In re JetBlue Airways Corp. Privacy Litig. - 379 F. Supp. 2d 299 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)

Rule:

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C.S. § 2701, et seq., defines "electronic communication service" as any service which provides to users the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications. 18 U.S.C.S. § 2510(15). The term "electronic communication" includes any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by wire, radio, electronic, photoelectronic or photoptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C.S. § 2510(12). "Remote computing service" refers to the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communication system. 18 U.S.C.S. § 2711(2). The statute expressly excludes from the definition of "electronic communication": (a) any wire or oral communication; (b) any communication made through a tone-only paging device; (c) any communication from a tracking device; and (d) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds. 18 U.S.C.S. § 2510(12)(A) - (D). 

Facts:

A nationwide class of plaintiffs brings this action against JetBlue Airways Corporation ("JetBlue"), Torch Concepts, Inc. ("Torch"), Acxiom Corporation ("Acxiom"), and SRS Technologies ("SRS") for alleged violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. (1986), and violations of state and common law. Plaintiffs claim that defendants violated their privacy rights by unlawfully transferring their personal information to Torch for use in a federally-funded study on military base security. Plaintiffs seek a minimum of $1,000 in damages per class member, or injunctive relief to the extent that damages are unavailable, as well as a declaratory judgment. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that plaintiffs have failed to state a federal cause of action under the ECPA, that plaintiffs' state law claims are federally preempted, and that plaintiffs have failed to state any claim under state law.

Issue:

Was the ECPA claim against the defendants meritorious?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The district court agreed that the airline did not become an "electronic communication service" provider under the ECPA simply because it maintained a website that allowed for the transmission of electronic communications between itself and its customers. Likewise the court found that because the sole basis for the plaintiffs' ECPA claim against the related defendants was an aiding and abetting or conspiracy theory, the ECPA claim against these defendants did not stand absent liability on the part of the airline. Finally, the court found that the plaintiff's trade practices claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 was preempted under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 49 U.S.C.S. § 41713(b), but that the plaintiffs' breach of contract, trespass to chattels, and unjust enrichment were not preempted, but these claims failed on the merits.