• Atlanta
• Boston
• Dallas
• Ft. Lauderdale
• London
• Minneapolis
• New York
• Oakland
• Philadelphia
• Washington, DC

Patrick Calhoun, et al. v. Google, LLC, No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.)

by Anna Ali

On June 2, 2026, the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Google’s motion to dismiss six of Plaintiffs’ claims in a data privacy action. Plaintiffs claim that Google, through its internet browser Chrome, collected Plaintiffs’ personal information even after Plaintiffs’ opted not to sync their Chrome browsers with their Google accounts while browsing the web. After litigating ten of Plaintiffs’ claims, Google moved to dismiss the remaining six claims. The remaining claims included: 1) violation of the Wiretap Act; 2) invasion of privacy; 3) quasi-contract; 4) violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”); 5) punitive damages; and 6) declaratory relief.

The Court Denied Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims under the Wiretap Act

The court rejected Google’s three-pronged argument that Plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act claim should be dismissed. First, Google argued that website developers consented to Google’s interception of Plaintiffs’ data which, since the Wiretap Act is a one-party-consent statute, immunized Google from liability. Id. at 3. The court rejected this argument because Google’s argument depended on alleged facts outside of the complaint and case law on the subject supported the opposite conclusion. Id. at 4. The court also rejected Google’s second argument that its interception of Plaintiffs’ data fell under an exception to the Wiretap Act as data received in the ordinary course of business. Id. at 6-7. The court reasoned that the communications concerning Plaintiffs’ personal information that Google allegedly intercepted were separate from the communication between the website and Google. Id. Finally, the court rejected Google’s argument that its interception of Plaintiffs’ data was not a “communication” as defined under the Wiretap Act because the data included information divulging a user’s personal interests, queries, and habits. Id. at 7.

The Court Denied Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claim for Invasion of Privacy

The court rejected Google’s argument that Plaintiffs failed to allege the second and third elements of an invasion of privacy claim. A plaintiff alleging an invasion of privacy in violation of the state constitutional right to privacy must establish each of the following: (1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy. Id. at 8 (citing Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal. 4th 1, 39–40 (1994)).

The court held that Google’s argument for the second element failed because (i) Google was surreptitiously collecting the same type of data through the same process that was at issue in In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020);and (ii) Google’s representations on Chrome’s sync function that could have led users to assume that Google would not receive the personal information were sufficient to state a reasonable expectation of privacy. Calhoun Order at 8. As to the third element, the court rejected Google’s contention that the element was not met since the interceptions were routine and consistent with tracking practices and that intervening case law changes the legal landscape. Id. at 8-9. Thus, the court denied Google’s motion to dismiss the invasion of privacy claim. Id. at 9-10.

The Court Granted Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Quasi-Contract Claim

The court granted Google’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ quasi-contract claim. Id. at 10. One of the ten claims previously litigated included Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim, which survived a summary judgment motion. Id. Finding that a plaintiff may not plead the existence of an enforceable contract and simultaneously maintain a quasi-contract claim unless the plaintiff also pleads facts suggesting that the contract may be unenforceable or invalid, the court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ quasi-contract claim. Id.

The Court Denied Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ CDAFA Claim

The CDAFA imposes liability on any person who “[k]nowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.” Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(2). Google argued that Plaintiffs had not established that it (i) acted without permission and (ii) accessed Plaintiffs’ data. Calhoun Order at 11.

The court held that Plaintiffs successfully established that Google acted without permission and accessed Plaintiffs’ data. Id. The court found that Plaintiffs’ claim that Google acted without permission was sufficient because a plaintiff may state a CDAFA claim where “a software system was designed in such a way to render ineffective any barriers that [the plaintiffs] must wish to use to prevent access to their information.” Id. (citing Brown v. Google LLC, 525 F. Supp. 3d 1049, 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2021)). Further, the court rejected Google’s argument that it was a passive recipient of Plaintiffs’ data because Google’s argument that it did not “access” plaintiffs’ computers within the statutory definition was a triable issue of fact. Thus, the court denied the motion as to Plaintiffs’ CDAFA claim. Calhoun Order at 11-12.

The Court Granted Google’s Motion as to Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claim & Denied the Motion as to the Declaratory Relief Claim

While the court granted the motion as to the “claim” for punitive damages because, as Plaintiffs conceded, punitive damages are a remedy rather than a cause of action, the court denied Google’s motion as to Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief. Id. at 12. The court rejected Google’s argument that Plaintiffs’ declaratory relief claim required dismissal as duplicative of Plaintiffs’ other claims. Id. The court held that overlap with other claims is not, by itself, a basis to dismiss declaratory relief. Id.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

This article was originally published in the California Lawyers Association E-Briefs, News and Notes: August 2026