Price v. Twitter, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-03173
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Price v. Twitter, Judge Kim asked questions about Lauren Price’s claims but issued no ruling.
Lauren Price and Twitter, Inc.; the notice concerns Price’s contract-related claims about Twitter’s use of her email address and telephone number.
What happened
Price v. Twitter, Inc. concerns Lauren Price’s allegations that Twitter used her email address and phone number for advertising and breached its privacy-policy promises. The court also questioned the alleged harm, damages, available remedies, and when the claims began.
The notice asked the parties to address whether Price alleged disclosure to advertisers or only advertising-related use, whether Twitter’s opt-out options and privacy policy affected her claims, and whether her contract and quasi-contract theories were properly pleaded.
Judge Sallie Kim issued questions for the November 14, 2022 hearing regarding the pending motion, but this document did not grant or deny that motion or otherwise decide the claims.
The detailed version
- Price v. Twitter, Inc. · No. 4:22-cv-03173
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 3, 2022
Nature of the document
This is a notice of questions for a hearing regarding Docket No. 40, not an opinion resolving the parties’ claims. The notice states that the court intended to address the questions at the November 14, 2022 hearing and would not accept written answers.
Issues identified by the court
The court asked what Lauren Price alleged Twitter did with her email address and telephone number: disclosed them to advertisers, used them for advertising purposes, or both. The court referred to allegations that Twitter matched users’ contact information with advertisers’ or data brokers’ lists to help advertisers target groups of users.
The court also asked whether Twitter’s Privacy Policy adequately disclosed its use of contact information for relevant advertisements and whether users could opt out of interest-based advertising. It questioned whether an opt-out option could affect an alleged breach of contract or another violation.
Other questions concerned the alleged reduction in value of Price’s contact information, any other harm she claimed, whether she alleged that money damages were inadequate for purposes of equitable relief, and what damages she alleged from Twitter’s supposed breach of express or implied contract. The court further asked whether Twitter’s October 2019 public announcement started the statute of limitations, meaning the deadline for bringing the claims.
Finally, the court asked what facts Price pleaded or could plead to suggest that Twitter’s express contract in the Privacy Policy was unenforceable or invalid while also pursuing a quasi-contract theory, which is a claim seeking recovery when no enforceable contract governs.
Disposition
Judge Sallie Kim did not rule on the motion or decide the merits in this notice. The document contains questions for the scheduled hearing and does not state that any motion was granted, denied, dismissed, or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.