Garner v. Amazon.com, Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 May 2022
• Docket Number: Cause No. C21-0750RSL
• Citation: 603 F.Supp.3d 985
• Parties: Kaeli GARNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

603 F.Supp.3d 985

Kaeli GARNER, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants.

Cause No. C21-0750RSL

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle.

Signed May 6, 2022

Alec Leslie, Pro Hac Vice, Max Stuart Roberts, Pro Hac Vice, Bursor & Fisher PA, New York, NY, Carol C. Villegas, Pro Hac Vice, David Saldamando, Pro Hac Vice, Guillaume Buell, Pro Hac Vice, Michael P. Canty, Pro Hac Vice, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, Alexander Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, Maxwell H. Sawyer, Pro Hac Vice, Stuart A. Davidson, Pro Hac Vice, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Boca Raton, FL, Brendan S. Thompson, Pro Hac Vice, Charles J. LaDuca, Pro Hac Vice, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Washington, DC, Brian C. Gudmundson, Pro Hac Vice, Jason P. Johnston, Pro Hac Vice, Michael J. Laird, Pro Hac Vice, Zimmerman Reed LLP, Minneapolis, MN, Rebecca A. Peterson, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, L. Timothy Fisher, Pro Hac Vice, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Walnut Creek, CA, Michael J. Flannery, Pro Hac Vice, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Saint Louis, MO, Caleb L. Marker, Zimmerman Reed LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Manish Borde, Borde Law PLLC, Seattle, WA, Bradley S. Keller, Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff Kaeli Garner.

Alec Leslie, Pro Hac Vice, Max Stuart Roberts, Pro Hac Vice, Bursor & Fisher PA, New York, NY, Carol C. Villegas, Pro Hac Vice, David Saldamando, Pro Hac Vice, Guillaume Buell, Pro Hac Vice, Michael P. Canty, Pro Hac Vice, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, Alexander Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, Maxwell H. Sawyer, Pro Hac Vice, Stuart A. Davidson, Pro Hac Vice, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Boca Raton, FL, Brendan S. Thompson, Pro Hac Vice, Charles J. LaDuca, Pro Hac Vice, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Washington, DC, Brian C. Gudmundson, Pro Hac Vice, Jason P. Johnston, Pro Hac Vice, Michael J. Laird, Pro Hac Vice, Zimmerman Reed LLP, Minneapolis, MN, L. Timothy Fisher, Pro Hac Vice, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Walnut Creek, CA, Michael J. Flannery, Pro Hac Vice, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Saint Louis, MO, Caleb L. Marker, Zimmerman Reed LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Bradley S. Keller, Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff Ricky Babani.

Alec Leslie, Pro Hac Vice, Max Stuart Roberts, Pro Hac Vice, Bursor & Fisher PA, New York, NY, Michael P. Canty, Pro Hac Vice, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, Alexander Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, Maxwell H. Sawyer, Pro Hac Vice, Stuart A. Davidson, Pro Hac Vice, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Boca Raton, FL, Brendan S. Thompson, Pro Hac Vice, Charles J. LaDuca, Pro Hac Vice, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Washington, DC, Brian C. Gudmundson, Pro Hac Vice, Jason P. Johnston, Pro Hac Vice, Michael J. Laird, Pro Hac Vice, Zimmerman Reed LLP, Minneapolis, MN, L. Timothy Fisher, Pro Hac Vice, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Walnut Creek, CA, Michael J. Flannery, Pro Hac Vice, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Saint Louis, MO, Caleb L. Marker, Zimmerman Reed LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Bradley S. Keller, Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs Mark Fladd, Stephanie Fladd, Jodi Brust, John Dannelly, Diane McNealy, Michael McNealy, Lisa Hovasse, Sandra Mirabile, Susan Lenehan, Jeffrey Hoyt, Lorlie Tesoriero, James Robinson, Rosa Comacho, Eric Dlugoss, Ronald Johnson, Selena Johnson, Caron Watkins, Kelly Miller, Julie Dlugoss.

