Entravision Sued for Violating California Trap & Trace Law

International media company Entravision was sued for violating the California Trap & Trace Law. The plaintiff in the lawsuit is a California consumer who alleged that her data was unlawfully collected when she visited the Entravision website. According to the complaint, Entravision uses TikTok software to record and gather personal data from every person who visits the website, which exposes this confidential information to the communist Chinese government.

The plaintiff is being represented by the Los Angeles consumer protection attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP. Entravision’s defense attorneys tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, but the L.A. County Superior Court overruled the Defendant’s demurrer motion. As a result, the invasion of privacy claim against Entravision may now be heard at trial.

Entravision Accused of Using TikTok Software to Collect Data from Website Visitors

Entravision Communications Corporation is a global media, marketing, and technology company. Entravision’s headquarters is located in Santa Monica, California, and the company owns several television and radio stations in many of the top Hispanic markets throughout the country. Entravision is also the largest affiliate group of Univision, with Univision owning television stations operated by Entravision.

The digital privacy lawsuit was filed against Entravision Communications Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The judge in the case, the Honorable Elaine W. Mandel, recently presided over a pre-trial demurrer hearing.

The plaintiff, a California consumer, sued Entravision Communications for allegedly violating the California Trap and Trace Law. Entravision was accused of using TikTok software on its company website to unlawfully collect the personal data of website visitors. Moreover, the plaintiff alleged that Entravision utilized the trap and trace software with willful and conscious disregard of the privacy rights of site visitors.

Cal. Penal Code § 638.51: California Trap and Trace Law

The California Trap and Trace Law is codified in Cal. Penal Code Section 638.51, which is part of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). The CIPA broadly applies to two types of technology commonly used on some websites: pen registers and trap & trace devices. These devices are often used to record information that identifies the source of an electronic communication, including online communications on websites.

In this case, Entravision is accused of using TikTok software to identify website users through browser information, geographic information, and URL tracking data. That personal information is then sent to TikTok. Moreover, all of this is allegedly done without the consent of website visitors.

Court Rejects Demurrer: Privacy Lawsuit Against Entravision Can Proceed

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint and ensures that courts do not waste time hearing a complaint that does not allege essential facts about the case. In this case, Entravision filed a demurrer and argued that the lawsuit against the media company should be dismissed during the pre-trial stage. The Los Angeles County Superior Court rejected the Defendant’s demurrer and ruled that the case should proceed.

Entravision made five (5) arguments in support of its demurrer motion, all of which were rejected by the court.

1. Failure to Allege Facts to Support Cause of Action

Entravision argued that the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for failing to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court ruled that the plaintiff sufficiently showed that Entravision collects data from every visitor to its website. Along with the plaintiff’s evidence that she visited the website, this was enough to establish her claim for unlawful collection of private data.

2. Websites Are Not “Pen Registers”

Entravision argued that the plaintiff did not show that Entravision used a pen register as defined by Section 638.51 of the Cal. Penal Code. Specifically, the Defendant contended that only physical telephone lines qualify as “pen registers” under the statute.

The court rejected the Defendant’s argument and held that both federal and state law on trap & trace devices may apply to websites, not just telephones. The court pointed to the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), which does not limit the definition of either “pen register” or “trap and trace” device to physical devices attached to telephone lines. This broad interpretation of the statute means that the plaintiff in this case did not need to allege the use of a physical pen register device by Entravision.

3. Exemption from Liability

Entravision argued that it should be exempt from liability under the California Trap and Trace Law because the company is an electronic communications service provider. Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(b)(1) states that a provider of electronic or wire communication service is allowed to use a pen register or a trap and trace device to operate, maintain, and test its service.

The court rejected the Defendant’s argument because the question of whether Entravision is exempt under the law should be determined at trial, not during the pre-trial demurrer stage.

4. Not a Prohibited “Device” or “Process”

Entravision argued that the plaintiff failed to plead that the Defendant used a device or process prohibited by the California Trap and Trace Law.

The court rejected the Defendant’s argument because the TikTok software allegedly used by Entravision does qualify as a “process” that captures incoming electronic impulses to identify the source of an electronic communication on the company’s website. Moreover, since users are never informed that the Entravision website is collecting their private data and sharing it with the Chinese government, this would be considered a violation of the Trap & Trace Law.

5. Failure to Plead “Oppression, Fraud, or Malice”

Entravision argued that punitive damages in the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to plead “oppression, fraud, or malice.”

The court rejected this argument because the plaintiff alleged that a reasonable jury might find the Defendant’s conduct so “vile or contemptible” that it justifies punitive damages. This aligned with the plaintiff’s contention that Entravision intentionally invaded consumers’ privacy without their knowledge or consent and that this conduct constituted “criminal activity.”

The court also held that punitive damages are not subject to demurrers.

Call the Los Angeles Consumer Protection Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

Do you live in California? Did you visit the Entravision website for any reason? If so, it’s possible that your personal information was unlawfully collected. The Los Angeles consumer protection lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP represent individuals whose privacy has been invaded by California companies. Call 310-590-3927 or email us today.