Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

California Court Dismisses Hotel Website Wiretapping Suit Based on “In Transit” Requirement

By Jordan Joachim on October 3, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Hotel Room
Vojtech Bruzek, Unsplash

Recently, a California federal judge dismissed a suit alleging that Sojern, Inc., a travel marketing platform, violated the Federal Wiretap Act and California law by allegedly installing “tracking technology” on two hotel websites. Crano v. Sojern, Inc., 2025 WL 2689267 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2025).

The plaintiff, Suellen Crano, asserted on behalf of a putative class that Sojern installed technology on hotel websites that collected data about users’ interactions with the websites in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA” or “Federal Wiretap Act”), the California Constitution, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The allegedly collected information included the relevant hotel ID, hotel name/location, hotel room price, number of rooms, check-in date, and check-out date associated with plaintiff’s reservations.

In dismissing plaintiff’s CIPA claim, the Court concluded that plaintiff “ha[d] not plausibly alleged Sojern intercepted the communication while it was in transit.”  The Court explained that plaintiff alleged merely that the technology could be used to “re-direct” data about users from the hotel companies to third parties “contemporaneously in real time,” which failed to support the inference that “her communications were read while in transit.”

The Court also dismissed plaintiff’s Federal Wiretap Act claim, concluding that the hotels— parties to the alleged communications—had consented. Under the Federal Wiretap Act, the consent of one party to the communication is a complete defense. The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the “crime-tort” exception to one-party consent applied based on an alleged violation of California’s Guest Records statute. The Court explained that the Guest Records statute applies to certain personally identifiable information obtained by innkeepers, hotelkeepers, and the like, and plaintiff failed to show that the information allegedly collected by Sojern fell within the statute or that Sojern qualified as an innkeeper or hotelkeeper.

Photo of Jordan Joachim Jordan Joachim

Jordan Joachim is an experienced litigator who helps clients navigate complex class actions and business disputes.

Jordan specializes in high-stakes class action and commercial litigation. He works with leading companies across a range of industries, including technology, financial services, life sciences, energy, and…

Jordan Joachim is an experienced litigator who helps clients navigate complex class actions and business disputes.

Jordan specializes in high-stakes class action and commercial litigation. He works with leading companies across a range of industries, including technology, financial services, life sciences, energy, and media. He has litigated cases in federal and state courts across the country, from case inception through trial and appeal. Jordan is a stand-up litigator, with experience arguing dispositive motions and examining witnesses at trial.

His class action practice encompasses privacy, securities, and consumer protection matters. He has extensive experience defending companies against putative class actions asserting claims under the federal Wiretap Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), New York General Business Law (GBL), Securities Exchange Act, and other federal and state statutes, as well as common law claims.

His commercial litigation practice encompasses business and shareholder disputes involving claims for breach of contract, business torts, and breach of fiduciary duty, among others. He has extensive experience litigating cases arising out of corporate transactions and financial instruments, including disputes involving M&A agreements, earn-out/milestone provisions, letters of credit, indemnification, and insurance coverage.

Jordan also regularly advises clients on risks relating to federal and state wiretapping laws, privacy claims, mass arbitration, securities fraud, breach of contract, corporate governance, and other issues.

Read more about Jordan JoachimEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Blog:
    Inside Class Actions
  • Organization:
    Covington & Burling LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo