Judge Ann Hwang, in the Central District of California, dismissed claims for invasion of privacy under California law and the state constitution, finding that the plaintiff consented to the defendant’s privacy policy during the online booking process. The court found that the privacy policy was sufficiently clear and further amendment of the complaint would be futile.
- Consent Through Online Agreements: The online agreement used during the booking process was “clickwrap.” Users were required to affirmatively check a box agreeing to the “rate and room policies,” which included the privacy policy accessible via a conspicuous hyperlink. The court held that this method provided adequate notice and manifested user assent to the terms, including the privacy policy.
Here, the agreement resembles a clickwrap agreement, although the particular policy at issue is only accessible by clicking a separate link.2 A user is required to affirmatively check a box that states “I agree to rate and room policies of this reservation.*” before being able to confirm the booking, but the full list of terms is not detailed and is instead linked. Bhardwaj Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9. Plaintiff does not deny that she clicked this box. Plaintiff argues that she did not assent to the terms of Defendant’s Privacy Policy because the Privacy Policy was not “reasonably conspicuous.” Opp’n at 8. First, Plaintiff argues that language of the checkbox does not put users on notice that the privacy policy is included in the “rate and room policies.” Id. at 9. Next, Plaintiff argues that the Privacy Policy is not immediately apparent because it is under a “PLEASE READ” label that must be expanded, and the Privacy Policy is contained in a hyperlink. Opp’n at 9.
- Adequacy of Privacy Policy Disclosures: The plaintiff argued that the privacy policy did not sufficiently disclose the sharing of guest information with third parties. The court disagreed, noting that the policy explicitly described the types of personal information collected (such as names, contact information, and usage data) and disclosed that such information could be shared with third-party marketing and advertising providers. The court found these disclosures to be adequate and consistent with industry standards.
- Statutory and Constitutional Claims: The plaintiff’s claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the California Constitution both require a lack of consent. Because the court found that the plaintiff had consented to the privacy policy, these claims could not proceed. The court also noted that the plaintiff failed to allege new facts that would alter this analysis or clarify the nature of the “guest record” information at issue.
- No Leave to Amend: The court denied leave to amend, citing the plaintiff’s prior opportunity to amend the complaint and the lack of any proposed new facts or legal theories that could cure the deficiencies. The court concluded that further amendment would be futile.
Snyder v. G6 Hosp. LLC, No. 5:24-CV-02423-AH-(SHKX), 2025 WL 2426613 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2025).
