Class Actions Accuse Adidas, Crocs of ‘Wiretapping’ Private Chat Conversations [DISMISSED]

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Adidas America, Inc. and Crocs, Inc. have each been hit with a proposed class action that alleges the shoe retailers secretly “wiretap” private conversations held in the chat feature on their respective websites.

The lawsuits argue that both companies have run afoul of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by failing to obtain consumers’ consent before intercepting their electronic communications. The cases contend that neither Crocs.com nor Adidas.com informs consumers that certain interactions with the site, including potentially private and deeply personal conversations in the chat feature, will be monitored.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

Moreover, the complaints claim that Adidas and Crocs share the contents of these “wiretapped” communications with third parties.

The 11-page case against Crocs claims that the footwear company receives code from third-party providers, namely SalesForce and/or Kayako, that it embeds into its online chat feature. The software allows these third parties to essentially eavesdrop upon and automatically create transcripts of unsuspecting website visitors’ chat communications “in real time during transmission,” the complaint charges.

Per the six-page filing against Adidas, the sportswear apparel company has sought out third-party vendors to deploy “keystroke monitoring” software on its website to record visitors’ online interactions, including keystrokes, mouse clicks and data entry. The Adidas website also uses wiretapping technology to record and store entire conversations as consumers engage with a “sophisticated ‘chatbot’ that convincingly impersonates an actual human that encourages consumers to share personal information,” the lawsuit alleges. The filing says Adidas then shares the intercepted communications with the third-party providers who license the wiretap technology to the company.

Both cases assert that Adidas’ and Crocs’ alleged misconduct is an offensive invasion of privacy.

“Defendant’s actions amount to the digital equivalent of looking over consumers’ shoulders, reading consumers’ journals, and eavesdropping on their conversations,” the suit against Adidas says.

According to the suit against Crocs, the company harvests data for financial gain since, as one industry expert puts it, “[l]ive chat transcripts are the gold mines of customer service.”

The lawsuit against Adidas America, Inc. looks to represent anyone in California who, within the past year, visited Adidas.com and had their electronic communications intercepted, recorded, and/or monitored by the company without prior consent.

The lawsuit against Crocs, Inc. looks to represent anyone in California who communicated with Crocs using the chat feature on its website via cell phone and had their communications recorded and/or eavesdropped upon without prior consent during the applicable statute of limitations period.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.