CIPA Plaintiff's Opposition Urges Denial of Tonal’s Motion to Dismiss

over the past two years, said Jones’ opposition to Tonal’s motion to dismiss. All the cases specifically involve companies “employing a third party to secretly record private conversations with their website visitors,” it said. In that context, defendant Tonal, a maker of home gym equipment, “predictably asserts arguments that have been variably successful at dismissing or delaying those cases, or requiring amendment to the pleadings,” said Jones’ opposition. But “a broader view” of the present dispute is warranted “to dispel Tonal’s oversimplification,” it said. Companies’ deployment of powerful, highly profitable, “privacy shattering” technology to secretly monitor the American public -- combined with a lack of federal law to address these issues -- “have left consumers with few options to abate the rapid erosion of their privacy,” it said. The conduct prohibited by laws like CIPA ultimately remains prohibited,” and the teeth of these laws remain necessarily sharp to protect consumers from unlawful invasions of privacy,” said Jones’ opposition. “The extent to which various plaintiffs have launched an array of similar lawsuits against companies for CIPA violations across various industries is but a small reflection of the vast and ubiquitous technological campaign that companies are waging to secretly absorb Americans’ highly profitable private information,” it said. “That is the context of this case.” Tonal’s arguments fail in support of its motion to dismiss, because the complaint demonstrates Jones “pled every fact necessary to show the unlawful conduct of Tonal under every claim she asserts,” it said. For these reasons, Tonal’s motion should be denied, it said.