Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, of the Northern District of California, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations.
Background: Purchasers of smart televisions alleged that Samba TV used software embedded in their televisions to collect device identifiers and detailed video-viewing activity from cable, streaming, and other viewing platforms.
This action was initially filed on behalf of Plaintiffs McDonald, DellaSala, Warden, and Tophoney—all non-California residents. (Dkt. No. 1.) McDonald voluntarily dismissed his claims (Dkt. No. 23), and the Court dismissed the claims as to the other Plaintiffs because the California privacy laws they sued under do not apply to conduct that occurs to non-residents outside California. Plaintiffs also failed to plausibly allege a common law intrusion upon seclusion claim or a Video Privacy Protection Act claim. (Dkt. No. 49.) Plaintiffs have since amended their complaint to plead claims on behalf of five California residents as well as DellaSala, Warden, and Tophoney. (Dkt. No. 56.) Plaintiffs bring nationwide claims for (1) violation of common law invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion); (2) invasion of privacy under the California Constitution; (3) violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Cal. Pen. Code § 631; (4) violation of CIPA, § 632; (5) violation of CIPA, §§ 638.50, 638.51; (6) violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), Cal. Pen. Code § 502; (7) violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510; (8) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; (9) unjust enrichment; and (10) injunctive relief. (Dkt. No. 56.)
According to the operative complaint, Samba combined viewing information with a network of identifiers to create individualized consumer profiles, infer characteristics such as political interests and demographics, and sell those profiles to advertisers.
Analysis: The court concluded that plaintiffs adequately alleged a concrete privacy injury and had Article III standing. The court emphasized allegations that Samba collected detailed viewing histories, linked that information to persistent identifiers, created comprehensive user profiles, and disclosed the resulting profiles to third parties for advertising purposes. The court found these allegations sufficiently analogous to traditional privacy harms because they implicated consumers’ ability to control sensitive information about their viewing habits and personal interests.
The court also allowed the California constitutional privacy and intrusion-upon-seclusion claims to proceed. Accepting the allegations as true, the court held that consumers could reasonably expect privacy in detailed video-viewing histories and that the alleged aggregation, profiling, and commercialization of that data could constitute a highly offensive intrusion. The court repeatedly emphasized that these fact-intensive privacy questions were not appropriate for resolution at the pleading stage.
On the statutory claims, the court rejected Samba’s challenge to the section 632 claim and declined to dismiss the pen-register and trap-and-trace claims under sections 638.50 and 638.51. The court focused on the statutory definitions and whether they encompass any qualifying “device or process” that captures routing, addressing, or signaling information from electronic communications. The court refused to limit the statute to traditional telephone surveillance technologies.
The court reached a different conclusion under section 631. Although plaintiffs adequately alleged that Samba collected information revealing the contents of communications rather than mere record information, the complaint did not plausibly allege that Samba read or learned those contents while the communications were in transit, as required by the statute. The court therefore dismissed the section 631 claim while granting leave to amend.
The court likewise dismissed the CDAFA and UCL claims. It found plaintiffs had not adequately alleged the type of loss or damage required under CDAFA and had not alleged the economic injury necessary for UCL standing. By contrast, the Federal Wiretap Act claim survived. Although Samba plausibly qualified as a participant in the communications, the court held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged the crime-tort exception could apply because the complaint described an alleged invasion of privacy undertaken to monetize consumer data.
Dellasala v. Samba TV, Inc., No. 3:25-CV-03470-JSC, 2026 WL 1138358 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2026).
