Stored Communications Act

South Carolina Ruling Raises Uncertainty Regarding Liability for Accessing Others’ Webmail Accounts Without Permission

On October 10, 2012, the South Carolina Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Jennings v. Jennings.  The court was faced with the challenge of interpreting a somewhat ambiguous provision in the Stored Communications Act (the “SCA”) – a federal law enacted in the late 1980s.   The court’s opinion did little to help clarify the existing (and conflicting) interpretations of the SCA.

The Background of the Jennings Case
The Jennings case arose out of a domestic dispute in which a husband’s Yahoo webmail account was accessed without the husband’s consent.

After learning of the unauthorized email access, the husband filed suit alleging violations of various South Carolina laws and the SCA.  While the state law claims were dismissed by lower courts, the South Carolina Supreme Court was left to decide whether the unauthorized webmail access constituted a violation of the SCA.  The court – in a plurality opinion – concluded that the alleged unauthorized access of the webmail account was not a violation of the SCA.

SCA Definition of Electronic Storage
The SCA is a federal criminal statute which criminalizes unauthorized accessing of emails that are in “electronic storage”.   Private parties damaged by violations of the SCA can bring civil claims.

For purposes of  the SCA, 12 U.S.C. §2510(17) defines “electronic storage” as:

“(A) any temporary, intermediate storage of a[n]  . . . electronic communication incident to the electronic transmission thereof; and

(B) any storage of such communication by an electronic communication service [e.g., Yahoo! Mail, Microsoft Hotmail or Google Gmail] for purposes of backup protection of such communication.”

While all five of the South Carolina Supreme Court justices agreed that the emails in question were not in “electronic storage”, there were three different opinions issued by the court and each contained a different rationale.

Justice Hearn’s Opinion
Justice Hearn, joined by Justice Kittredge, noted in her opinion that in order for something to meet the statutory test for “electronic storage” it simply had to meet either the requirement of  §2510(17)(A) or  §2510(17)(B) — notwithstanding word “and” joining the two statutory provisions.

Focusing on §2510(17)(B), Justice Hearn concluded that in order for there to be email storage for backup purposes there must be at least two copies of an email in existence (and at least one copy must be left on the service provider’s system for “backup”).  Since there was no evidence that Jennings had ever copied or downloaded the emails from Yahoo’s servers prior to the unauthorized access, it appeared that the only emails in existence were the original emails on Yahoo’s servers – thus they were not stored on Yahoo’s system for “backup purposes”.

Chief Justice Toal’s Opinion
Chief Justice Toal (joined by Justice Beatty) concurred with Justice Hearn’s result but not her reasoning.  Chief Justice Toal believed that for an email to be in “electronic storage” it must meet the tests of both §2510(17)(A) and  §2510(17)(B). In her view, “electronic storage refers only to temporary storage made in the course of transmission, by an [email service provider like Yahoo], and to backups of such intermediate communications.”  Basically, if the email remains unopened on the email provider’s servers, it is in electronic storage – but once the recipient opens the email it ceases to be in electronic storage.

Justice Pleicones’ Opinion
Justice Pleicones, like Justice Hearn, concluded that §2510(17)(A) and §2510(17)(B) are independent tests for determining electronic storage.  However, Justice Pleicones’ opinion concluded that under §2510(17)(B)  the key issue was whether the emails were copies made by the email service provider for backup purposes.  Since there was no evidence Yahoo had retained the accessed emails for backup purposes, the emails were not in “electronic storage” and therefore not protected by the SCA.

What Does It Mean?
The Jennings case adds to the existing confusion regarding the reach of the Stored Communication Act.  Indeed, its result is very different from the result reached in the Ninth Circuit’s widely cited Theofel v. Farey-Jones decision.

Given the inconsistent court rulings across the United States, there will be a great incentive for plaintiffs seeking to take advantage of the SCA to find the jurisdiction that will be most favorable to their cause of action.    Internet and email service providers will also be forced to deal with continued uncertainly regarding the application and interpretation of the SCA across the Federal and state court systems.

Todd Taylor

About Todd Taylor

Todd Taylor serves as a Member and co-leader of Moore & Van Allen's Commercial & Technology Transactions practice group, as well as its Privacy & Data Security group. Todd focuses his practice on outsourcing, licensing, data privacy and security, technology and supply chain matters.

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Welcome to the MVA IP Law Blog!

Moore & Van Allen’s IP Law Blog covers hot topics in U.S. and international intellectual property law and provides insight into critical litigation, legislative, regulatory and policy developments. In today’s highly competitive and rapidly developing business climate, technological advancements and the protection of intellectual property rights are paramount concerns common to companies, universities, and individuals operating in nearly every industry.

Connect to Recent Authors

  • Matt Witsil:  View Matt Witsil's Bio View Matt Witsil's LinkedIn profile
  • Emmett Weindruch: View Emmett Weindruch's Bio View Emmett Weindruch's LinkedIn profile
  • Todd Taylor:  View Todd Taylor's Bio View Todd Taylor's LinkedIn profile
  • John Slaughter:  View John Slaughter's Bio View John Slaughter's LinkedIn profile
  • Nick Russell:  View Nick Russell's Bio
  • Ellen Rubel:  View Ellen Rubel's Bio View Ellen Rubel's LinkedIn profile
  • Esther Queen:  View Esther Queen's Bio View Esther Queen's LinkedIn profile
  • Steve Phillips:  View Steve Phillip's Bio View Steve Phillip's LinkedIn profile
  • Chuck Moore:  View Chuck Moore's Bio View Chuck Moore's LinkedIn profile
  • Mark Wilson:  View Mark Wilson's Bio View Mark Wilson's LinkedIn profile
  • Chris Knors:  View Chris Knors' Bio View Chris Knors' LinkedIn profile
  • Jeff Gray:  View Jeff Gray's Bio View Jeff Gray's LinkedIn profile
  • Andy Gerschutz:  View Andy Gerschutz's Bio View Andy Gerschutz's LinkedIn profile
  • Jim Edwards:  View Jim Edwards' Bio View Jim Edwards' LinkedIn profile

  • Subscribe to Blog via Email

    Follow MVA

    Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

    Blog Topics

    Archives


    Our IP Practice

    Moore & Van Allen is located in the Research Triangle and Charlotte, North Carolina – two emerging hubs in the areas of biotech and energy. Moore & Van Allen’s intellectual property lawyers are highly-skilled and innovative in their approach to assisting clients in using patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and technology to achieve their business objectives.

    Our “business focused” team combines legal know-how with the technical proficiency and industry experience necessary to navigate our clients through matters in areas as diverse as nuclear power, navigation systems, microprocessor design, pollution control, pharmaceuticals, semi-conductor manufacturing, food processing, telecommunications, internet applications, computer software, business methods and consumer products.

    We offer a full range of patent, trademark, and copyright services, and our team is equipped with IP litigators with substantial state, federal, and international experience. To benefit and best serve our clients, we leverage our ongoing working relationships with highly qualified intellectual property practitioners and agents in virtually every country in the world. Read More About Our Practice and Meet the MVA IP Team.

    Disclaimer

    No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by Use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact Moore & Van Allen or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and Moore & Van Allen. As a matter of policy, Moore & Van Allen does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. (Moore & Van Allen may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter.) Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to Moore & Van Allen.


    No Legal Advice Intended: This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. (Read All)