Yoon v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

Mary Yoon, William Martin, and Kat Walker brought a class action against Meta Platforms, Inc. They alleged that Meta used tracking tools—including the Meta Pixel, Facebook software development kit, and Conversions application programming interface—to collect information about their video viewing on third-party websites, including HGTV.com, Bloomberg.com, USAToday.com, 247Sports.com, and PBS.com.

According to the First Amended Complaint, the tracking tools transmitted information such as video URLs, video titles, viewing times, button clicks, form-field information, and Facebook IDs to Meta. The plaintiffs alleged that this information was matched to their Facebook accounts for marketing and algorithm training. They also alleged that they did not consent and that Meta’s policies did not specifically disclose that Meta could obtain video-viewing history from users’ interactions with third-party websites.

The First Amended Complaint originally included six counts under the federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), and negligence. The plaintiffs withdrew the federal Wiretap Act and negligence claims, leaving three CIPA counts: Count II under CIPA section 631, Count III under section 632, and Count IV under section 635.

Judicial Notice

Meta asked the court to take judicial notice of 16 exhibits, including versions of Meta’s Terms of Service, Data Policy, and Cookies Policy. Judicial notice allows a court to accept certain facts that are not reasonably disputed. The court granted the request as to all 16 exhibits and stated that it would consider their existence and contents but would not draw additional conclusions or inferences from them. The court did not decide whether the exhibits were also incorporated by reference because judicial notice was sufficient for its analysis.

Consent

Meta argued that the plaintiffs had consented to the collection of their video-viewing data by agreeing to Meta’s policies when they created Facebook accounts and used Meta’s services. The court rejected that argument at the motion-to-dismiss stage. It found no evidence that the plaintiffs had been required to affirmatively acknowledge the policies in a way that would establish consent through a “clickwrap” agreement. It also found that Meta had not shown that the plaintiffs had the actual or constructive knowledge needed for consent through a “browsewrap” agreement.

Count II: CIPA Section 631

CIPA section 631 prohibits intentionally intercepting the contents or meaning of a communication while it is in transit without the consent of all parties. The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that some of the information Meta intercepted was “content”—the substance of the communication rather than merely identifying or usage information.

The court held that the alleged detailed URLs and video titles were contents because they could reveal the exact videos viewed, as well as users’ interests, queries, habits, and browsing history. Those claims passed the Rule 12(b)(6) challenge, which tests whether a complaint legally and plausibly states a claim.

The court reached a different conclusion about form-field entries and Facebook IDs. It treated names, contact information, other form entries, and Facebook IDs as routine identifying or customer-record information rather than communication contents. Claims based on that information therefore did not pass the Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.

For button clicks and related text, the court held that most of the alleged data was record information because it reflected user habits. But button-click data associated with video titles could identify the specific videos viewed and therefore constituted contents. The claims based on that data passed the challenge, while claims based on the remaining button-click data did not.

Count III: CIPA Section 632

CIPA section 632 concerns recording or overhearing confidential communications without prior consent. The court found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that their communications were confidential. Although internet communications generally do not carry an objectively reasonable expectation of confidentiality, the court found this case different because the alleged communications had no recipients who could easily forward or share them.

The court also relied on the allegation that the collected data revealed the exact titles of videos being watched, and on the plaintiffs’ allegations that they had not expressly consented and that Meta had represented that it did not collect such information. The section 632 claim therefore passed the Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.

Count IV: CIPA Section 635

CIPA section 635 addresses devices primarily or exclusively designed for eavesdropping. Meta argued that the plaintiffs lacked a private right to sue and had not plausibly alleged that the Pixel was designed for eavesdropping or that Meta had the required knowledge or intent.

The court held that CIPA provides a private right of action for a person injured by a violation and that the plaintiffs alleged an injury caused by Meta’s violation of section 635. The court also found that the allegations that the Pixel was invisible and designed to gather information about URLs and searches were sufficient at this stage to plausibly allege that it was primarily designed for eavesdropping.

Finally, the court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged the required knowledge or intent. The court explained that section 635 requires intentional manufacture of a device with knowledge that it could primarily be used for wiretapping; it does not require an intent that the device actually be used unlawfully. The section 635 claim therefore passed the Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.

Disposition

Judge Cousins granted Meta’s request for judicial notice as to all 16 exhibits. The court granted Meta’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the CIPA section 631 claims stemming from form-field entries, Facebook IDs, and button-click data unrelated to video titles, and denied Meta’s motion to dismiss all other claims. Because the deficiencies could be remedied, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint or notify the court that they did not wish to amend by January 21, 2025. The plaintiffs could not add new parties or claims without further court permission.