Camacho v. American Express Company

Background

Philip Camacho filed a brief opposing American Express Company’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In that brief, Camacho relied on the decision in Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc. while responding to American Express’s argument that he had not plausibly alleged use of a “device” under the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

Camacho attributed several passages to the Doe opinion. One passage stated that Meta had “fabricated” an argument by relying on a definition from a different part of the statute. Another purported quotation described decisions involving Apple’s Siri software and an electrical tool as addressing whether those items qualified as a “device.” Camacho asked the court to follow the Doe decision.

Court’s Action

The court stated that some other language quoted on page 15 of Camacho’s brief did appear in Judge William H. Orrick’s Doe opinion, but that it could not locate the specified quotations there. The court did not determine the source of the quotations or decide whether Camacho’s allegations satisfied the California statute.

Judge John P. Cronan ordered Camacho, by June 6, 2025, to identify the source of the specified quoted language and file two copies of that source on the docket. One copy had to be clean, and the other had to highlight the quoted passages. The order did not rule on American Express’s motion to dismiss.