Cody v. E. Gluck Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-02286
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Cody v. E. Gluck Corporation, Judge Gilliam granted the company’s motion to dismiss because Cody did not plausibly allege she used its chat feature.
Annette Cody’s claims were affected by the granted motion to dismiss. E. Gluck Corporation obtained the ruling, but Cody was allowed to file an amended complaint within 21 days.
What happened
In Cody v. E. Gluck Corporation, Annette Cody sued under California’s privacy law, alleging that software used on the defendant’s Armitron website intercepted and stored customer chat transcripts for targeted advertising without consent.
The court found that Cody did not allege that she personally used the website’s chat feature. Her general allegations that she visited the website and communicated with the defendant were not enough to establish that she used the challenged feature or suffered a concrete injury.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the motion to dismiss but allowed Cody to file an amended complaint within 21 days. The court also scheduled a case-management conference and warned that any amended complaint must provide factual detail supporting a concrete privacy injury.
The detailed version
- Cody v. E. Gluck Corporation · No. 4:23-cv-02286
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 26, 2024
Background
Annette Cody brought two claims against E. Gluck Corporation under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code sections 631(a) and 632.7. The complaint alleged that E. Gluck operates the Armitron website, which includes a customer chat feature, and uses software that allows a third party, Chantra, to intercept and store chat transcripts for targeted advertising. Cody alleged that users did not consent to sharing this data.
Motion to Dismiss and Standing
E. Gluck moved to dismiss, arguing that Cody lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution and that her California privacy claims should be dismissed. To establish standing, a plaintiff must plausibly allege a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct and likely to be addressed by a favorable court decision.
The court focused on whether Cody plausibly alleged that she personally used the challenged chat feature. The complaint stated that she visited E. Gluck’s website using a smartphone and communicated with E. Gluck, but it did not state that she actually used the website’s chat feature. The court rejected Cody’s request to infer that fact from the complaint’s general allegations. The court also cautioned that merely asserting a violation of the privacy law would not be enough; an amended complaint would need factual detail, such as the content of the chats, to allege a concrete privacy injury.
Other Jurisdictional Issue
In a footnote, the court stated that the complaint also did not appear to establish personal jurisdiction over E. Gluck, which the complaint identified as headquartered in Little Neck, New Jersey. The court noted that E. Gluck’s website appeared nationally available and that Cody had not alleged that the company specifically targeted California consumers. Because E. Gluck did not raise personal jurisdiction and appeared to have waived the argument, the court did not rule on that issue.
Ruling
The court GRANTED E. Gluck’s motion to dismiss. The court stated that amendment might not be futile and allowed Cody to file an amended complaint within 21 days of the order. It also set a case-management conference for November 12, 2024, and directed the parties to file a joint case-management statement by November 5, 2024.
Judge
The order was signed by Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.