plead a forced “sale” whereby they gave their trackable internet history information in exchange for advertisements delivered to their browsers (i.e., the “services”). The plaintiffs present no caselaw in support of their expansive construction of “sale.” And California federal courts have expressly rejected defining “sale” as to include “transactions” based on non-tangible forms of payment, including internet usage information specifically.142 Likewise, Black’s Law Dictionary defines a sale as a “transfer or property or title for a price,” requiring specifically “a price in money paid or promised.”143 We follow the view of the California federal courts, and see no “sale . . . of services” in the allegations of the complaint. The dismissal of this claim was thus proper, too. V. Conclusion In light of the foregoing, we will dispose of the plaintiffs’ claims in the following manner. We will affirm the dismissal of the three federal law claims brought against all defendants. Because the defendants were parties to all electronic transmissions at issue in this 142 See Claridge v. RockYou, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 2d 855, 864 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (rejecting plaintiff’s contention that “his transfer of . . . information to defendant in exchange for free applications[] constitutes a ‘purchase’ or ‘lease’” as finding “no support under the specific statutory language of the [Act]”); Yunker v. Pandora Media, Inc., 2013 WL 1282980, at *12 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (same). 143 Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (“Sale”). 59