Cody v. Ring LLC

Background

Annette Cody alleged that, during a September 2022 chat with a Ring customer-service representative through Ring’s website, Ring allowed Kustomer, Inc. to intercept the chat messages through software connected to the website. She alleged that the messages were routed through Kustomer’s server in real time, recorded without her consent, and used or exploited for mutual gain. Cody filed a putative class action and asserted two claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act: California Penal Code sections 631(a) and 632.7.

Ring moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The National Retail Federation separately asked for permission to file a friend-of-the-court brief. The court considered the allegations in Cody’s amended complaint as true for purposes of the dismissal motion.

Section 631(a)

The court explained that Section 631(a) addresses several types of conduct, including wiretapping, learning the contents of a communication while it is being transmitted, using information obtained through those activities, and aiding or conspiring with someone who commits those acts.

The court rejected any direct-liability theory against Ring under the first three clauses because those provisions apply to third-party eavesdropping, not to a participant’s recording of its own conversation. Cody instead argued that Ring was responsible under the fourth clause for aiding and abetting Kustomer’s alleged violations.

As to the first clause, the court held that its text covers telephone and telegraph technology, not internet communications. Because Cody alleged that she used her smartphone’s internet browser to access Ring’s website, rather than its telephonic function, the first clause could not support her claim.

As to the second clause, the court found that Cody adequately alleged a lack of consent but did not provide enough specific facts showing that Kustomer intercepted the chat while it was in transit. Allegations that the software was “plugged into” Ring’s website and that messages were routed through Kustomer’s server in real time were too vague to explain how or when the interception occurred. The court also found that Cody’s generalized allegations about Meta, Kustomer, and Ring harvesting or profiting from chat data did not sufficiently show that Kustomer could use the recorded interaction for another purpose.

Because Cody did not adequately plead a violation under the first or second clauses, the court held that she also did not state a claim under the third clause or an aiding-and-abetting claim under the fourth clause.

Section 632.7

Section 632.7 applies to communications transmitted between specified types of telephones, including cellular, cordless, and landline telephones. The court held that using a smartphone to access a website chat did not satisfy this requirement. It rejected Cody’s request to treat Ring’s computer equipment as a landline telephone, concluding that such an interpretation would contradict the statute’s text. The court dismissed the Section 632.7 claim with prejudice, meaning that claim could not be brought again through an amended complaint.

Amicus brief and disposition

The court denied the National Retail Federation’s motion for leave to file an amicus brief because the proposed filing repeated the parties’ arguments and provided no additional useful insight or legal authority.

The court granted Ring’s motion to dismiss the Section 631(a) claim, with leave to amend. Cody’s second amended complaint was due by March 25, 2024, and the court stated that no additional parties or claims could be added without the court’s permission or Ring’s agreement. The court granted Ring’s motion to dismiss the Section 632.7 claim with prejudice and denied the National Retail Federation’s motion for leave to file an amicus brief.