Morilha v. Alphabet Inc.

Background

Daniel Vitor Morilha sued Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, and Meta Platforms Inc. The opinion refers to Alphabet and Google together as “Google.” Morilha alleged that Google collected substantial amounts of his data and might have sold or disclosed information such as his search history and emails. He alleged that Facebook Messenger, operated by Meta, shared internet protocol addresses in messages containing external references, used phone geolocation data to track contacts, and used data to infer whom he might date. He asserted claims under the Stored Communications Act, for breach of contract, and for invasion of privacy.

Standing and Claims Against Google

The court explained that Article III standing requires an injury in fact, a connection between the injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would redress the injury. Morilha alleged only that Google “might” have sold or granted access to his information. The court held that these allegations were too speculative to establish a concrete injury. Because Morilha did not allege a concrete injury caused by Google, the court dismissed his claims against Google under Rule 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Stored Communications Act Claims Against Meta

Morilha did not identify which Stored Communications Act provision Meta allegedly violated, so the court considered Sections 2701 and 2702. Section 2701 concerns unauthorized access to a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided and access to data in electronic storage. The court held that Morilha had not alleged that Meta lacked authorization to access the geolocation data, that his phone or computer was a qualifying facility, or that Meta accessed data while it was in electronic storage.

Section 2702 prohibits certain providers from knowingly disclosing the contents of communications in electronic storage. The court held that Morilha had not actually alleged that Meta disclosed his information; he alleged only that Meta “might” have granted others access. The court also held that the internet protocol addresses and geolocation data identified in the complaint were not the contents of a communication under the statute. The court therefore concluded that Morilha failed to state a claim under either provision.

Breach of Contract

Under California law, a breach-of-contract claim requires allegations including a contract, the plaintiff’s performance or an excuse for nonperformance, the defendant’s breach, and resulting damages. The complaint also must identify the specific contract provision allegedly breached. The court held that Morilha had not alleged either the existence of a contract or a specific provision that Meta breached. It dismissed the breach-of-contract claim.

Invasion of Privacy

The court explained that a California constitutional privacy claim requires a legally protected privacy interest, a reasonable expectation of privacy, and conduct constituting a serious invasion of privacy. Morilha alleged that he did not consent to having his data sold. The court stated that he did not actually allege disclosure and held that disclosure of internet protocol addresses and geolocation data was not sufficiently egregious to support the claim. The court dismissed the privacy claim.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The dismissal was with leave to amend: Morilha may file an amended complaint within 28 days, solely to correct the deficiencies identified in the order. If he does not file an amended complaint by that deadline, the claims dismissed in the order will be dismissed with prejudice.