14.  Defendant SessionCam develops a software of the same name that provides  marketing analytics.     15.  One of SessionCam’s features is called “Session Replay.”     16.  SessionCam tells prospective clients that they can “[u]se session replay to see the  website experience you actually deliver to your customers across desktop, mobile and tablet  devices.”   17.  Session Replay “records an exact version of the page as seen by the user at the  time of use; including the HTML, CSS and all images.”  The recording allows companies to “see  mouse movements, clicks/taps, masked form input, page scrolling and mobile gestures like  pinch, zoom, tap, double tap, swipe, tilt and screen resizing.”   18.  Session replay technologies work by using “embedded snippets of code … [that]  watch and record a visitor’s every move on a website, in real time.”2   20.  Indeed, SessionCam’s promotional video touts that Session Replay “let[s] you  record live user sessions, looking over the shoulder of your real-life customers.”  The highlighted  mouse in the promotion video shows the Session Replay software tracking a mock user’s mouse  movements in real-time:   22.  SessionCam’s business model involves entering into voluntary partnerships with  various companies and providing their software to their partners.   23.  One of SessionCam’s partners is Defendant Foot Locker.   24.  Foot Locker utilizes SessionCam’s software on the Website.   25.  Foot Locker knows that SessionCam’s software captures the keystrokes, mouse  clicks and other communications of visitors to its website, and pays SessionCam to supply that  information.    26.  Pursuant to an agreement with SessionCam, Foot Locker enables SessionCam’s  software by voluntarily embedding SessionCam’s software code on the Website.    27.  As currently deployed, SessionCam’s software, as employed by Foot Locker,  functions as a wiretap.    II.  Defendants Wiretapped Plaintiff’s Electronic Communications    28.  In December 2020, Mr. Jacobo III visited Foot Locker.com and made a purchase.   29.  During that visit, and upon information and belief, the Session Replay feature in  SessionCam’s software created a video capturing each of Plaintiff’s keystrokes and mouse clicks  on the website.  The SessionCam wiretap also captured the date and time of the visit, the  duration of the visit, Plaintiff’s IP address, his location at the time of the visit, his browser type,  and the operating system on his device.   31.  When users access the Website and make a purchase, they enter their PII.   SessionCam’s software captures these electronic communications throughout each step of the  process.  Even if a user does not make a purchase, the SessionCam nonetheless captures users’  electronic communications throughout his or her visit on the Website.   32.  SessionCam’s software captures, among other things:  (a) The user’s mouse clicks;  (b) The user’s keystrokes;  (c) The user’s payment card information, including card number, expiration  date, and CVV code;  (d) The user’s IP address;  (e) The user’s their location at the time of the visit; and  (f) The user’s browser type and the operating system on their devices   33.  Crucially, Defendant Foot Locker does not ask users, including Plaintiff, whether  they consent to being wiretapped by SessionCam.  Users are never actively told that their  electronic communications are being wiretapped by SessionCam.   34.  Further, as the 2017 Princeton University study researchers recognized, “the  extent of data collected by these services far exceeds user expectations; text typed into forms is  collected before the user submits the form, and precise mouse movements are saved, all without  any visual indication to the user. This data can’t reasonably be expected to be kept anonymous.”   35.  Therefore, users like Plaintiff never consent to being wiretapped by SessionCam  when they access the Website.  37.  Members of the Class are so numerous that their individual joinder herein is  impracticable.  On information and belief, members of the Class number in the thousands.  The  precise number of Class members and their identities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time but  may be determined through discovery.  Class members may be notified of the pendency of this  action by mail and/or publication through the distribution records of Defendants.   38.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and predominate  over questions affecting only individual Class members.  Common legal and factual questions  include, but are not limited to, whether Defendants have violated the California Invasion of  Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 635, and invaded Plaintiff’s privacy rights in  violation of the California Constitution; and whether class members are entitled to actual and/or  statutory damages for the aforementioned violations.     39.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class because  the named Plaintiff, like all other class members, visited the Website and had his electronic  communications intercepted and disclosed to SessionCam through the use of SessionCam’s  wiretaps.   41.  The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the claims of Class members.  Each individual Class member may lack the  resources to undergo the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and  extensive litigation necessary to establish Defendants’ liability.  Individualized litigation  increases the delay and expense to all parties and multiplies the burden on the judicial system  presented by the complex legal and factual issues of this case.  Individualized litigation also  presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments.  In contrast, the class action  device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single  adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court on the issue of  Defendants’ liability.  Class treatment of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and  claimants are before this Court for consistent adjudication of the liability issues.   42.  Plaintiff brings all claims in this action individually and on behalf of members of  the Class against Defendants.  43.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   44.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the  proposed Class against Defendants.   46.  Section 631(a) is not limited to phone lines, but also applies to “new  technologies” such as computers, the Internet, and email.  See Matera v. Google Inc., 2016 WL  8200619, at *21 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016) (CIPA applies to “new technologies” and must be  construed broadly to effectuate its remedial purpose of protecting privacy); Bradley v. Google,  Inc., 2006 WL 3798134, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2006) (CIPA governs “electronic  communications”); In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation, 956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir.  2020) (reversing dismissal of CIPA and common law privacy claims based on Facebook’s  collection of consumers’ Internet browsing history).   48.  At all relevant times, by using SessionCam’s technology, Defendants  intentionally tapped, electrically or otherwise, the lines of internet communication between  Plaintiff and Class Members on the one hand, and Foot Locker’s Website on the other hand.   49.  At all relevant times, by using SessionCam’s technology, Defendants willfully  and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, read  or attempted to read or learn the contents or meaning of electronic communications of Plaintiff  and putative class members, while the electronic communications were in transit or passing over  any wire, line or cable or were being sent from or received at any place within California.   50.  As SessionCam notes on its website, “When an end user session is recorded by  the SessionCam script, SessionCam starts by recording event data locally in the browser.  Every  few seconds, this local event data is packaged up and sent to SessionCam recording servers in  the form of bundles.”  Such local recording is plainly occurring in real-time, and is, at worst,  “transitory electronic storage” that is “part of the overall transmission process,” which has been  held to constitute communications “in transit.”    51.  Indeed, SessionCam offers website operators the ability to “Go Live” with  currently active website sessions (i.e., users still have the website open on their browser), which  would not be possible if SessionCam was not recording users in real time.   52.  Defendants aided, agreed with, and conspired with each other to implement  SessionCam’s technology and to accomplish the wrongful conduct at issue here.  In addition,  Foot Locker employed SessionCam to accomplish the wrongful conduct at issue here.    54.  The violation of section 631(a) constitutes an invasion of privacy sufficient to  confer Article III standing.   55.  Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue to commit the illegal acts alleged here.   Plaintiff continues to be at risk because he frequently uses the internet for shopping, and he  continues to desire to use the internet for that purpose.  Defendant SessionCam provides its  software, including the Session Replay feature, to many other website operators who offer a wide  array of services.  For many websites that Plaintiff may or is likely to visit in the future, he has  no practical way to know if his website communications will be monitored or recorded by  SessionCam.   56.  Plaintiff and Class Members seek all relief available under Cal. Penal Code §  637.2, including injunctive relief and statutory damages of $5,000 per violation.  57.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   58.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   59.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the  proposed Class against Defendants.   61.  At all relevant times, by implementing SessionCam’s wiretaps, each Defendant  intentionally manufactured, assembled, sold, offered for sale, advertised for sale, possessed,  transported, imported, and/or furnished a wiretap device that is primarily or exclusively designed  or intended for eavesdropping upon the communication of another.   62.  SessionCam’s code is a “device” that is “primarily or exclusively designed” for  eavesdropping.  That is, the SessionCam’s code is designed to gather PII, including keystrokes,  mouse clicks, and other electronic communications.      63.  Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to any of Defendants’ actions in  implementing SessionCam’s wiretaps.   64.  Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue to commit the illegal acts alleged here.   Plaintiff continues to be at risk because he frequently uses the internet for shopping, and he  continues to desire to use the internet for that purpose.  Defendant SessionCam provides its  software, including the Session Replay feature, to many other website operators who offer a wide  array of services.  For many websites that Plaintiff may or is likely to visit in the future, he has  no practical way to know if his website communications will be monitored or recorded by  SessionCam.   66.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   67.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   68.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the  proposed Class against Defendants.   69.  Plaintiff and Class Members have an interest in: (1) precluding the dissemination  and/or misuse of their sensitive, confidential PII; and (2) making personal decisions and/or  conducting personal activities without observation, intrusion or interference, including, but not  limited to, the right to visit and interact with various Internet sites without being subjected to  wiretaps without Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ knowledge or consent.   70.  At all relevant times, by implementing SessionCam’s wiretaps on Foot Locker’s  Websites, each Defendant intentionally invaded Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ privacy rights  under the California Constitution, and procured the other Defendant to do so.   71.  Plaintiff and Class Members had a reasonable expectation that their PII and other  data would remain confidential and that Defendants would not install wiretaps on the Website.   72.  Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to any of Defendants’ actions in  implementing SessionCam’s wiretaps on the Website.   73.  This invasion of privacy is serious in nature, scope and impact.   75.  Plaintiff and Class Members seek all relief available for invasion of privacy  claims under California’s Constitution.  I.  Overview Of The Wiretaps   Invasion Of Privacy Under California’s Constitution   Violation Of The California Invasion Of Privacy Act,  Cal. Penal Code § 631   Violation Of The California Invasion Of Privacy Act,  Cal. Penal Code § 635  