EMMETT v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC.
2:22-cv-01568
| W.D. Pa. | Jun 3, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Ryan Emmett alleges Delta Air Lines’ website used “session replay” software to record users’ interactions—including keystrokes and mouse movements—without prior consent.
- Emmett brings claims under the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act (PWA) and for common law intrusion upon seclusion on behalf of himself and a class of Pennsylvania residents whose interactions were recorded.
- Delta moved to dismiss, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and federal preemption under the Airline Deregulation Act.
- The court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
- The case is at the motion to dismiss stage, and the court accepts plaintiff's factual allegations as true for purposes of adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction in PA | Delta targets/benefits from PA residents via site | Site merely accessible nationally; harm not aimed at PA | Delta expressly targets PA; jurisdiction proper |
| PWA: Is Session Replay Code a communication | Records are intercepted without consent | Data not "content"; not intercepted by a "device" | Data includes communication; interception and device definitions satisfied |
| Intrusion upon seclusion (common law privacy) | Non-consensual recording is offensive intrusion | Act isn't highly offensive; lacks specifics of harm | Generic recording not highly offensive; claim dismissed with leave to amend |
| ADA preemption | State privacy law doesn’t regulate air services | Website is airline service; state claims preempted | Statutory/tort claims not preempted; too remote from airline service regulation |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (general and specific personal jurisdiction analysis)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction standard for corporations)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 ("at home" standard for corporate jurisdiction)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (effects test for specific jurisdiction in intentional torts)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (scope of ADA airline deregulation preemption)
- Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (contract exception to ADA preemption)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements under Article III)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (injury-in-fact for statutory violations and standing)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (intangible harm and Article III standing)