Crano v. Sojern, Inc.

Background

Suellen Crano filed a proposed class action alleging that Sojern tracked information exchanged between her and the Hilton and Marriott websites when she searched for and booked hotel rooms. She alleged that Sojern’s tracking technology collected information including the hotel identification, hotel name and location, room price, number of rooms, check-in and check-out dates, and the fact that she completed reservations. She alleged that this occurred without her consent.

The amended complaint asserted claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, invasion of privacy under the California Constitution, and unjust enrichment.

Motion to Transfer

Sojern moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia. It relied on forum-selection clauses in Hilton’s Site Usage Agreement and Hilton Honors Terms and Conditions, which stated that covered actions had to be filed in that Virginia federal court.

The court denied the motion to transfer. Sojern had the burden to show that Crano entered a valid agreement containing the forum-selection clause. Regarding the Site Usage Agreement, Sojern provided partial screenshots of a Hilton booking page and other evidence. The court found that the screenshots did not show the entire booking process and did not establish what Crano would have seen when she made her reservation in April 2024. The court also noted that the screenshots displayed a Hilton Honors logo even though Sojern relied on them to show what Crano saw on Hilton.com, and Sojern could not explain the discrepancy at the hearing.

The court also found that Sojern had not provided evidence of a valid agreement between Crano and Hilton containing the forum-selection clause in the Hilton Honors Terms and Conditions. In particular, the evidence showed the current version of Hilton’s website, not the version in effect when Crano made her reservation.

Motion to Dismiss

Sojern moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and for failure to state a claim. The court denied the standing portion of the motion without prejudice, explaining that Sojern’s argument—that Crano had not alleged a wiretapping or privacy injury—was actually an argument that the complaint failed to state a claim, not an Article III standing argument.

California Invasion of Privacy Act

Crano relied on the second and third parts of California Penal Code § 631(a). The second concerns reading or attempting to learn the contents or meaning of a communication while it is in transit. The third concerns using information obtained through the conduct described in the statute’s first or second parts.

The court rejected Sojern’s argument that the information was merely “record information,” rather than the contents of communications. But it held that Crano had not plausibly alleged that Sojern intercepted the information while it was in transit. Because the third-part claim depended on a violation of the first or second part, that claim also failed. The court dismissed the California Invasion of Privacy Act claim for failure to state a claim.

Federal Wiretap Act

The court dismissed Crano’s Electronic Communications Privacy Act, also called the Federal Wiretap Act, claim for failure to state a claim. The statute generally prohibits intentional interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, but one party’s consent can provide a complete defense. Crano argued that an exception applied when the interception is conducted to commit a crime or tort.

The court concluded that Crano’s crime-or-tort argument could not rely on her inadequately pleaded California wiretapping claim. It also found that she had not plausibly alleged that the information collected qualified as a “guest record” under California Civil Code § 53.5. The court did not accept that the listed information—such as hotel dates, room price, number of rooms, and the fact of completed reservations—was plausibly a guest record under that statute.

California Constitutional Privacy Claim

The court dismissed the California constitutional privacy claim for failure to state a claim. Crano argued that the information was confidential under California’s guest-record statute, but the court found that she had not shown that the tracked information was covered by that statute.

Unfair Competition Law Claim

The court dismissed the Unfair Competition Law claim for failure to state a claim. Crano’s claim under the unlawful prong depended on her California wiretapping and guest-record theories, which the court found insufficient. Her claim under the unfair prong relied on conclusory allegations that Sojern’s conduct violated public policy and was immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious. The court held that these allegations merely repeated statutory language and did not adequately state an unfair-business-practice claim.

Unjust Enrichment Claim

The court dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim. Crano alleged that Sojern received an economic benefit from collecting her personal and private data without her consent. The court held that because she had not stated a claim for unlawful conduct, she also had not stated an unjust-enrichment claim.

Disposition

The court denied Sojern’s motion to transfer and granted Sojern’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend the claims alleged in the amended complaint. Any amended complaint was due October 16, 2025. The court stated that Crano could not add new defendants or claims without further permission from the court. The order disposed of docket entries 17 and 28.