Sandals Resorts Intern. Ltd. v. Google, Inc.

Some unknown person sent an email to a number of undisclosed recipients containing information that was critical of the hiring and other business practices of the Caribbean resort Sandals. Irritated by this communication, Sandals filed an action in New York state court seeking a subpoena to compel Google to identify the owner of the offending Gmail account.

The trial court denied the petition seeking discovery. Sandals sought review with the appellate court. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the petition for discovery.

Under New York law, a person or entity can learn the identity of an unknown possible defendant only when it demonstrates that it has “a meritorious cause of action and that the information sought is material and necessary to the actionable wrong.” In this case, the court held that the petition failed to demonstrate that Sandals had a meritorious cause of action.

The court found that nothing in the petition identified specific assertions of fact as false. It also found that the lower court did not err in reasoning that the failure to allege the nature of the injuries caused by the statements in the email were fatal to the petition.

It went on to find that even if the petition had sufficiently alleged the email injured Sandals’ business reputation or damaged its credit standing, it would still deny the application for disclosure of the account holder’s identification on the ground that the subject email was constitutionally protected opinion.

Simonoff v. Expedia, Inc.

Plaintiff sued Expedia under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”). He was upset that the electronic receipt Expedia emailed him contained the expiration date of his credit card.

The district court dismissed plaintiff’s case and he sought review with the Ninth Circuit. On appeal, the court affirmed that the electronic receipt did not violate FACTA.

FACTA provides that “no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.”

The restriction applies only to “receipts that are electronically printed.” The court found that the electronic receipt did not fall into this scope. It looked to the general notion of what it means for something to be “printed”:

• “Print” refers to many different technologies—from Mesopotamian cuneiform writing on clay cylinders to the Gutenberg press in the fifteenth century, Xerography in the early twentieth century, and modern digital printing—but all of those technologies involve the making of a tangible impression on paper or other tangible medium.
  

Users v. Facebook new Privacy Litigation

Plaintiff Facebook users sued defendant Facebook for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code17200, et seq., alleging that Facebook intentionally and knowingly transmitted personal information about plaintiffs to third-party advertisers without plaintiffs’ consent.  Facebook moved to dismiss the UCL claim.  The court granted the motion.

Defendant argued that plaintiffs failed to state a claim because they lacked standing under the UCL, since they did not allege they lost money or property.  Defendant asserted there was no such loss because plaintiffs’ “personal information” did not constitute property under the UCL.

Instead, the plaintiffs had alleged that defendant unlawfully shared their “personally identifiable information” with third-party advertisers.  However, the court distinguished the plaintiffs’ claim from Doe 1 v. AOL, LLC, 719 F.Supp.2d 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2010).  In that case, the plaintiffs’ personal and financial information had been distributed to the public after the plaintiffs therein signed up and paid fees for AOL’s service.  The court dismissed plaintiff’s claim in this case under the holding of Doe v. AOL — since plaintiffs alleged they received defendant’s services for free, they could not state a UCL claim.

Hubbard v. MySpace

Plaintiff, who sued on behalf himself and others similarly situated, claimed that MySpace improperly turned over account information and private messages to law enforcement, even though there was a search warrant. Plaintiff claimed this violated the Stored Communications Act, 18 USC 2701 et seq. MySpace moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion.

The version of the Stored Communications Act in effect at the time of the alleged wrongful disclosure in this case provided that a search warrant seeking the information must issue from a federal court “with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation,” or be “an equivalent State warrant.”

Plaintiff argued that the warrant sent to MySpace was not sufficient under the SCA (and should have been ignored) because (1) the state magistrate did not have jurisdiction to hear the felony that the cops were investigating plaintiff for, and (2) the magistrate did not have the power to issue search warrants across state lines.

The court rejected both of these arguments. In determining the warrant to be “an equivalent State warrant,” it looked to the way federal magistrates issue warrants in SCA cases. It held that the phrase “jurisdiction over the offense under investigation” refers to the power to issue warrants, not to the power to ultimately try the case. And the court looked to the legislative history around the Patriot Act amendments to conclude that SCA investigations give magistrate judges special powers to direct search warrants across state lines, because having to require cooperation with the courts in which an ISP actually exists might allow enough time for a terrorist to get away or strike again.

Frees, Inc. v. Phil McMillian

Former Employees Use Data Obtained From Plaintiff’s Computers To Aid Competitor

Defendants McMillian and Pierceall were former employees of plaintiff Frees Inc., a company that manufactures and markets ventilation and dust control systems.  Both defendants went to work for Southeast, a competitor of plaintiff.  The complaint alleged that defendants improperly obtained proprietary data from plaintiff’s computer systems, which they used to assist Southeast in competing with Frees.  Defendant McMillian was also alleged to have deleted data from Frees’ computers before he left its employ.  As a result, plaintiff expended over $16,000 to engage computer consultants to  conduct a forensic investigation of its computers, and the harm McMillian may have caused.  Frees did not suffer any interruption of service as a result of defendants’ alleged misconduct.

