Gershfeld v. Teamviewer Us

Gershfeld v. Teamviewer Us

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Dkt. 28]

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jack Gershfeld brings this putative class action against Defendant Teamviewer US, Inc. and unnamed Does, alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and California's Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"). (Dkt. 20 [First Amended Complaint, hereinafter "FAC"].)

On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff purchased a year-long subscription to Defendant's remote-access software. (Id. ¶ 13.) To complete the purchase, Plaintiff was required to provide his name as well as his credit card number, expiration date, and verification code. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that a year later in September 2020, Defendant renewed his subscription without his authorization by disclosing his private credit card information to Defendant's credit card processor. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff alleges that the unauthorized exfiltration and disclosure [*2]  of his personal information to a third party violated the CCPA. (Id. ¶¶ 19-23); see Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150. He also alleges that Defendant violated the UCL by unlawfully charging him for services that he did not authorize, need, or want. (Id. ¶¶ 25-37.) In opposition, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was informed multiple times that his subscription would automatically renew unless "either party notifie[d] the other party no less than twenty-eight (28) days prior to the end of the [subscription term]." (Dkt. 30 [Declaration of Helaine De Tomasi, hereinafter "Tomasi Decl."]; Dkts. 30-2-30-5 [Exhibits].)¹

Now before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's FAC. (Dkt. 28 [hereinafter "Mot."].) For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.²

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.