Source: https://condonlaw.com/2016/06/diana-shapiro/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:29:52+00:00

Document:
California has long been a leader in privacy legislation. In 2004, California enacted CalOPPA, the first U.S. state law to require commercial operators of websites and online services that collect consumers’ personally identifiable information (PII) to conspicuously post detailed privacy policies disclosing what information is being collected and the categories of third parties with whom PII will be shared. The California Attorney General interpreted the term “online service” broadly to include any service available over the internet or that connects to the internet, including mobile apps, and demonstrated an unequivocal willingness to enforce CalOPPA in the mobile sphere.
Delta and United Airlines were among the recipients. Delta acknowledged receipt and stated that it would comply but did not do so within the 30-day statutory window.
People ex rel. Harris v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
The Court of Appeals continued its analysis by discussing the Supreme Court and federal courts’ historically broad interpretation of the ADA preemption provision. The Supreme Court considered the reach of the ADA preemption provision in three cases: American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995); Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992); and Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U.S. __ , 134 S.Ct. 1422 (2014). In those cases, each of which involved attempts to use state consumer protection laws to regulate airlines’ fare advertising and enforce violations of airline frequent flyer rules, the Supreme Court adopted an expansive view of preemption because of the inevitable impact on airline prices and services. A number of federal courts have reached similar conclusions in the context of lawsuits seeking to enforce air carrier privacy policies through state consumer protection laws. See In re JetBlue Airways Corp. Privacy Litigation 379 F. Supp. 2d 299 (E.D.N.Y. 2005); In re American Airlines, Inc., Privacy Litigation 370 F. Supp. 2d 552 (N.D. Tex. 2005); Copeland v. Northwest Airlines Corp. 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 35139 (W.D. Tenn. 2005); and In re Northwest Airlines Privacy Litigation 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10580 (D. Minn. 2004).
The Delta ruling reinforces the broad scope of the ADA’s preemption provision and its limitation on state consumer protection laws including those of general applicability. However, despite the outcome, the Delta litigation and the California AG’s intent to vigorously enforce CalOPPA has had a far reaching impact on the mobile marketplace. The Joint Statement of Principles raised the bar in terms of the disclosures consumers expect from mobile app providers as has voluntary compliance by the many website and online service providers which cannot rely on federal preemption principles. Privacy policies are now standard fare for airline mobile apps including Fly Delta.
1 People ex rel. Harris v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. Case No. A139238, 2016 WL 3001805 (Cal. Ct. App. May 25, 2016).
2 See 49 U.S.C. §§ 40101(a)(6) and (12)(A) .
4 2016 WL 3001805 at *8.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.