Hiam v. HomeAway.com, Inc.
267 F. Supp. 3d 338
D. Mass.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Hiam and Hutchens booked and wired large deposits for a VRBO listing for the “Jewels of Belize” property; the property operators disappeared and plaintiffs claimed fraud.
- Plaintiffs sued HomeAway (owner/operator of VRBO.com) under Massachusetts Chapter 93A, Colorado consumer-protection law, and common-law fraud/aiding-and-abetting theories; they also sought declaratory relief.
- HomeAway moved for summary judgment, invoking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), and relying on its site Terms & Conditions, Basic Rental Guarantee, and Privacy Policy.
- HomeAway’s Basic Rental Guarantee offered up-to-$1,000 reimbursement for qualifying "internet fraud" but disclaimed pre‑screening, excluded wire transfers, and set eligibility requirements; its Terms expressly disclaimed verification of listings.
- The court found Section 230 bars claims premised on third‑party listing content but examined claims founded on HomeAway’s own policies (Guarantee/Privacy Policy) and granted summary judgment to HomeAway because plaintiffs could not prove essential elements or show actionable promises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 230 bars claims based on third‑party listing content | Plaintiffs: claims are partly based on HomeAway’s own site content (Guarantee/Privacy Policy) so CDA doesn't bar all claims | HomeAway: VRBO is an interactive computer service and the challenged harms arise from third‑party content; CDA immunizes those claims | Court: CDA bars claims treating HomeAway as publisher of third‑party listings; however claims tied to HomeAway’s own Guarantee/Privacy Policy may survive CDA inquiry but fail on the merits |
| Whether the Basic Rental Guarantee created a promise to investigate fraud reasonably or to pre‑screen/verify listings | Plaintiffs: the term “Guarantee” and policy language imply an obligation to reasonably investigate and verify listings | HomeAway: Guarantee only promises a remedial refund for qualifying internet fraud and reserves discretion; Terms disclaim any duty to pre‑screen or verify listings | Court: Guarantee promises investigation as defined (HomeAway’s discretionary inquiry) and refund subject to eligibility, but does not promise pre‑screening/verification; plaintiffs cannot show investigation was sham |
| Whether HomeAway violated its Privacy Policy by refusing to disclose user information | Plaintiffs: HomeAway’s refusal to disclose owner identity violated its Privacy Policy and was deceptive | HomeAway: Privacy Policy permits disclosure at its discretion (e.g., to enforce policies or comply with law) and does not promise disclosure | Court: No actionable privacy promise; discretion retained by HomeAway, so no 93A/CPPA violation |
| Whether equitable/unjust enrichment or common‑law fraud claims survive | Plaintiffs: HomeAway was unjustly enriched and committed fraud by adopting/concealing fraudulent listing and failing to honor guarantees | HomeAway: Plaintiffs have adequate legal remedies (contract/consumer‑statute claims); plaintiffs did not transfer funds to HomeAway; no false statement by HomeAway | Court: Unjust enrichment barred by availability of adequate legal remedies; fraud fails because HomeAway investigated as promised and plaintiffs cannot show knowledge of falsity |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Commc’n Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 2007) (Section 230 immunity framework for interactive computer services)
- Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (immunity for publisher/editorial functions under Section 230)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard when plaintiff cannot prove an essential element)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and materiality standard for summary judgment)
- Medina‑Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1990) (summary judgment standards in First Circuit)
- Cummings v. HPG Int’l, Inc., 244 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2001) (knowledge element for common‑law fraud and Chapter 93A distinctions)
- Levings v. Forbes & Wallace, Inc., 8 Mass. App. Ct. 498 (Mass. 1979) (standard for unfair or deceptive acts under Massachusetts law)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, 530 U.S. 133 (summary judgment when moving party bears the burden)