Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc.
SJC 12237
| Mass. | Oct 16, 2017Background
- John Ajemian died intestate in 2006 leaving a Yahoo! e-mail account; his siblings Robert and Marianne were appointed personal representatives of his estate and sought access to the account contents.
- Yahoo declined to provide message contents, citing the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and its terms-of-service (TOS) termination clause that purportedly allows Yahoo to delete or deny access to account content.
- The personal representatives obtained subscriber records via court order but sued in Probate & Family Court (2009) for a declaration that they were entitled to the e-mail contents as estate property and for an order requiring Yahoo to produce them.
- The Probate judge granted summary judgment to Yahoo based on the SCA; he also found factual disputes about whether the TOS formed a binding contract and denied summary judgment on that ground. The Appeals Court remanded; the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case to itself.
- The SJC considered whether the SCA bars Yahoo from voluntarily disclosing stored e-mail contents to personal representatives (via SCA §2702 exceptions) and whether Yahoo’s TOS independently prevents disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ajemian) | Defendant's Argument (Yahoo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SCA §2702 prohibits Yahoo from voluntarily disclosing decedent's e-mail contents to personal representatives | Personal representatives can receive contents under SCA exceptions (agency or lawful consent) because they act to marshal estate property | SCA bars disclosure except to actual living user or their agent; personal representatives cannot lawfully consent for a decedent | SJC: SCA does not categorically prohibit voluntary disclosure; summary judgment for Yahoo on this basis was erroneous |
| Whether personal representatives qualify as the decedent's "agent" under §2702(b)(1) | They serve the decedent's interests in administering the estate and thus are agents | Agency requires principal's control; personal representatives are appointed and controlled by the probate court, not the decedent | Held: Personal representatives are not "agents" under common-law agency for §2702(b)(1) |
| Whether personal representatives can give "lawful consent" under §2702(b)(3) on decedent's behalf | Lawful consent means consent permitted by law; probate law authorizes personal representatives to take possession and consent, so they can lawfully consent to disclosure | "Lawful consent" must be actual (express) consent from a living user; executor cannot provide consent for decedent under SCA | Held: "Lawful consent" can include consent by personal representatives acting pursuant to state probate authority; SCA does not preempt that role |
| Whether Yahoo's terms of service independently bar disclosure of account contents | TOS termination clause purportedly gives Yahoo discretion to deny access and remove content, superseding estate property rights | (Plaintiffs) TOS formation/enforceability is disputed; clause cannot be read to authorize destruction after litigation or to override estate rights without due process | Held: Court declined to decide on summary judgment — material factual disputes about contract formation remain; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (statutory use of common-law terms presumes common-law meaning)
- Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (same principle on common-law meaning)
- Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197 (discussing ECS/RCS distinction and SCA scope)
- In re Request for Order Requiring Facebook, Inc., to Produce Documents & Things, 923 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (privacy/SCA issues in posthumous access; dictum that provider may voluntarily disclose to those it deems to have standing)
- Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex rel. Breiner, 532 U.S. 141 (presumption against federal preemption of traditional state law areas)
- Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (presumption against unsolicited displacement of common-law rules)
- Keene v. Brigham & Women's Hosp., Inc., 439 Mass. 223 (spoliation doctrine prohibiting destruction of evidence)