Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 255
granted the motions. First, the defendants Naver and Naver Cloud argued that the
plaintiffs' claims against them should be dismissed because the two "South Korean
companies do not have sufficient contacts with California to establish personal
jurisdiction.” Id. at *10. The court agreed that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts that
show that Naver or Naver Cloud engaged in intentional acts "expressly aimed" at the
forum state. Id. The court also determined that the plaintiffs had not plead sufficient
facts to establish that the Foreign LINE defendants purposefully directed their activities
toward California or purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting
activities in California. Id. at *15. Further, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs'
intrusion upon seclusion and California constitutional privacy claims should be
dismissed because the “plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their facial
image when using a selfie app to modify their image.” Id. at *16. The court found that
the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a cognizable privacy interest in their facial biometric
information, but their allegations for intrusion upon seclusion or invasion of privacy were
not sufficient to state a claim. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that
the defendants "maliciously and without the consent of all parties to the communication,
intercepted, received, or assisted in intercepting or receiving a communication
transmitted between" cellular devices as required to show maliciousness under the
California Invasion of Privacy Act. Finally, the court opined that the plaintiffs had not
alleged maliciousness, and failed to state a viable claim under the section. For these
reasons, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
In Renderos, et al. v. Clearview AI, Inc., Case No. RG-21096895 (Cal. Super. Ct. Nov.
18, 2022), plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that the defendant illegally scoured the
internet for photographs and stored them in a for-purchase database after it subjected
them to biometric analysis in violation of the California constitution, California’s
consumer protection and privacy laws, and California common law. The defendant
moved to dismiss and the court denied the motion. The defendant argued its actions
constituted speech protected by the First Amendment. The court rejected the
defendant’s argument that its biometric analysis and database maintenance containing
photographs were speech protected by the First Amendment. The court reasoned that
there was no First Amendment right to appropriate a photograph or likeness of another
person and then take that information to use it for a business which makes a profit
without consent. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated claims for
which relief could be granted by asserting that the defendant extracted the plaintiffs’
face prints, did biometric analysis, maintained the analysis in a database, and sold the
information for profit. The court therefore denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
254
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
