{"id":2524,"date":"2025-11-04T18:54:29","date_gmt":"2025-11-04T22:54:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2524"},"modified":"2025-11-04T21:50:02","modified_gmt":"2025-11-05T01:50:02","slug":"california-federal-court-dismisses-adtech-class-action-for-failure-to-specify-highly-offensive-invasion-of-privacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/11\/04\/california-federal-court-dismisses-adtech-class-action-for-failure-to-specify-highly-offensive-invasion-of-privacy\/","title":{"rendered":"California Federal Court Dismisses Adtech Class Action For Failure To Specify Highly Offensive Invasion Of Privacy"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin R. Donoho, Tyler Zmick, and Hayley Ryan<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 On October 30, 2025, in DellaSalla, et al. v. Samba TV, Inc., 2025 WL 3034069 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed\u00a0<\/a>a complaint brought by TV viewers against a TV technology company alleging that the company\u2019s provision of advertising technology in the plaintiffs\u2019 smart TVs committed the common law tort of invasion of privacy and violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (\u201cVPPA\u201d), the California Invasion of Privacy Act (\u201cCIPA\u201d), and California\u2019s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (\u201cCDAFA\u201d).\u00a0 The ruling is significant as it shows that in the hundreds of adtech class actions across the nation alleging that adtech violates privacy laws, plaintiffs do not plausibly state a common law claim for invasion of privacy unless they specify in the complaint the information allegedly disclosed and explain how such a disclosure was highly offensive. \u00a0The case is also significant in that it shows that the VPPA does not apply to video analytics companies, and that California privacy statutes do not apply extraterritorially to plaintiffs located outside California.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This case is one of a legion of class actions that plaintiffs have filed nationwide alleging that third-party technology captured plaintiffs\u2019 information and used it to facilitate targeted advertising. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This software, often called advertising technologies or \u201cadtech,\u201d is a common feature of millions of consumer products and websites in operation today.  In adtech class actions, the key issue is often a claim brought under a federal or state wiretap act, a consumer fraud act, or the VPPA, because plaintiffs often seek millions (and sometimes even billions) of dollars, even from midsize companies, on the theory that hundreds of thousands of consumers or website visitors, times $2,500 per claimant in statutory damages under the VPPA, for example, equals a huge amount of damages.  Plaintiffs have filed the bulk of these types of lawsuits to date against healthcare providers, but they have filed suits against companies that span nearly every industry including retailers, consumer products, universities, and the adtech companies themselves.  Several of these cases have resulted in multimillion-dollar settlements, several have been dismissed, and the vast majority remain undecided. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In DellaSalla,<\/em> the plaintiffs brought suit against a TV technology company that embedded a chip with analytics software in plaintiffs\u2019 smart TVs.  Id. <\/em>at *1, 5.  According to the plaintiffs, the company intercepted the plaintiffs\u2019 \u201cprivate video-viewing data in real time, including what [t]he[y] watched on cable television and streaming services,\u201d and tied this information to each plaintiff’s unique anonymized identifier in order to \u201cfacilitate targeted advertising,\u201d all allegedly without the plaintiffs\u2019 consent.  Id. <\/em>at *1.  Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs claimed that the TV technology company violated the CIPA, CDAFA, and VPPA, and committed the common-law tort of invasion of privacy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The company moved to dismiss, arguing that the CIPA and CDAFA did not apply because the plaintiffs were located outside California, that the VPPA did not apply because the TV technology company was not a \u201cvideo tape service provider,\u201d and that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a highly offensive violation of a privacy interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court agreed with the TV technology company and dismissed the complaint in its entirety, with leave to amend any existing claims but not to add any additional claims without further leave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the CIPA and CDAFA claims, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not allege that any unlawful conduct occurred in California.  Instead, the plaintiffs alleged that the challenged conduct occurred in their home states of North Carolina and Oklahoma.  Id. <\/em>at *1, 3-4.  For these reasons, the Court dismissed the CIPA and CDAFA claims, finding that these statutes do not apply extraterritorially.  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the VPPA claim, the Court addressed the VPPA\u2019s definition of  \u201cvideo tape service provider,\u201d which is \u201cany person, engaged in the business … of rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *5.  The plaintiffs argued that the TV technology company was a video tape service provider \u201cbecause its technology is incorporated in Smart TVs, which deliver prerecorded videos.  [The defendant] advertises its technology precisely as providing a \u2018better viewing experience\u2019 \u2018immersive on-screen experiences\u2019 and a \u2018more tailored ad experience\u2019 through its technology.\u201d  Id.  <\/em>The Court rejected this argument. It held that \u201c[t]his allegation does not plausibly support an inference, [the defendant]\u2014an analytics software provider\u2014facilitated the exchange of a video product. Rather, the allegations support an inference [the defendant] collected information about Plaintiffs\u2019 use<\/em> of a video product, but not that it provided the product itself.\u201d  Id. <\/em>(emphasis added).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the common law claim for invasion of privacy, the TV technology company argued that this claim failed because the plaintiffs \u201chave no expectation of privacy in the information it collects and Plaintiffs have not alleged a highly offensive intrusion.\u201d  In examining this argument, the Court noted that Plaintiff had only provided \u201cvague references\u201d to the information supposedly intercepted.  Id. <\/em>at *4.  This information included video-viewing data generally (none specified) tied to an anonymized identifier.  Id. <\/em>at *1, 5.  Thus, the Court agreed with the defendant\u2019s argument and found that plaintiffs identified \u201cno embarrassing, invasive, or otherwise private information collected\u201d and no explanation of how the tracking of video viewing history with an anonymized ID caused plaintiffs \u201cto experience any kind of harm that is remotely similar to the \u2018highly offensive\u2019 inferences or disclosures that were actionable at common law.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *5.  In sum, the Court concluded that \u201cPlaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a highly offensive violation of a privacy interest.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

DellaSala <\/em>provides powerful precedent for any company opposing adtech class action claims (1) brought under statutes enacted in states other than the plaintiffs\u2019 place of residence; (2) brought under the federal VPPA where the company allegedly transmitted video usage information, as opposed to any videos themselves; and (3) alleging common-law invasion of privacy, where the plaintiffs have not specified the information disclosed and why such a disclosure is highly offensive. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The last point is a recurring theme in adtech class actions.  Just as this plaintiff suing a TV technology company did not plausibly state a common-law claim for invasion of privacy without identifying the videos watched and any highly offensive harm in associating those videos with an anonymized ID, so did a plaintiff not plausibly state a claim for invasion of privacy by way of alleging adtech\u2019s disclosure of protected health information (\u201cPHI\u201d), without specifying the PHI allegedly disclosed (as we blogged about here<\/a>).  These cases show that for adtech plaintiffs to plausibly plead claims for invasion of privacy, they at least need to identify what allegedly private information was disclosed and explain how the alleged disclosure was highly offensive.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin R. Donoho, Tyler Zmick, and Hayley Ryan Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 On October 30, 2025, in DellaSalla, et al. v. Samba TV, Inc., 2025 WL 3034069 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed\u00a0a complaint brought by … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “California Federal Court Dismisses Adtech Class Action For Failure To Specify Highly Offensive Invasion Of Privacy”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,122,12,145],"class_list":["post-2524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-privacy-class-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":122,"user_id":686,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jrdonoho","display_name":"Justin Donoho","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/02\/donohojustin-1-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":12,"user_id":578,"is_guest":0,"slug":"tzzmick","display_name":"Tyler Z. Zmick","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/zmicktyler-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":145,"user_id":740,"is_guest":0,"slug":"hhryan","display_name":"Hayley Ryan","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/09\/ryanhayley.jpg","url2x":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/09\/ryanhayley.jpg"},"0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2524","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2524"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}