Gabrielli v. Haleon US Inc.

Background

Jonathan Gabrielli filed a proposed class action against Haleon US Inc. based on allegations about cookies and tracking technologies on Haleon’s websites. The websites displayed cookie banners offering users a “Reject All” option. Gabrielli alleges that he selected that option when visiting several Haleon websites, but that Haleon nevertheless caused third-party cookies and user data to be placed on or transmitted from his device.

According to the complaint, the alleged data included browsing history, visit history, website interactions, information entered into website forms, demographic information, interests and preferences, shopping behavior, device information, referring URLs, session information, user identifiers, and geolocation data. Gabrielli asserts seven causes of action: invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, wiretapping under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), use of a pen register under CIPA, common-law fraud, unjust enrichment, and trespass to chattels.

Article III Standing

Haleon argued that Gabrielli had not alleged a concrete injury sufficient to establish Article III standing, which is the requirement that a plaintiff show a real injury that the court can remedy. The court rejected that argument. It concluded that the alleged loss of control over personal information and digital activity could constitute a concrete privacy injury, particularly because Gabrielli alleged that he expressly rejected cookies and that Haleon continued to transmit cookies and user data to third parties.

The court distinguished cases involving only the collection of IP addresses or general website interactions without allegations of rejected cookies or private information. It concluded that Gabrielli’s allegations were sufficient to establish standing at the pleading stage.

Motion to Dismiss

The court denied dismissal of the invasion-of-privacy and intrusion-upon-seclusion claims. Under the court’s discussion of California law, these claims require a reasonable expectation of privacy and an intrusion that was highly offensive. The court determined that it was too early to decide as a matter of law that the alleged transmission of browsing data, search terms, geolocation information, website interactions, and other data could not qualify as a highly offensive invasion of privacy.

The court also allowed the CIPA claims to proceed. It held that Gabrielli had plausibly alleged a basis for delayed discovery of the alleged violations, even though he knew that Haleon used cookies, because he allegedly selected an option that represented that he could reject all cookies. For the CIPA wiretapping claim, the court found that the allegations about search terms, descriptive URLs, user input, and other information were sufficient at this stage to allege the contents of communications. For the CIPA pen-register claim, the court concluded that internet tracking software could qualify as a “device or process” under the statute’s definition.

The court denied dismissal of the fraud claim. It found that Gabrielli plausibly alleged that Haleon’s “Reject All” representation was false, that Haleon controlled the relevant website code and cookie placement, and that the complaint adequately alleged intent and damages at the pleading stage. The court also denied dismissal of the unjust-enrichment claim because California law can allow recovery of benefits or profits allegedly obtained through wrongful conduct even when the plaintiff does not allege a corresponding economic loss.

The court allowed Gabrielli’s request for punitive damages to proceed for now because it found the fraud claim plausible and therefore did not dismiss the request at that stage.

Trespass to Chattels

The court granted the motion to dismiss the trespass-to-chattels claim, with leave to amend. Trespass to chattels requires an intentional and unauthorized interference with personal property that causes injury, including impairment of the property’s condition, quality, or value. The court found Gabrielli’s allegations of reduced storage, disk space, performance, and device value too conclusory. It stated that the complaint did not plausibly explain how the presence of cookies caused those types of harm.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that the motion to dismiss was denied as to all claims except trespass to chattels. The motion to dismiss the trespass-to-chattels claim was granted, with leave to amend. The order also states that discovery may proceed and that defendants must respond to pending discovery within 30 days, resolving the identified discovery dispute.

This opinion is classified as a procedural order because it rules on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, which tests jurisdiction and the legal sufficiency of pleaded claims rather than finally deciding the underlying merits.