‘No Amendment Can Cure’ CIPA Claims, Says JetBlue in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff Anne Lightoller’s complaint is one of 17 filed by her Hausfeld counsel in the past seven months, “each pleading near verbatim identical facts based on various website operators’ alleged collection of innocuous data plaintiffs voluntarily provided online,” said JetBlue’s…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
reply Tuesday (docket) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego in support of its motion to dismiss. Lightoller’s February complaint alleges JetBlue used technology from FullStory to record her mouse movements, clicks and keystrokes on websites she visited, in violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) (see 2302270025). Her pro forma complaint “is subject to dismissal for multiple reasons that no amendment can cure,” said JetBlue. Lightoller concedes she alleged only a “bare procedural violation” of the CIPA, which is “deficient” under case law “to maintain suit in federal court,” it said. Enforcement of Lightoller’s state law claims “would have a significant effect on JetBlue’s services” offered on its website, and that’s an outcome that's “forbidden” under the Americans With Disabilities Act, it said. Lightoller’s claims arise from her browsing flights and reservations online, which are “core airline services” under 9th Circuit law, it said. Enforcement would require JetBlue to tailor its website to a “patchwork of conflicting laws” across the U.S., it said. Lightoller also alleges “no actionable CIPA claim,” it said. She alleges “only conclusions and no facts that plausibly demonstrate that JetBlue’s collection of anonymous information she provided” on the website so that it could generate flight options in response to her request “invaded her privacy and was highly offensive,” it said.