This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/07/2019 at 17:32:39 (UTC).

Callan, et al. v. Google LLC (Consolidated Action/LEAD CASE)

Case Summary

On 03/13/2018 Callan filed an Other lawsuit against Google LLC Consolidated Action/LEAD CASE. This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Stoelker, James L and Walsh, Brian C. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******4895

  • Filing Date:

    03/13/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judges

Stoelker, James L

Walsh, Brian C

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Smith, Jacquie

Summers, Brenda

Tedder, Anneil

Tanega, Reginald

Rowland, Maureen

Brown, Lisa

Mrvos, Janet

Rodriguez, Xavier

Estabrook, Richard

Martucci, Iraida

Khan, Haris

Beoshanz, Ervin

Murray, John

Lindsay, Debra

Putnam, Terry

Boom, Gregory

Mims, Jamlesha

Wing, Kerry

Defendant

Google LLC

Other

Superior Court of California

39 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Gallo, Ray Edwin

Valerian, Dominic R

Defendant Attorneys

Somvichian, Whitty

Smith, Amy McCowan

Wong, Kyle Christopher

Rhodes, Michael Graham

Johnson, Eric C

Other Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Statement: Case Management Conference

2018-07-06 Joint Case Management Statement.pdf: Comment: HRG 7/13/18 Case Management Statement

Dismissal

Dismissal: Comment: Partial * Dismissal Without Prejudice of the Complaint by Plaintiffs Richard Estabrook, Kerry Wing, Haris Khan, and John Pallavinci only

Notice

180430 Notice payment complex fee flg.pdf: Comment: Plaintiffs' Notice of Payment of Complex Case Fee

Notice

2018-04-30 Def Not Pymnt-Complex Case Fee.pdf: Comment: Defendant Google LLC's Notice of Payment of Complex Case Fee

Amended Complaint Filed - No Fee

180426 First Amended Complaint flg.pdf: Comment: First Amended Complaint

Order: Deeming Case Complex

Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/BCW

Dismissal

Dismissal Partial: Comment: Partial * Dismissal Without Prejudice of the Complaint by Plaintiff Xavier Rodriguez only

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 6-26-18 to 7-13-18: Comment: CMC reset from 6/26/18 to 7/13/18

Order

Order and Notice of Reassignment of Case to D1 BCW pending complexity review: Comment: Order & Notice of Reassignment of Case (pending complexity review) - signed/BCW

Request: Judicial Notice

Request Judicial Notice: Comment: HRG 11/16/18 Request for Judicial Notice

Memorandum: Points and Authorities

Memorandum Points and Authorities: Comment: HRG 11/16/18 Memo of Points & Authorities

Motion: Strike

Motion Strike: Comment: HRG 11/16/18 Motion to Strike Class Allegations in Second Amended Complaint

Exhibit List (Party)

Ex. A43-58 -Wong Exhibit 43-58.pdf: Comment: HRG 11/16/18 Exhibits A43-A58 to Johnson Decl

Exhibit List (Party)

Ex. A1-42 - Wong Dec.pdf: Comment: HRG 11/16/18 Exhibits A1-A42 to Johnson Decl

Complaint: Amended

Complaint Second Amended: Comment: Second Amended Complaint

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order Granting Plaintiffs Leave to File Second Amended Complaint: Comment: Stipulation & Order Granting Plaintiffs Leave to File Second Amended Complaint - signed/BCW

Dismissal

Dismissal: Comment: Partial * Dismissal Without Prejudice as to Plaintiffs Ervin Beoshanz, Debra Lindsay, and Terry Putnam only

Notice

Notice CMC set for 11-16-18 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 11/16/18 at 10am in D1