Plaintiff commenced this suit, asserting claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. section 1030.  Plaintiff sought to recover both the funds expended in retaining the computer consultants, as well as the revenues it lost as a result of  defendants’ use of its proprietary data.

Randall David Fischer v. Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, et al.

Court allows plaintiff to proceed with claims advanced against his employer and various fellow employees under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Electronic Communications Storage Act, and Wisconsin's right to privacy statute, Wis. Stat. Section 895.50, as well as a common law defamation claim, arising out of defendants' interception of a telephone call plaintiff placed from his place of employ, and defendants' review of e-mails contained in a personal e-mail account plaintiff maintained with Hot Mail, which account plaintiff accessed from his work place.  There were sharply differing versions of the content of these various communications.  Defendants alleged that during the telephone call, the participants, while masturbating, graphically described homosexual activity between two males.  Plaintiff denied this.  Defendants also alleged that e-mails read from plaintiff's email account evidenced that plaintiff was involved in homosexual activity.  Plaintiff denied that these e-mails had been sent to him.

Defendants' version of the telephone conversation was related to various third parties, which resulted in the termination of plaintiff's employment.  This lawsuit ensued.  The court determined that plaintiff should be permitted to proceed with various claims he asserted.

The court refused to dismiss plaintiff's claim, advanced under Wisconsin's right of privacy law, section 895.50, arising out of the review of e-mail from plaintiff's personal Hot Mail account.  The court held that issues of fact existed as to whether the review of such e-mail would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and as to whether a reasonable person could consider such an account to be private, which precluded a grant of summary judgment to defendants.  The court also refused to dismiss the claim plaintiff brought under the Electronic Communications Storage Act arising out of the review of these e-mails.  If such a review took place (as opposed to defendants' having fabricated the e-mails) it would run afoul of the Stored Communications Act.  The court did dismiss the claims plaintiff raised under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, holding that plaintiff had not alleged economic damages arising from the review of these e-mails sufficient to state a claim under the Act.

The court also refused to dismiss the claims plaintiff advanced under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Wisconsin Privacy Act arising out of the interception of the telephone call described above.  The court refused to dismiss plaintiff's ECPA claim because, depending on what actually occurred, the defendants should have stopped listening to the telephone call when they discovered it was personal in nature.  The court refused to dismiss plaintiff's privacy act claims because plaintiff may have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the telephone call if his claim that he made the call from a place his employer designated for private personal calls was true.

Lastly, the court refused to dismiss plaintiff's defamation claim, finding that issues of fact precluded it from determining whether defendants' communication of their version of the telephone call to third parties was protected by the common interest privilege possessed by members of religious associations as to communications pertaining to the qualifications of those who work for the organization.  Such privilege may have been lost, given plaintiff's claim that the defendants were lying about what took place during the telephone call.

A.V., et al. v. IParadigms, Limited Liability Company

Court holds that minors entered into valid ‘click wrap’ agreement with defendant IParadigms LLC (“IParadigms”) by clicking an “I agree” icon which appeared directly below an online Usage Agreement, and indicated their assent to be bound thereby.  Plaintiffs were high school students that were directed by the schools they attended to submit class work to defendant IParadigm’s “Turnitin” website to check for plagiarism.  As part of this submission process, plaintiffs were obligated to assent to the site’s Usage Agreement.  Because the Usage Agreement contained a limitation of liability clause precluding liability to plaintiffs as a result of their use of the Turnitin site, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims, which arose out of defendant’s storage of plaintiffs’ class work in a database used to check student homework for plagiarism.

In reaching this result, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ claims that, as minors, they were not bound by the terms of the site’s Usage Agreement.  Because they had accepted the benefits of the agreement – the ability to submit their class work for grade to their respective schools was dependent upon their use of the site – they could not escape the contractual conditions upon which such benefits were rendered.

The Court further held that plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims failed because defendant had made a permissible fair use of their works.  In reaching this result, the Court relied on the fact that Turnitin’s use of plaintiffs’ school work was highly transformative of the original works, in that it added plaintiffs’ school work to a non-publicly available database used only to check for plagiarism by students.  The Court also rested its holding of fair use on the fact that defendant’s use did not impact the market for plaintiffs’ works, as the copies Turnitin made thereof were not available to the public, but rather maintained in a non-public database.

The Court rejected the counterclaims advanced by defendant iParadigms, including a claim for indemnification as a result of the commencement of this action.  This claim was based on a separate “Usage Policy” found on the Turnitin site.  The Court held that plaintiffs were not bound by this policy, which was not linked or otherwise referenced in the Usage Agreement to which plaintiffs were in fact bound.  There was no evidence that plaintiffs were aware of this separate “usage policy,” which was contained in a link on each page of the Turnitin site.  As a result, and because the parties’ contract stated that it constituted the full agreement between the parties, the plaintiffs’ use of the site was held not to create a valid browse wrap agreement, and the claim for indemnification, predicated on the Usage Policy, was dismissed.