In re Adobe Data Tracking Litigation

Background

Plaintiffs Nicholas Rapak, Bianca Johnston, Minchul Paul Chwe, Dana Olita, and David Concepcion brought a proposed class action against Adobe Inc. They alleged that Adobe’s Experience Cloud Identity Service assigns users a persistent identifier called an Adobe Experience Cloud ID, or ECID, and uses it to track information across Adobe products and third-party websites for targeted advertising. The plaintiffs alleged that this tracking occurred without their knowledge or consent and created detailed profiles about them.

The consolidated amended complaint asserted nine claims: common-law intrusion upon seclusion; invasion of privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution; three claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act; a claim under the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; a California Unfair Competition Law claim; unjust enrichment; and injunctive relief.

Motion to Dismiss

Adobe moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court considered whether the complaint alleged enough facts to make the claims plausible, accepting well-supported factual allegations as true but not accepting conclusory statements or unreasonable inferences.

For the first through sixth claims, the court held that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged a lack of consent. The court explained that consent is an element of at least one of the California Invasion of Privacy Act claims and a complete defense to the common-law privacy, California constitutional privacy, and computer-access claims. The plaintiffs alleged that they did not know about or consent to Adobe’s tracking, but the court found that merely asserting nonconsent was insufficient. The court therefore granted Adobe’s motion to dismiss those claims with leave to amend.

For the seventh claim, under California’s Unfair Competition Law, the plaintiffs sought restitution, declaratory relief, and other equitable relief. The court held that they had not alleged that monetary damages or another legal remedy would be inadequate. It therefore granted Adobe’s motion to dismiss the Unfair Competition Law claim with leave to amend.

For the eighth and ninth claims, the court stated that California does not recognize unjust enrichment or injunctive relief as standalone causes of action. The court nevertheless allowed amendment of the unjust-enrichment claim on the narrow ground that it might be reframed as a quasi-contract claim seeking restitution. The opinion’s text is partially truncated at this portion, but its conclusion states that Adobe’s motion was granted with leave to amend and that the complaint was dismissed in full.

Discovery Stay and Disposition

The court granted Adobe’s separate motion to stay discovery. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay discovery for good cause to protect against undue burden or expense. Because the scope of the anticipated amended complaint was unclear, the court found good cause to stay discovery until Adobe answers the forthcoming second amended complaint.

The court granted Adobe’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend, dismissed the complaint in full, and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 21 days. It also granted Adobe’s motion to stay discovery.