A fan of celeb LL Cool J filed a wiretapping swimsuit in opposition to Neighborhood.com (“Neighborhood”), claiming that Neighborhood accessed her textual content message to LL Cool J in violation of the federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privateness Act (“CIPA”). In an unpublished opinion highlighting that Part 632 of CIPA doesn’t shield communications which might be by nature a recorded medium, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. See Boulton v. Neighborhood.com, Inc., No. 23-3145, 2025 WL 314813 (ninth Cir. Jan. 28, 2025).
Neighborhood’s platform allegedly operates by offering “Neighborhood” cellphone numbers to celebrities, akin to LL Cool J, who can then share the Neighborhood numbers with followers. Plaintiff Cyndy Boulton texted LL Cool J’s Neighborhood cellphone quantity, which she allegedly believed to be the celeb’s private cellphone quantity. Because it turned out, in accordance with plaintiff, her textual content message was despatched to Neighborhood, which despatched an automatic response requesting that she join the Neighborhood platform to speak with LL Cool J. Plaintiff introduced a putative class motion in opposition to Neighborhood, asserting that Neighborhood unlawfully wiretapped her communications with LL Cool J in violation of the federal Wiretap Act and CIPA.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court docket’s dismissal of every of the plaintiff’s claims on the next grounds:
- No Confidential Communication Underneath CIPA § 632: The Ninth Circuit held that Boulton’s textual content message will not be a “confidential communication” protected by Part 632 CIPA. A “confidential communication” is statutorily outlined to exclude a communication made in “any . . . circumstance by which the events to the communication might moderately anticipate that the communication could also be overheard or recorded.” Cal. Penal Code § 632(c). Because the plaintiff’s “textual content messages are by nature recorded,” the Ninth Circuit held that her textual content “was not a ‘confidential communication’ protected by § 632.” Because the Ninth Circuit defined, this conclusion is in line with choices by “California appellate courts [that] have held that the exclusion can apply to web chat messages.”
- No Acquisition In Transit Underneath Federal Wiretap Act and CIPA § 631: The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff additionally did not allege that her textual content message was accessed “throughout transmission” or “in transit,” as required beneath the federal Wiretap Act and Part 631 of CIPA. Reasonably, “the one logical conclusion from the information alleged in her grievance is that she texted a Neighborhood quantity and the textual content was obtained at that quantity” by Neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed settled precedent requiring plaintiffs asserting claims beneath these provisions to allege {that a} communication was “acquired throughout transmission, not whereas it’s in digital storage.”
- No Transmission Between Telephones Underneath CIPA § 632.7: Lastly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s remaining declare beneath Part 632.7 of CIPA, as a result of the plaintiff “has not alleged that her textual content to LL Cool J was a transmission between two telephones as plainly required by the statute.” As a substitute, the plaintiff alleged solely that “she texted LL Cool J’s Neighborhood quantity and that Neighborhood is a ‘social media platform,’” and she or he subsequently “can’t allege that her textual content was obtained by a cellphone.”
This resolution illustrates essential defenses out there to corporations dealing with wiretapping claims beneath the federal Wiretap Act and CIPA.
