14.  Defendant FullStory develops a software of the same name that provides marketing  analytics.     15.  One of FullStory’s features is called “Session Replay,” which purports to help  businesses improve their website design and customer experience.   16.  Session Replay provides a real-time recording of a user’s interactions on a website.   FullStory says that “Session replay tools capture things like mouse movements, clicks, typing,  scrolling, swiping, tapping, etc.”   17.  FullStory touts that Session Replay relies on real video of a user’s interactions with a  website, or, in another words, a “recorded session.”2      41.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all California residents who visited the Website,  and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by FullStory.  Plaintiff reserves  the right to modify the class definition as appropriate based on further investigation and discovery  obtained in the case.    42.  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.   43.  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.     44.  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 her electronic  communications intercepted and disclosed to FullStory through the use of FullStory’s wiretaps.   45.  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because her interests do not  conflict with the interests of the Class members she seeks to represent, she has retained competent  counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and she intends to prosecute this action  vigorously.  The interests of Class members will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and  her counsel.   48.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set  forth herein.   49.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed  Class against Defendants.   59.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set  forth herein.   60.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed  Class against Defendants.   61.  California Penal Code § 635 provides, in pertinent part:  Every person who manufactures, assembles, sells, offers for sale,  advertises for sale, possesses, transports, imports, or furnishes to  another any device which is primarily or exclusively designed or  intended for eavesdropping upon the communication of another, or any  device which is primarily or exclusively designed or intended for the  unauthorized interception or reception of communications between  cellular radio telephones or between a cellular radio telephone and a  landline telephone in violation of Section 632.5, or communications  between cordless telephones or between a cordless telephone and a  landline telephone in violation of Section 632.6 , shall be punished by  a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars.   62.  At all relevant times, by implementing FullStory’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.   66.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set  forth herein.   67.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed  Class against Defendants.   68.  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.   69.  At all relevant times, by implementing FullStory’s wiretaps on Blue Nile’s Website,  each Defendant intentionally invaded Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ privacy rights under the  California Constitution, and procured the other Defendant to do so.   70.  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.   71.  Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to any of Defendants’ actions in  implementing FullStory’s wiretaps on the Website.   72.  This invasion of privacy is serious in nature, scope and impact.   73.  This invasion of privacy alleged here constitutes an egregious breach of the social  norms underlying the privacy right.   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  