Armen Nercessian, Pro Hac Vice, Esther D. Galan, Pro Hac Vice, Garner Kropp, Pro Hac Vice, Jedediah Wakefield, Pro Hac Vice, Laurence F. Pulgram, Pro Hac Vice, Tyler G. Newby, Pro Hac Vice, Fenwick & West, San Francisco, CA, Brian D. Buckley, Fenwick & West, Seattle, WA, for Defendants Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ "Motion to Dismiss First Amended Consolidated Complaint" (Dkt. # 63) and a "Request for Judicial Notice" in support of that motion (Dkt. # 64). Plaintiffs allege that (1) Amazon's Alexa devices record, permanently store, use, and transmit to third parties (including human reviewers) communications in the absence of a wake word and (2) plaintiffs reasonably expected that the devices would respond to a question or command only if the wake word were used and that, in doing so, the question or command would be stored only long enough to process the communication and generate a response. Plaintiffs further allege that Alexa devices are fully capable of functioning without the need to record, store, and/or share voice recordings. The named plaintiffs either live in a household with an Alexa device they registered themselves ("registered users") or live in a household with an Alexa device that was registered by someone else ("unregistered users").

In the pending motion to dismiss, defendants assert (a) that Washington law governs the claims of registered users, all of whom agreed to Amazon's Conditions of Use, (b) that all claims brought by registered users under other states’ laws must be dismissed in favor of Washington law, and (c) that the registered users have consented to the recordings at issue in the First Amended Consolidated Complaint and cannot plausibly allege a violation of Washington's wiretap law. With regards to unregistered users, defendants argue that they impliedly consented to the voice recordings under Washington law¹ because they knew or should have known the way Alexa works and because the recordings to which plaintiffs object are inherent in the technology plaintiffs used. Defendants seek dismissal of plaintiffs’ Washington Consumer Protection Act claims for failure to plausibly allege an unfair or deceptive practice or injury to business or property, dismissal of the Federal Wiretap Act claims because defendants were the intended recipients of the communications, and dismissal of the Federal Stored Communications Act claims for failure to plausibly allege that Alexa is an electronic communication service, that the recordings are in electronic storage, or that they were divulged to a third party.

The question for the Court on a motion to dismiss is whether the facts alleged in the complaint sufficiently state a "plausible" ground for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). In the context of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must "accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The Court's review is generally limited to the contents of the complaint. Campanelli v. Bockrath , 100 F.3d 1476, 1479 (9th Cir. 1996). "We are not, however, required to accept as true allegations that contradict exhibits attached to the Complaint or matters properly subject to judicial notice, or allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n , 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010).

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." [ ] Twombly , 550 U.S. [at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955]. A plausible claim includes "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." U.S. v. Corinthian Colls. , 655 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 [129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868] (2009) ). Under the pleading standards of Rule 8(a)(2), a party must make a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).... A complaint "that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ " Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555 ). Thus, "conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss." Adams v. Johnson , 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004).

Benavidez v. Cty. of San Diego , 993 F.3d 1134, 1144–45 (9th Cir. 2021). If the complaint fails to state a cognizable legal theory or fails to provide sufficient facts to support a claim, dismissal is appropriate. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc. , 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010).

Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties and having heard the arguments of counsel, the Court finds as follows:

A. Request for Judicial Notice

When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court's review is generally limited to the allegations of the complaint, documents attached to or incorporated by reference into the complaint, and matters of judicial notice. United States v. Ritchie , 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants assert that the First Amended Consolidated Complaint expressly references and/or is based upon three documents found on their website (the "Alexa and Alexa Device FAQs," the "Alexa Terms of Use," and "Alexa, Echo Devices, and Your Privacy") and a survey published on www.researchgate.net entitled "Privacy Attitudes of Smart Speaker Users." They request that the Court take judicial notice of the same.

1. Incorporation by Reference

A document that is not physically attached to a complaint may nevertheless be incorporated by reference into a complaint "if the plaintiff refers extensively to the document or the document forms the basis of the plaintiff's claim." Ritchie , 342 F.3d at 908. Mere reference to a document in the complaint is not sufficient: rather, the document must be integral to or form the basis of plaintiff's claims. Id. at 908-09. In addition, the document's authenticity must not be in question and there must be no disputed issues as to the document's relevance. Coto Settlement v....