55 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/13/2019
  • Hearing: Demurrer - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Comment: [Reset from 4/26/19] Demurrer by Defendant Google LLC to First Consolidated Amended Complaint * out-of-state authorities to be lodged by 5/15/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: (4th CMC) Discovery has been stayed since 4/26/18, when the case was deemed complaint. First Amended Complaint filed 4/26/18. Second Amended Complaint filed 8/1/18. Demurrer set for 11/16/18; moving papers due by 9/10/18. Consolidated with: (1) Mojica v. Google LLC, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV334771, filed 9/19/18; (2) Cabezas-Jones v. Google LLC, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV334696, filed 9/10/18; (3) Aleman v. Google LLC, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV334369, filed 9/4/18. Related Case: In Re Google, Inc. Gmail Litigation, U.S. District Court. Northern District of California, Case No. 5:13-md-02430-LHK, filed 4/1/13, terminated 7/14/14. At the 11/16/18 CMC, the parties were ordered to meet and confer re discovery and protective order. First Consolidated Amended Complaint filed 1/15/19.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2019
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Comment: Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 7-26-19 to 9-13-19: Comment: CMC reset from 7/26/19 to 9/13/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order and Notice of Rescheduled Hearing from 7-26-19 to 9-13-19: Comment: Order & Notice of Rescheduled Hearing, from 7/26/19 to 9/13/19 - signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Hearing: Demurrer - FIRST CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT: Stipulation and Order re Briefing Schedule: Demurrer to First Consolidated Amended Complaint HRG 4-26-19: Memorandum Points and Authorities HRG 4-26-19: Whitty Somvichian Declaration HRG 4-26-19: Proof of Service Electronic: Statement: Proof of Service: Opposition: Order Continuing Hearing and Requiring Lodging of Out-of-State Authorities: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Result: Not Held; Comment: ***RESET TO 7/26/19*** Demurrer by Defendant Google LLC to First Consolidated Amended Complaint (filed 1/15/19) *** moving papers due 2/28/19; opposition due 3/28/19; reply due 4/11/19 - by stip & order entered 2/7/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order Continuing Hearing and Requiring Lodging of Out-of-State Authorities: Comment: Order Continuing Hearing and Requiring Lodging of Out-of-State Authorities - signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 4-26-19 to 7-26-19: Comment: CMC reset from 4/26/19 to 7/26/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: HRG Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
73 More Docket Entries
  • 04/09/2018
  • Notice: Related Cases - Comment: Relating: 5:10-CV-00194-MIIS- U.S District Court-Eastern District of Texas. Relating: SUCV 2011-02808-BLSI Suffolk Superior Court. Relating: CIV-1202715 Marin County Superior Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Comment: 35 (UL)- COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • Notice - Comment: of Appearance

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • Advance jury fee (Nonrefundable) - Comment: $150 deposited for all plfs

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: against: Google LLC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • First Paper Filed - Fee - Comment: Taken on Notice of Appearance

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • Summons: Issued/Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

S

wh

18CV 324895

Santa Clara - Civil

Ray E. Gallo (SBN 158903) rgallo@gallo.law

Dominic R. Valerian (SBN 240001) dvalerian@gallo.law

Nathaniel M. Simons (SBN 319065) nsimons@gallo.law

GALLO LLP

1604 Solano Ave., Suite B Berkeley, CA 94707

Phone: 415.257.8800

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

e

Electronically Filed

by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 8/1/2018 9:32 AM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #18CV324895 Envelope: 1786693

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

JOHN CALLAN, for himself and all others similarly situated, and GREGORY BOOM, MARCOS DIAZ, EWA ENRIQUE, EDWIN FREY, PATRICIA JACKSON, IRAIDA MARTUCCI, JANET MRVOS, JOHN MURRAY, MIKE OLLAR, MAUREEN ROWLAND, JACQUIE SMITH, STACEY STILL, BRENDA

Dept. 1 Hon. Brian C. Walsh

Case No. 18CV324895

CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

! | | DAMAGES BASED ON: SUMMERS, REGINALD TANEGA, ANNEIL TEDDER, and DESIREE 1. Violations of the California Invasion of Privacy

VALADEZ,

Plaintiffs,

Act, Cal. Pen. Code § 630 ef seq.

2. Violations of the New Hampshire Wiretapping

and Eavesdropping Statute, N.H. Rev. Stat. 570-

Vi A2

GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware Limited DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Liability Company, and DOES 1-1,000, inclusive,

Defendants. Introduction

1. Plaintiffs are individuals who have never subscribed to Defendant Google’s “free” email service known as Gmail and have never consented to Google intercepting the contents of their emails. Google nevertheless intercepted, scanned, analyzed, and cataloged the content of Plaintiffs’ emails to Gmail subscribers for advertising purposes in violation of state laws prohibiting the interception of electronic communications without the consent of all parties to the communication.

2. Plaintiff John Callan seeks to represent a class of all individuals in the State of California who, without having previously subscribed to Gmail, emailed an @gmail.com email address within one year of the filing of this action and before Google stopped pre-delivery processing of email content for advertising purposes in compliance with the federal injunction entered in Matera v. Google, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:15-cv-04062-LHK.

3. The allegations herein that relate to Plaintiffs” personal actions are made based on their personal knowledge. The balance are made on information and belief based on the investigation of counsel.

