Revitch v. New Moosejaw, LLC

Opinion

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 47, 48

NaviStone's and Moosejaw's motions to dismiss are denied as to Revitch's claims under sections 631 and 635 the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the common law, and the California Constitution. The motions are granted as to his claims under section 632 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

I. Standing

Revitch has Article III standing to sue the defendants for each of the [*2]  alleged violations of California law. He alleges that Moosejaw helped NaviStone eavesdrop on his communications and scan his computer for files revealing his identity. Being eavesdropped upon is a concrete (though intangible) harm, as is having one's computer files surreptitiously scanned. See In re Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, 402 F. Supp. 3d 767, 2019 WL 4261048, at *8 (N.D. Cal. 2019). These intrusions are not at all like the sort of "bare procedural violation" that the Supreme Court has said would fall short of an Article III injury. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549, 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016). The privacy harms are fairly traceable to the violations of California law that Revitch alleges, and he may sue to have them remedied.¹

II. California Invasion of Privacy Act

Moosejaw and NaviStone moved to dismiss Revitch's claims under sections 631, 632, and 635 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The motions are denied as to the claims under sections 631 and 635, but granted as to the claims under section 632.

Section 631. According to the complaint, Moosejaw embedded into its webpages a mechanism that allowed NaviStone to eavesdrop on Revitch's communications. These allegations are enough to sustain the section 631 claims against both defendants.

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