Balletto v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-01017
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Balletto v. American Honda, Judge White denied Honda’s motion to dismiss privacy claims and continued the case-management conference.
Beverly Balletto, Adam Fajge, Wendy Babcock, and American Honda Motor Co., Inc.; the plaintiffs’ CIPA and WESCA claims were allowed to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage.
What happened
Balletto v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. concerns Honda’s website chat function, which Beverly Balletto alleged used Salesforce technology to intercept and analyze communications. Balletto pursued claims under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, while Adam Fajge and Wendy Babcock pursued claims under Pennsylvania’s wiretapping law.
Honda argued that the communications were not intercepted while in transit and that using the chat function showed consent to interception. Honda also challenged Balletto’s allegations that Salesforce could use chat data for its own purposes. The plaintiffs had withdrawn their request to certify a nationwide class.
Judge Jeffrey White ruled that the allegations were sufficient to proceed and denied Honda’s motion to dismiss. The court denied as moot the part of Honda’s motion concerning nationwide class certification and continued the case-management conference from March 15 to March 22, 2024.
The detailed version
- Balletto v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. · No. 4:23-cv-01017
- Jeffrey White
- Feb. 13, 2024
Background
The case challenges Honda’s use of a chat function on its website. The plaintiffs alleged that the function uses a third-party Salesforce application programming interface, or API, that runs on Salesforce’s servers. They alleged that Salesforce intercepts chat communications, sends them to its Einstein data-intelligence platform, analyzes them before providing them to a conversation participant, and can use the information to improve or develop its products and services and to assist with customer service and data analytics.
Beverly Balletto continued to pursue claims under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, or CIPA. Adam Fajge and Wendy Babcock asserted claims under Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, or WESCA. The plaintiffs alleged that Honda aided Salesforce in intercepting their electronic communications without consent.
Honda’s Motion
Honda moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally valid claim. Honda argued that Balletto had not alleged interception while the communications were in transit, as required for the relevant CIPA theory. Honda also argued that Balletto had not sufficiently alleged that Salesforce could use the information for a purpose beyond providing it to Honda.
For the WESCA claims, Honda argued that Fajge and Babcock consented to interception as a matter of law by using Honda’s chat function. Honda also argued that they knew or should have known that a third party was intercepting their communications. The court noted that Honda provided no supporting authority for that position.
The plaintiffs had voluntarily withdrawn their request to certify a nationwide class. The court therefore addressed that part of Honda’s motion as moot.
Analysis and Ruling
The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to state a claim for interception. It found the allegations materially similar to allegations in another chat-function case where routing messages through a third party’s servers supported a claim that communications were intercepted while in transit.
The court also concluded that Balletto sufficiently alleged a CIPA claim based on Honda’s alleged assistance, agreement, employment, permission, or conspiracy with Salesforce. The allegations concerning Salesforce’s Einstein platform and its possible uses of chat data were not merely conclusory. Taking those allegations as true at this stage, the court found they supported an inference that Salesforce could use the data for its own purposes.
Regarding WESCA, the court did not accept Honda’s argument that using the chat function necessarily established express consent or that the plaintiffs knew or should have known about interception. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss and denied Honda’s motion to dismiss. It also denied as moot the portion concerning nationwide class certification. Honda’s answer was due within the period required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court continued the case-management conference from March 15 to March 22, 2024.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.