Ridenti v. Google LLC
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02313
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Ridenti v. Google LLC, Judge Gorton transferred the proposed class action to California for coordination with a similar earlier case.
Paula Ridenti, her two minor children, the proposed Massachusetts class, Google LLC, and YouTube, LLC; the case was moved from the District of Massachusetts to the Northern District of California.
What happened
Paula Ridenti sued Google LLC and YouTube, LLC, claiming they collected, used, or disclosed information about children under 13 without parental consent, violating Massachusetts law. She brought the case for herself, her two children, and a proposed class of Massachusetts residents.
The companies asked to move the case to the Northern District of California, where a similar class action was filed first. Ridenti argued that her case was narrower and local and that moving it would burden her, but the court found substantial similarity between the parties and legal issues and determined that transfer would promote efficiency and avoid inconsistent decisions.
In Ridenti v. Google LLC, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton allowed the motion to transfer and transferred the case to the Northern District of California. The court also recommended consolidation with the earlier California action, but this order did not decide whether the claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Ridenti v. Google LLC · No. 5:21-cv-02313
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 30, 2021
Background
Paula Ridenti sued Google LLC and YouTube, LLC on behalf of herself, her two minor children, and a proposed class. She alleged that the companies collected, used, and disclosed personal information from children under 13 without verified parental consent and then used that information for targeted advertising. She claimed this violated Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, which addresses unfair and deceptive business practices.
A separate putative class action, Hubbard, was already pending in the Northern District of California. That case involved similar allegations against Google and YouTube, including claims under Massachusetts Chapter 93A. The California court had dismissed the Hubbard complaint with permission to amend after concluding that its state-law claims were preempted by the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. An amended Hubbard complaint was pending when the Massachusetts court considered the transfer motion.
Transfer Motion
Google and YouTube moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer Ridenti’s case to the Northern District of California for consolidation with Hubbard. Section 1404(a) allows a federal court to transfer a civil case to another federal district when the transfer serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice.
The defendants argued that transfer was appropriate because Hubbard was filed first, the cases involved substantially similar parties and issues, and allowing both cases to proceed separately could waste judicial resources and produce inconsistent decisions. Ridenti argued that the cases were not identical, that her case was more focused and local, and that litigating in California would burden her as a Massachusetts plaintiff.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Gorton concluded that the parties were substantially similar because both cases named Google and YouTube and included nearly identical proposed classes of Massachusetts residents. The court also found that the cases raised substantially similar questions about whether the companies collected information from children under 13 without parental consent and used it for targeted advertising.
The court noted that both cases raised Chapter 93A issues and would require consideration of whether that state-law claim was preempted by the federal privacy law. Because Hubbard was filed first, the court gave less weight to Ridenti’s choice of forum, particularly because Ridenti had brought a second-filed proposed class action. The court determined that judicial efficiency and the goal of avoiding inconsistent judgments strongly favored transfer.
Ruling
The court ALLOWED the defendants’ motion to transfer. It TRANSFERRED the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and recommended that the case be consolidated with Hubbard. The order decided where the case should proceed; it did not decide the merits of Ridenti’s allegations or whether the claims were preempted.
Disposition
Defendants’ motion to transfer was allowed, and the case was transferred to the Northern District of California.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.