Payless class action claims company allows third party to eavesdrop on customer chat conversations

Payless class action overview: 

• Who: A Payless customer has sued the shoe retailer.
• Why: The plaintiff says the company illegally records the private conversations of consumers using the chat function on its website.
• Where: The Payless class action lawsuit was filed in a California federal court.

The shoe retailer Payless illegally records the private conversations of consumers using the chat function on its website, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Jose Licea filed the class action lawsuit against Payless Shoesource Worldwide LLC Oct. 14 in a California federal court, alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). 

According to the lawsuit, Payless secretly wiretaps the private conversations of everyone who communicates through the chat feature at www.payless.com and allows a third party to eavesdrop on such communications in real time.

At the same time, Payless does not obtain visitors’ consent to either the wiretapping or the eavesdropping, the Payless class action alleges.  

Payless class action alleges company allows third party to ‘eavesdrop’ on conversations

The vast majority of website operators comply with the CIPA by conspicuously warning visitors if their conversations are being recorded or if third parties are eavesdropping on them, the Payless class action states.

“Instead, Defendant both wiretaps the conversations of all website visitors and allows a third party to eavesdrop on the conversations in real time during transmission,” the lawsuit claims.

To enable the wiretapping, Payless covertly embeds code into its chat feature that automatically records and creates transcripts of all such private conversations, the Payless class action alleges. 

To enable the eavesdropping, the lawsuit claims Payless allows third-party business Salesforce to intercept the conversations in real time.

“Defendant…allows at least one third party to eavesdrop on such communications in real time and during transmission to harvest data for financial gain,” the Payless class action states.

Licea looks to represent anyone in California who communicated with the company via the chat feature using a cell phone and experienced eavesdropping. He seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. 

Meanwhile, Saucony and Journeys have also been hit with twin class action lawsuits alleging they illegally eavesdropped on chats with potential customers who visited the shoe retailers’ websites. 

Have you used the Payless website? Let us know your thoughts on these claims in the comments! 

Licea is represented by Scott Ferrell of Pacific Trial Attorneys.

The Payless class action lawsuit is Jose Licea v. Payless Shoesource Worldwide LLC et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01586-BAS-AGS in a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. 

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Consumer class actions accuse Samsung of negligence in data breach
• General Electric data breach class action settlement
• Retirement plan participants fight toss of Horizon data breach class action
• Physician’s Business Office data breach class action alleges company exposed protected health information