Bloomingdale’s class action revived over alleged website tracking

Bloomingdale’s class action overview:

• Who: The Ninth Circuit revived a class action lawsuit filed against Bloomingdale’s.
• Why: The Ninth Circuit determined a lower court erred in dismissing a claim that Bloomingdale’s violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by allegedly capturing website visitors’ activities.
• Where: The Bloomingdale’s class action was revived in the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit has revived a class action lawsuit filed against Bloomingdale’s over claims the retailer illegally captured website visitors’ activities in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The appellate panel determined a lower court erred in dismissing a claim from plaintiff Erica Mikulsky that Bloomingdale’s violated the CIPA by allegedly disclosing the contents of her communications to a third-party software provider, Law360 reports.

Mikulsky argues Bloomingdale’s disclosed the contents of her communications to session replay provider FullStory Inc., which allegedly analyzed the data and provided the retailer with marketing and other insights based on website visitors’ activities.

The Ninth Circuit determined Mikulsky sufficiently alleged that Bloomingdale’s aided, agreed with, employed or conspired with session replay code providers to enable them to learn the contents or meaning of her communications without her consent, according to Law360.

Ninth Circuit refuses to entertain Bloomingdale’s cross-appeal challenging jurisdiction

The Ninth Circuit refused to entertain a cross-appeal from Bloomingdale’s challenging a California district court’s rejection of its argument that it lacked sufficient connections to the state, Law360 reports.

The appellate panel determined the lower court did not err in concluding Bloomingdale’s was subject to personal jurisdiction in California since it determined Mikulsky’s alleged privacy injuries arose out of or related to the website’s contacts with the state.

The Ninth Circuit also upheld the portion of the district court’s ruling that dismissed Mikulsky’s intrusion upon seclusion claim, agreeing with the conclusion that her complaint failed to plead a “highly offensive” violation under California common law, according to Law360.

In 2022, plaintiff Ann Jones filed a class action against Bloomingdales.com also for allegedly intercepting customers’ communications via “session replay code” on its website without their knowledge or consent.

What do you think of the Ninth Circuit’s decision to reverse in part the Bloomingdale’s class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.

Mikulsky is represented by Jamisen A. Etzel of Lynch Carpenter LLP, James J. Pizzirusso and Steven M. Nathan of Hausfeld LLP, Arthur M. Murray and Thomas M. Beh of Murray Law Firm and Kate M. Baxter-Kauf of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

The Bloomingdale’s class action lawsuit is Mikulsky v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al., Case Nos. 24-3564 and 24-3837, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Walmart recalls Ozark Trail water bottles due to lid laceration hazard
• Ken’s Foods sued over ‘no artificial preservatives’ claim on salad dressing
• Avocado Mattress sued over allegedly fake sales and discounts
• Class action claims Strides testosterone gel is contaminated with benzene