Parties

4, Plaintiffs are individuals who never subscribed to Gmail and never consented to Google intercepting the contents of their email. Plaintiff Iraida Martucci (the “New Hampshire Plaintiff”) resides in New Hampshire. All other Plaintiffs (the “California Plaintiffs”) reside in California. California and New Hampshire both prohibit the interception of electronic communications without the consent of all parties to the communication. Each Plaintiff sent unencrypted emails from his or her non-Gmail e-mail account to a Gmail user, which Google intercepted and analyzed for advertising purposes as alleged in detail below.

5, Class representative John Callan does not have and never had a Google or Gmail account of any kind. Plaintiff Callan sent one or more emails to an @gmail.com email address within one year of the filing of this action and before Google stopped pre-delivery processing of email sent to Gmail accounts for advertising purposes. Google intercepted and scanned all such

emails to acquire, interpret, and catalog its contents, for advertising purposes, without Plaintiff Callan's knowledge or consent. 6. Defendant Google LLC (“Google™), formerly known as Google, Inc., is a

Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Mountain View, California.

A W

7. Does 1 through 1,000 are the principals, agents, partners, affiliates, officers, directors, shareholders, creditors, members, employees, managers, joint venturers, co-venturers, and/or co-conspirators of their co-defendants and were acting within the course scope of their agency, agreement, duties, employment, or shared purpose in planning, effectuating, advancing,

aiding, abetting, or committing the below-described wrongful acts. As used hereinafter, “Google”

O o N1 v W

means and includes Does 1-1,000.

8. Plaintiffs do not know the true names or capacities of the persons or entities sued herein as Does 1—1;000 inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by these fictitious names. Each of the Doe defendants is in some manner legally responsible for the wrongs perpetrated against and damages suffered by Plaintiffs as alleged herein. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of these defendants when ascertained, along with appropriate charging allegations.

Jurisdiction and Venue

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Google because Google is headquartered in and conducts substantial business in California,

10. Venue lies here pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §395.5 because Google is headquartered and maintains its principal place of business in Santa Clara County.

Statement of Facts

11. Google is a California-based multinational company that offers web-based services including, among others, the electronic communications service known as Gmail. Google offers several variations of its Gmail product including Gmail for individual users, a version for businesses called Google Apps for Work, and a version for educational institutions called Google Apps for Education. For the purposes of this complaint, the term “Gmail” refers to Gmail for individual users, i.e., “free” email accounts with addresses that end with the suffix

“@gmail.com”. 12. Google products, including but not limited to Gmail, incorporate data mining systems that track individual users’ behavior, characteristics, and interests, and report that

information to Google. Google initially declared that it collected and maintained user data solely

£ W

to make its services work better,! but subsequently began collecting and combining user data from across its various platforms for ad targeting and other commercial purposes. .

13. This strategy has enabled Google to dominate online advertising. Google’s user data enables it to deliver ads targeted to susceptible buyers. It can thus sell more advertising and

command higher prices for ads. Google generated advertising revenue of $95.4 billion in 2017,

O o 3y W

accounting for 87% of Google’s total revenue that year.”

10 Google’s Interception of Plaintiffs’ Emails to Gmail Users

11 14. From at least one year preceding the filing of this action and until Google stopped

12 || pre-delivery processing of email content for advertising purposes in compliance with a federal

13|| injunction obtained in Matera v. Google, Inc. (the "Relevant Period"), Google systematically

14| intercepted, scanned, and analyzed the contents of all emails sent to Gmail users for advertising

15|| purposes before those emails reached the Gmail users’ inboxes. Google intercepted, scanned, and

16| analyzed the content of at least one unencrypted email that each Plaintiff and each class member

17| sent from his or her non-Gmail e-mail account to a Gmail user, for advertising purposes, during

18| the Relevant Period.

19 15. Google carried out this pre-delivery interception, scanning, and analysis by

20|| diverting Plaintiffs’ and class members’ email to various devices, including a device called

211| Content One Box. Content One Box is a distinct piece of Google’s infrastructure that extracts and

22 || analyzes the content of emails sent to Gmail users before delivery to their inboxes for advertising

23|| purposes, including the purpose of serving targeted advertisements and creating user profiles.

24 16. Google executed its interception, scanning, and analysis of email sent to Gmail

25

26|! ! Singel, Ryan. “Analysis: Google’s Ad Targeting Turns Algorithms on You,” Wired (Mar. 11, 2009) (available at hitp://www.wired.com/business/2009/03/google-ad-annou/). 2 Alphabet Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year ending December 31, 2017, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Revenues (available at: https://abe xyz/investor/pdf/20171231_alphabet_10K..pdf).

