In a recent decision from the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl granted summary judgment and dismissed a putative class action alleging that an online retailer, I Am Beyond d/b/a Beyond Yoga, had aided and abetted violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence showing that the defendant had read or attempted to read the content of any of the plaintiff’s communications with the chat box feature on the defendant’s website while those communications were in transit, as required to maintain her CIPA claim.

The plaintiff asserted in the complaint that her communications with the chat box on the defendant’s website were unlawfully interception by a third party technology provider without her consent. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant aided and abetted the third party provider’s purported interceptions of the plaintiff’s communications, in violation of CIPA Section 631(a).

After considering the evidence presented by both parties, the Court granted summary judgment to the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The Court held that the plaintiff did not provide evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the third party provider read or attempted the read the content of a communication while in transit, which is a required element of her CIPA claim. The defendant’s expert report demonstrated that the third-party vendor could not have intercepted the content of any chat while the messages were in transit because all chat messages were encrypted when sent, while in transit, and when received. The plaintiff offered no admissible evidence to dispute these facts. The plaintiff’s expert declaration was inadmissible because it was not signed under penalty of perjury. Furthermore, the cited portions of the plaintiff’s expert declaration only addressed whether the third-party vendor could intercept communications on its own website, not how it operated on the defendant’s website. Because plaintiff could not show an underlying § 631 violation by the third-party vendor, the aiding‑and‑abetting theory against the defendant failed.

The Court also noted several AI-generated hallucinations in the plaintiff’s briefing, including quotations attributed to cases that did not contain the cited language. The Court declined to issue sanctions, but indicated that if its summary judgment decision is overturned on appeal, the Court would consider whether the hallucinations rendered plaintiff’s counsel inadequate as counsel for the class.