• by Wendy Davis , July 14, 2025

Siding with Converse, a federal appellate court refused to revive claims that the company violated California's wiretap law by using Salesforce to power a chat feature that allowed online shoppers to exchange messages with the sneaker retailer.

In a ruling issued last week, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the trial judge correctly dismissed the lawsuit for several reasons, including that there was no proof Salesforce actually read the consumer's messages, which were encrypted.

"No evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Salesforce" read or attempted to read the chats, the judges wrote.

The judges added that "at best," the evidence could show that Salesforce was capable of reading messages sent through Converse's chat platform.

The ruling comes in a lawsuit brought against Converse in 2023 by California resident Nora Gutierrez. She alleged that she visited Converse's website and used the "chatbox" function, which Salesforce helped operate.

The complaint alleged that she "was not informed that her conversations were being recorded and exploited for commercial surveillance purposes without her consent."

The complaint included a claim that Converse was violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act -- a 1967 wiretap law that includes a prohibition on reading or attempting to read messages in transit, without all parties' consent.

U.S. District Court Judge Kenly Kiya Kato in the Central District of California awarded Converse summary judgment -- meaning judgment before trial -- writing that Gutierrez failed to present evidence to support a finding that Converse violated the wiretap law.

Gutierrez then asked the 9th Circuit to restore her claims, arguing that she should have been able to make her case to a jury.

Converse opposed Gutierrez's request, writing in its appellate brief that Salesforce doesn't "record or track" chats, or information about Converse's customers.

Converse is one of numerous online companies to recently face lawsuits alleging violations of California's wiretap law.

The state legislature is currently considering a bill that would create exemptions to the law for “commercial business purposes” -- including online advertising and internal research. Those exemptions would effectively make clear that companies can track people's online activity for ad purposes without violating the state wiretap law.

A separate law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, would still give consumers the right to opt out of “cross-context” behavioral advertising -- meaning ads served based on activity across sites or apps.