participated or intended to participate in the market they identify, or that the defendants prevented them from capturing the full value of their internet usage information for themselves. For example, they do not allege that they sought to monetize information about their internet usage, nor that they ever stored their information with a future sale in mind. Moreover, the plaintiffs do not allege that they incurred costs, lost opportunities to sell, or lost the value of their data as a result of their data having been collected by others. To connect their allegations to the statutory “loss” requirement, the plaintiffs’ briefing emphasizes that lost revenue may constitute “loss” as that term is defined in the Act.109 This is inapposite, however, in that the plaintiffs had no revenue. We see no “damage” or “loss” in the pleadings. We will therefore affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the claim for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. IV. State Law Claims Against Google We now turn to the five California state law claims brought against Google only. A. Freestanding Privacy Claims We first consider, in tandem, the plaintiffs’ freestanding privacy claims under the California Constitution110 and California tort law. 109 Id. at 43-45. 110 Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution states: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending 50