleged economic injuries that had already occurred and that damages could provide an adequate legal remedy for those injuries. The plaintiffs alleged only conclusorily that they lacked an adequate remedy at law, which the court found insufficient at the pleading stage.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the requirement did not apply to injunctions, that they could not yet calculate their damages, that retaining the information would prevent full compensation, and that disgorgement was a separate remedy. The court viewed damages and the requested equitable remedies as addressing the same alleged harm: the misappropriation of the plaintiffs' information.

Privacy Claims

The plaintiffs asserted intrusion-upon-seclusion claims and a claim under the California Constitution's right to privacy. The court explained that these claims required allegations that the defendants engaged in a highly offensive intrusion into an area where the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court held that the complaint did not meet that high standard. It reasoned that collecting internet-browsing data and tracking users across the internet are contemporary forms of routine commercial behavior that a reasonable user should expect. The complaint did not sufficiently allege secrecy, deception, a data breach, use of incognito mode, or another additional factor that would elevate the alleged conduct beyond routine commercial behavior.

The court also held that the alleged collection of children's data, by itself, did not make the conduct highly offensive. It rejected the argument that an alleged violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act automatically established a highly offensive intrusion. The court therefore dismissed all intrusion-upon-seclusion claims and the California constitutional privacy claim.

Consumer-Protection Claims

The plaintiffs alleged violations of consumer-protection statutes in 14 states. The court stated that each statute required a plaintiff to experience a loss, injury, or damages before recovering damages.

The plaintiffs identified the alleged loss as a reduction in the value of their information. The court found that the complaint did not allege facts explaining how Google's collection and use of the information reduced its value. Allegations that a market existed for personal information, that studies valued personal information at more than $200, and that the defendants took the information without parental consent did not establish that the plaintiffs' information actually lost value.

The court also found that the complaint did not adequately allege that the defendants' use of the information prevented the plaintiffs from using it themselves or that the plaintiffs intended to sell the information. The court therefore dismissed all state consumer-protection claims.

Disposition and Leave to Amend

The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims with limited leave to amend. The plaintiffs could amend to allege, in good faith, non-economic harm not remediable by damages, sufficient additional factors showing that the data collection was highly offensive, or facts supporting a loss under the consumer-protection statutes.

The court prohibited new parties, new claims, and other substantive changes. The plaintiffs had to file an amended complaint by July 22, 2024, with a redline showing the changes. The court stated that it would dismiss the action if the plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline.