Safelite Says Cookie Claims Miss the Mark

Safelite Group has pushed back against the plaintiff’s mediation bid in a proposed class action lawsuit over alleged illegal website data collection.

Michael Winston and David Buehler filed the suit in the United States California Northern District Court on Jan. 23, alleging that Safelite violated state privacy laws through its website’s “cookie” collection. Buehler was later dismissed from the lawsuit.

Both parties filed a joint statement on May 28 where the plaintiffs said they were “willing to participate in mediation,” and Safelite said it needed to conduct “a thorough evaluation of [the settlement demand’s] merit.”

Safelite seemingly found no merit, as it filed a response to the plaintiff’s complaint on June 18 and asked the court to dismiss the case.

Responding to the Allegations

The plaintiffs claim that the pop-up menu on Safelite’s website, which allows users to accept or decline data-tracking “cookies,” is misleading. The plaintiffs allege that users who select the “strictly necessary cookies” option rather than the “targeting cookies” option are still tagged by cookies from several third parties.

While Safelite said it does use some cookies from third parties “on certain portions of the website,” it denies the plaintiff’s allegations that they were used wrongly. Safelite also disputes the plaintiff’s definition of “third-party cookies.”

“[Safelite] admits that a variety of cookies exist, which can be used for different purposes,” the court document says. “[Safelite] denies the plaintiff’s characterization of the purpose and use of third-party cookies.”

The document says that Safelite’s data privacy policy “speaks for itself” and denies the plaintiff’s “attempt to interpret the information or offer a legal conclusion as to the meaning of the [policy’s] terms.”

Playing Defense

In the last few pages of the document, Safelite argued that the lawsuit has no merit even if the plaintiff’s allegations are true. Safelite claims that:

• The United States California Northern District Court doesn’t have any subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in the complaint, and the statute of limitations at least partly bars the plaintiff’s claims for relief;
• The plaintiffs filed suit too long after the alleged incidents occurred, and the suit doesn’t clearly state grounds for relief;
• Safelite “acted in good faith” and had no intention to deceive website visitors, and that any violation was an error;
• The plaintiff and proposed class cannot claim relief because they allegedly agreed to the website’s terms and cookie usage;”
• The plaintiff and proposed class did not suffer damages as a direct result of the alleged data violations and did not attempt to stop or mitigate any damage that allegedly occurred. Any damages that allegedly occurred were the result of the plaintiff or class’s “own culpable conduct” and
• The lawsuit does not qualify for class action status.

The document petitions the court to dismiss the case with prejudice in favor of Safelite and deny the plaintiff and the proposed class any relief.