DECEMBER 22, 2021. In an opposition filed earlier in December 2021, Tycko & Zavareei LLP and co-counsel continue to advocate for the victims of “virtual home invasion” and push back against Ring’s attempts to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs (who purchased Ring devices for home security) and non-purchaser plaintiffs (plaintiffs’ family members who were ultimately the victims of the hacked Ring devices) are seeking justice for severe emotional distress and invasion of privacy.
The plaintiffs’ opposition to Ring’s motion to dismiss counters Ring’s arguments in the following ways. Ring stated that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) prevents non-purchaser plaintiffs’ claims; however, plaintiffs assert that Ring is not an interactive computer service provider such as those described in the Act. Ring’s attempt to sidestep a duty of care to non-purchaser plaintiffs is countered by its own advertising, plaintiffs contend, as its products are intended to protect users and their households. Ring denies non-purchaser plaintiffs’ privacy claims because a third party, not Ring, violated their privacy. Because of Ring’s inadequate cybersecurity measures, hackers gained access to purchaser plaintiffs’ Ring systems, and in some instances live-streamed these attacks, resulting in loss of privacy and loss of likenesses to non-purchaser plaintiffs. In response to Ring stating that non-purchaser plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim fails, non-purchaser plaintiffs allege that Ring benefited from the livestreamed virtual home invasions, in the forms of exposure and data.
The case is In re Ring LLC Privacy Litigation, Case No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO.