at *1. The court found that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that communications were intercepted in transit, as required by § 631(a), which applies to internet communications. Id. at *637. The court ruled that the defendant was not directly liable for wiretapping because it was a party to the customer chats, and there was a “party exception” in CIPA. Id. at *7. The court stated that the plaintiff must first adequately allege that a third party violated the statute before asserting that the defendant aided and abetted the violation. Id. at *7-8. The court thus found that the plaintiff ’ s allegations were too vague and conclusory and thereby granted the motion to dismiss the § 631 claim. Id. at *8. The court, however, determined that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged violation of the § 632 claim, as the plaintiff explicitly alleged that the communications were intercepted when using a cellular phone and that he did not consent to the recording. Id. at *10. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendant ’ s motion to dismiss. Id. at *11.
33
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Duane Morris Privacy Class Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online