R.C. v. Sussex Publishers, LLC
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-02609
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In R.C. v. Sussex Publishers, Judge Corley denied Sussex’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ California Penal Code § 631 claim.
Plaintiffs R.C. and D.G., the proposed class members, and Sussex Publishers, LLC. The § 631 claim was allowed to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage.
What happened
R.C. v. Sussex Publishers, LLC concerns allegations that Sussex disclosed and mishandled plaintiffs’ private and medical information through its website and Google Analytics. Plaintiffs R.C. and D.G. brought the case as a proposed class action, and Sussex asked the court to dismiss their California Penal Code § 631 claim.
The court held that the updated complaint plausibly alleged Google Analytics intercepted plaintiffs’ communications while they were traveling to Sussex’s website. It also held that the complaint plausibly alleged Google read, interpreted, and selected information in those communications for advertising and analytics purposes. At this stage, the court had to accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and could not resolve factual disputes in Sussex’s favor.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied Sussex’s motion to dismiss the California Penal Code § 631 claim. The order addressed only that claim and allowed it to continue at this stage.
The detailed version
- R.C. v. Sussex Publishers, LLC · No. 3:24-cv-02609
- Jacquelyn Corley
- June 23, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs R.C. and D.G. brought a proposed class action against Sussex Publishers, LLC, alleging that Sussex disclosed and mishandled private and medical information in violation of California law. The challenged conduct involved Google Analytics JavaScript code on Sussex’s Psychology Today website.
Plaintiffs repeatedly amended their complaint to assert a California Penal Code § 631 claim based on aiding-and-abetting liability. That theory requires an underlying violation by the party allegedly aided. The court had previously dismissed the claim because the earlier complaints did not adequately allege that Google read the communications while they were “in transit,” meaning before the communications reached their intended recipient. The third amended complaint added more detailed allegations and a demonstrative video.
Legal Standard
The court considered Sussex’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court accepts factual allegations as true, draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiffs, and does not resolve factual disputes or weigh competing evidence.
Analysis
California Penal Code § 631 includes liability for a person who, without consent or authorization, reads or attempts to read the contents or meaning of a communication while it is in transit. The statute also covers a person who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with another person to commit one of the listed acts.
The court found that the third amended complaint plausibly alleged interception during transmission. Plaintiffs alleged that Google Analytics operated concurrently and in real time while users interacted with the Psychology Today website, intercepted and analyzed user communications, and selected information for later advertising and analytics use. They specifically alleged that Google Analytics captured information reflecting users’ mental-health symptoms, concerns, and treatment needs as users selected website filters.
The court also found that plaintiffs plausibly alleged Google “read” or attempted to understand the communications. The complaint alleged that Google Analytics interpreted the contents of users’ interactions and selected portions of those communications for advertising and analytics. Drawing reasonable inferences for plaintiffs, the court concluded that these allegations described an effort to understand the substantive meaning of the communications.
Sussex argued that Google Analytics did not intercept communications while they were in transit and did not read them. The court declined to resolve those factual disputes based on Sussex’s description of how Google Analytics works, materials not incorporated into the complaint, or the video attachment. The court stated that the disputed timing and operation of the software were not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss.
Ruling
Because plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Google read, attempted to read, or learned the contents or meaning of communications while they were in transit, Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied Sussex’s motion to dismiss the California Penal Code § 631 claim. The order disposed of Docket No. 57.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.