• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, May 21, 2018

A New York resident who downloaded an app for the Golden State Warriors has dropped a potential class-action lawsuit accusing the team and beacon technology company Signal 360 of violating wiretap laws by eavesdropping on her.

Lawyers for app user LaTisha Satchell didn't give any reason for the move in their court papers, submitted late last week to U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in Oakland, California. The court documents provide that even though Satchell was dropping her personal claims, other app downloaders could still bring a class-action in the future. The court papers also said that the Warriors and Signal 360 did not provide any "payment or other benefit" to Satchell or her lawyers.

The sudden move by Satchell appears to bring an end to a battle dating to September of 2016, when she alleged in a class-action complaint that the Warriors' mobile app turns on devices' microphones, and then records conversations and other audio whenever it's running.

The app sends offers to fans when they pass concession stands, and notifies users about the possibility of seat upgrades at the team's home stadium in Oakland. To accomplish this, the app tracks users' physical locations via beacons, which transmit audio signals that are picked up by phones' microphones, according to Satchell's complaint.

Satchell, who said she used the app from April through July of 2016, accused the Warriors, Signal360 and app developer YinzCam of violating the wiretap law by intercepting and using her private conversations without consent.

Last November, White dismissed the allegations against YinzCam, but said Satchell could proceed against the Warriors and Signal360. White specifically rejected the Warriors' argument that the complaint should be dismissed on the grounds that Satchell didn't allege that anyone ever learned anything about the contents of her conversations. Instead, he ruled that the allegations that the Warriors could access information generated by the app warranted further proceedings.

"Plaintiff cites at least four instances where she had her phone with her, the app was running, and she had conversations about private matters, including non-public information during a business meeting and private financial matters," he wrote last November.