4

27 28 users for advertising purposes in an automated, programmatic, and uniform mannet, such that Google applied the same processes to all emails that Plaintiffs and class members sent to any and

all Gmail users during the Relevant Period.

oD N

17. Google intercepted, scanned, and analyzed the contents of Plaintiffs’ and class

W

members’ email for advertising purposes in California using devices located in California.

Further, Google personnel developed, implemented, and authorized the challenged practices in

~1 O

California.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

18. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382, Plaintiff John Callan brings this action

on behalf of the following class:

All natural persons in the State of California who, without having previously established a Gmail, Google, Google Apps for Education, or G Suite for Education account, sent an email to an email address ending in “@gmail.com” within the applicable limitations period and before Google stopped all pre-delivery processing of email sent to Gmail accounts for advertising purposes.

19 FExcluded from the class are the following individuals: officers and directors of Google and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and any entity in which Google has a controlling interest; all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members; and all persons who have previously released the damages claims asserted in this action.

n0. Class certification is appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure § 382 because this action satisfies the applicable numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and

superiotity requirements. In the alternative, certification of an issue class is appropriate under

materially advance the disposition of the litigation as a whole.

21. Numerosity: The potential members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all the members of the class is impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and believes that there ate millions of class members.

22. . Commonality: There are questions of law and fact common to the class that 5

California Rule of Court 3.765(b) because resolution of common questions of law and fact would 1|| predominate over any individualized questions, including but not limited to:

o oo ~J N WD — 2 N

21

27|

28

a. Whether Cal. Pen. Code § 631(a) applies to email communications;

b. Whether Cal. Pen. Code § 631(a) applies to the interception of email by an electronic communications service provider like Google;

C. Whether Google’s acts and practices complained of herein amount to the willful and unauthorized reading, attempting to read, or learning the contents or meaning of class members’ communications, in violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 631(a);

d. Whether Google’s interceptions occutred while the emails were “in transit ot passing over any wire, line, or cable, or [were] being sent from, or received at any place within this state” as provided by Cal. Pen. Code § 631(a); and

c. Whether Google used or attempted to use any information acquired in violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 631(a).

23. Typicality: Plaintiff Callan’s claims are typical of the claims of the class in that Plaintiff Callan and the other class members sent emails to Gmail users during the Relevant Period without having previously established a Gmail, Google, Google Apps for Education, or G Suite for Education account. Google intercepted, scanned, and acquired the content of those emails. Google further used or endeavored to use the contents of Plaintiff Callan’s and each of the class membets’ electronic communications. Plaintiff Callan and class members did not expressly consent to the interception and use of their electronic communications, which acts form the basis for this suit. Google’s conduct is common to all class members and represents a common thread of conduct resulting in injury to all members of the class. Plaintiff Callan has suffered the harm alleged and has no interests antagonistic to any other class member.

24, Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff Callan is a member of the class and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff Callan’s interests do not conflict with the interests of the class members. Furthermore, counsel! for Plaintiffs and the

class are competent and experienced in class action litigation, consumer protection litigation, and electronic privacy litigation. Plaintiffs’ counsel will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the class.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of CIPA, Cal. Pen. Code § 630 et seq. (On_behalf of all Plaintiffs and the class)

25, Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if repeated

A W N

i

hete.

26. Cal. Pen. Code § 631(a) creates liability for “[a]ny person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, ... willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state ...."

27. Pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code § 7, Google, a limited liability company and formerly a corporation, is a “person.”

2&. Google committed the acts and practices complained of herein knowingly and willfully, spending significant sums and using cutting-edge technologymost comprehensive and effective manner possible. Google’s actions were at all relevant times intentional as evidenced by, inter alia, Google’s utilization of message-scanning and analyzing devices to divine the meaning of the contents of private messages and Google’s use of that information for, among other things, data profiling and ad targeting.

29. Google was not a party to the emails that Plaintiffs and class members sent to Gmail users during the Relevant Period.

30. Google engaged in the acts complained of herein without the consent of Plaintiffs and class members, or any of them.

31. Each email Plaintiffs and class members sent to Gmail users during the Relevant Period was a “message, report, or communication” within the meaning of Cal. Pen. Code § 631.

39 Each email Plaintiffs and class members sent to Gmail users during the Relevant ;===

Period was “in transit” within the meaning of Cal. Pen. Code § 631 when Google intercepted, scanned, and analyzed its contents for advertising purposes.

