Source: https://www.insideprivacy.com/cloud-computing/sixth-circuit-allows-lawsuit-to-proceed-against-electronic-monitoring-software-company/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:29:45+00:00

Document:
In a 2-1 decision on August 16, the Sixth Circuit refused to dismiss a claim against the maker of an online surveillance tool for wiretapping under both federal and state laws, and for intrusion against seclusion. While the breadth of this holding is unclear, and the case may be an outlier, the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning provides a potential new roadmap for plaintiffs seeking to hold companies that make and operate electronic monitoring software and devices responsible for the actions of their users under wiretapping laws.
invaded Plaintiff’s privacy under the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion.
The district court initially dismissed the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on all counts, but the Sixth Circuit reversed in each instance.
First, considering ECPA’s interception provision under § 2511, the Sixth Circuit joined the majority view that the term “intercept” requires contemporaneous acquisition of an electronic communication, and cannot apply to the acquisition of electronic communications already “at rest” in electronic storage. However, despite Awareness’s claims that its software did not capture any communications in real-time, the Court found sufficient ambiguity in WebWatcher’s marketing material—as cited in the Complaint—for Plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss.
This holding is especially significant because courts have overwhelmingly declined to find a cause of action for secondary liability under ECPA when manufacturers “merely provided a means through which a third party subsequently intercepts communications.” See In re Carrier IQ, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (collecting cases). Here, though, the Sixth Circuit relied on the fact that Awareness not only manufactured the WebWatcher program—but also continued to operate it even after its sale to a user. Thus, by framing Awareness’s involvement in terms of direct liability by way of its post-sale interactions, the Court may open a new avenue for plaintiffs to pursue manufacturers under ECPA. Moreover, the Communications Decency Act—which software companies often rely on as a shield against users’ actions—expressly does not apply to ECPA, or any similar State law. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(4).
Second, continuing to break new ground, the Sixth Circuit found that Awareness was independently and civilly liable as the manufacturer or the WebWatcher software under § 2512, which creates a fine for persons who “manufacture, assemble, possess, or sell any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.” § 2512(b). Taking the Complaint on its face, the Sixth Circuit found that Awareness marketed its software as means for one spouse to illegally monitor the communications of another spouse, in a way that goes “far beyond” any legitimate purpose. However, this section on its face applies only to criminal penalties, and not civil remedies. Moreover, most courts—including every Circuit Court to date—have found that civil remedies in ECPA lawsuits are only available for interception claims under § 2511, and not for other provisions such as § 2512.
It is unclear how influential Luis v Zang will be over the development of ECPA law. For example, putting aside the merits of its reasoning, the Court put significant stock in the fact that Awareness’s software was allegedly marketed and sold primarily for the purpose of illegal surveillance, and it is not clear that its holding can be extending to companies creating products with more legitimate uses. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed pro-se and evaluated under a motion to dismiss standard, and it is unclear whether the Plaintiff will be able to muster sufficient proof at later stages in the case. However, this lack of clarity could lead to more litigation, especially against cloud software providers who continue to play some role in their software’s operation.

References: § 2511
 § 230
 § 2512
 § 2512
 § 2511
 § 2512