Judge Denies Plaintiff's Remand Request in Adult Products Privacy Case
U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner for Central California in Los Angeles denied the motion to remand of a Jane Doe plaintiff who sued PHE, owner of adult products website Adam & Eve, for privacy violations, said his order (docket 2:24-cv-01065)…
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.
Monday. Doe filed a class action complaint against PHE Jan. 3, alleging that after she used the Adam & Eve website, the company disclosed her personal sexual information and IP address to Google via Google Analytics without her consent. Doe originally filed the action against PHE in Central California district court Sept. 25. The case was dismissed and Doe then added Google to the lawsuit and filed in state court; Google removed the case to district court in February (see 2403110004). The defendants argued that Doe didn’t meet the local controversy exception's three requirements for a district court to decline federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA): that two-thirds of the putative class are California citizens; that the principal injuries from the alleged conduct were incurred in California; and that no similar class actions have been filed vs. the defendant in the past three years. The court disagreed with Doe’s contention that the class was comprised solely of California residents. On the injuries question, Doe failed to convince the court to depart from the “numerous California district courts which have routinely held that artificially restricting a nationwide injury to appear purely Californian in nature does not warrant remand”; therefore, the principal injuries requirement wasn't met, said the order. In a separate order, Klausner dismissed Doe’s complaint, saying she can refile within seven days of the order “with her true legal name.” In response to the court’s order to show cause for proceeding by pseudonym, Doe argued that she would otherwise be forced to publicly reveal her purchase history, which would reveal her sexual practices, preferences and orientation, which could lead to public ridicule and social stigmatization, said the order. Doe’s purchase history may subject her to “severe ridicule and stigma so as to outweigh public interest,” but that harm can be avoided “simply by obtaining a protective order and filing that information under seal,” the order said.