Katz-Lacabe v. Oracle America, Inc.

Background

Michael Katz-Lacabe and Dr. Jennifer Golbeck brought a putative data-privacy class action against Oracle America, Inc. They alleged that Oracle tracked internet activity across websites, collected location and financial data, created electronic profiles, and made information available to third parties without consent. The opinion addresses two causes of action in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint: a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act’s federal Wiretap Act and a Florida common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion claim.

The court had previously dismissed both claims with leave to amend. The Wiretap Act claim had been dismissed because the third-party websites that deployed Oracle’s tools had consented to the interceptions and the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged the wrongful intent needed to invoke the statute’s exception for interceptions made to commit a criminal or tortious act. The Florida claim had been dismissed because the plaintiffs had not identified a particular electronic space in which Plaintiff Golbeck had a reasonable expectation of privacy and into which Oracle intruded.

Federal Wiretap Act claim

The court granted Oracle’s motion to dismiss the Wiretap Act claim. It concluded that the new allegations—concerning statements by Oracle executives, alcohol-related profiling, an anonymous former employee’s comments, Oracle’s criticism of Google, political profiling, and alleged misrepresentations—did not plausibly show that Oracle collected or sold data with tortious intent. The court stated that an intent to track data and generate revenue, even if the conduct was invasive or later could be considered tortious, did not establish the required wrongful purpose.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the websites did not consent to the scope of Oracle’s data collection and later uses. The Wiretap Act is a one-party-consent statute, and the court found that the websites had chosen to deploy Oracle’s tools. The plaintiffs did not plausibly show that the websites’ consent was conditioned on limits concerning the types of data Oracle collected or how Oracle used it. The court also declined to allow another amendment based on information disclosed during discovery, finding that the new material did not plausibly establish the required tortious intent and largely repeated earlier allegations.

Florida intrusion-upon-seclusion claim

The court granted Oracle’s motion to dismiss the Florida claim. Under Florida law, the claim requires an intrusion into a private place that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The plaintiffs argued that Oracle intruded into Golbeck’s home and password-protected devices by collecting her browsing data.

The court held that those allegations did not identify an intrusion into a private place. It distinguished targeting a household for advertising from surveilling a home and reasoned that browsing activity shared with website operators and an internet service provider was not activity in a private place merely because it occurred while Golbeck was at home or used password-protected devices.

Sealing motions and disposition

The court granted both parties’ administrative motions to seal limited portions of their sur-reply briefs. It found that the material designated as sensitive was at least as sensitive as information previously allowed to be filed under seal.

Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the Florida intrusion-upon-seclusion claim without leave to amend and dismissed the federal Wiretap Act claim without leave to amend, concluding that further amendment would be futile. The parties’ administrative motions to seal were granted. Under the parties’ existing case schedule, Oracle was required to answer the Second Amended Class Action Complaint within 30 days of the order.