33. By intercepting, scanning, and analyzing the contents of Plaintiffs’ and class members’ emails to Gmail users for advertising purposes Google read, attempted to read, and learned the contents and meaning of Plaintiffs’ and class members’ emails within the meaning of Cal. Pen. Code § 631.

34, Google intercepted, scanned, and analyzéd the contents of Plaintiffs’ and class members’ emails to Gmail users for advertising purposes “by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner” within the meaning of Cal. Pen. Code § 631, including without limitation by means of the Content One Box device. Plaintiffs reserve the right to assert CIPA violations as to any further devices subsequently disclosed or discovered.

35, Cal, Pen. Code § 631(a) also creates liability for any person “who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, ot for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so obtained.” Google violated this prohibition by using the information it obtained from intercepting, scanning, and analyzing the contents of Plaintiffs’ and class members’ emails to Gmail users for advertising purposes, including consumer profiling and ad targeting.

36. Each of the actions taken by Google and complained of herein extends beyond the normal occutrences, requirements, and expectations regarding the facilitation and transmission of private messages and were not for the purpose of the construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of Google’s email service. Rather, the actions taken by Google and complained of herein were for advertising purposes, including data profiling and ad targeting.

37. As a direct and proximate result of Google’s violations of Cal. Pen. Code §§ 630, et. seq., and pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code § 637.2, each Plaintiff and class member has suffered damage, including the loss of the valueinformation, and the value of his or her privacy. Further, Google has been unjustly enriched by the value of each Plaintiff’s and each class member’s wrongfully obtained information,

33, Pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code § 637.2, each Plaintiff and class member is entitled to

statutory damages of $5,000 for each violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 631 that Google committed against him or her.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of the N.H. Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Statute, N.H. Rev. Stat. 570-A:2 (On behalf of the New Hampshire Plaintiff)

39. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if repeated

here.

40. N.H. Rev. Stat. 570-A:2 I(a) creates liability for a person who, “without the consent of all parties to the communication,” “[w]ilfully intercepts ... any telecommunication or oral communication.”

41. The email communications transmitted by Plaintiffs to Gmail users were each a “telecommunication” pursuant to N.H. Rev. Stat. § 570-A:1 L

42. Google “interceptcd” Plaintiffs’ emails to Gmail users within the meaning of N.H. Rev. Stat. § 570-A:1 11 43, Google intercepted the contents of Plaintiffs’ emails to Gmail users for advertising purposes using an “electronic, mechanical, or other device” within the meaning of N.H. Rev. Stat. § 570-A:1 TV, including without limitation by means of the Content One Box device.

44, Google, a limited liability company and formerly a corporation, is a “person” pursuant to N.H. Rev. Stat. § 570-A:1 V.,

45. Google engaged in the acts complained of herein without the consent of Plaintiifs.

46. Google committed the acts and practices complained of herein knowingly and willfully, spending significant sums and using cutting-edge technologymost comprehensive and effective manner possible. Google’s actions were at all relevant times intentional as evidenced by, among other things, its utilization of message-scanning and analyzing devices to divine the meaning of the contents of private messages, and Google’s use of that information for, inter alia, data profiling and ad targeting.

47. Google’s conduct complained of herein also violated N.H. Rev. Stat. 570-A:2 1(d), which creates liability for a person who “[w]illfully uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any

telecommunication ..., knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained SE L IIATT

through the interception of a telecommunication ... in violation of [N.H. Rev. Stat. 570-A:2 I].” Google violated this prohibition by using the information it obtained from intercepting, scanning, and analyzing the contents of Plaintiffs’ emails to Gmail users for advertising purposes, including data profiling and ad targeting.

48 Pursuant to N.H. Rev. Stat. 570-A:11, the New Hampshire Plaintiff is entitled to:

6| () liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, 7} whichever is higher; (b) punitive damages; and (c) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation 8| costs reasonably incurred.

9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment as follows: 1. For statutory damages for each Plaintiff and class member of $5,000 for each violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 631 that Google committed against him or her pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code § 637.2; 2. For statutory damages for the New Hampshire Plaintiff computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher, pursuant to N.H. Rev. Stat. 570-A:11; 3. For punitive damages for the New Hampshire Plaintiff pursuant to N.H. Rev. Stat. 570-A:11; 4, For attorneys’ fees pursuant to statute, including but not limited to N.H. Rev. Stat, 570-A:11 and Cal. Code of Civ, Proc. § 1021.5; 5. For costs of suit; and 6. For all such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: July 31,2018 Respectfully submitted

By:

Dominic Véfferian Nathaniel Simons Attorneys for Plaintiffspage 10 can't be parsed