In re Yahoo Mail Litigation
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68585
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiffs are non‑Yahoo Mail users who sent or received emails to/from Yahoo Mail subscribers and allege Yahoo intercepted, copied, scanned, indexed and used email content for advertising and other purposes.
- Plaintiffs assert violations of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA); after a motion to dismiss, only SCA §2702(a)(1) and CIPA §631 claims remained.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify (Feb. 2015) a nationwide injunctive/declaratory class (Rule 23(b)(2)) for non‑Yahoo users (Oct. 2, 2011–present); alternatively they requested a California‑only subclass for the CIPA claim.
- Yahoo argued lack of standing for injunctive relief (plaintiffs continued emailing Yahoo users after learning of scanning), commonality/typicality problems (individualized consent issues), and that CIPA cannot be applied nationwide under choice‑of‑law principles.
- The court found plaintiffs had standing for injunctive relief, that Rule 23(a) prerequisites (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) were met, certified a nationwide class as to the SCA claim, but denied nationwide certification for CIPA and instead certified a California‑only CIPA subclass.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for injunctive relief | Plaintiffs will continue emailing Yahoo users and thus face a real, imminent threat of repeated injury warranting injunctive relief | Knowledge of Yahoo’s practices and continued emailing constitutes consent and precludes future‑injury standing | Plaintiff standing satisfied: continuing emails show a real, immediate threat; rejecting rule that knowledge/continued exposure automatically defeats standing |
| Rule 23(a) commonality/typicality/adequacy | Claims arise from a uniform practice (interception/scanning) and share at least one common question (e.g., whether emails are intercepted in transit; disclosure to third parties) | Consent questions are individualized and defeat commonality/typicality/adequacy | Rule 23(a) satisfied: commonality need only one significant common question; typicality and adequacy met; possible consent defenses do not defeat these prerequisites |
| Rule 23(b)(2) — cohesiveness and indivisibility of relief | The class challenges a uniform pattern/practice and seeks class‑wide injunctive/declaratory relief to stop scanning and deletion/disclosure remedies | Individual consent inquiries make relief indivisible and the class not cohesive; some members may not desire or benefit from relief | Rule 23(b)(2) satisfied: plaintiffs seek uniform relief from a common practice; individualized consent or varying entitlement does not defeat (b)(2); indivisibility requirement met for injunctive relief |
| Choice of law for CIPA claims | California law should govern nationwide because Yahoo is headquartered in California and decisions emanate from California | CIPA differs materially from other states’ wiretap laws; other states have stronger interests protecting their residents; applying CIPA nationwide would impair other states’ interests | Denied nationwide CIPA class: material differences exist and other states’ interests outweigh California’s with respect to non‑residents; certified California‑only CIPA subclass instead |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Yahoo! Mail Litig., 7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (prior motion to dismiss decision leaving SCA and CIPA claims)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality requirement explanation)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (plaintiff must satisfy Rule 23(b) by evidentiary proof; limits on certification analysis)
- Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (class standing principles)
- Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (choice‑of‑law analysis for nationwide class; significant aggregation of contacts test)
- Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2010) (Rule 23(b)(2) focuses on uniform relief from a common practice)
- Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998) (Rule 23(b)(2) certifiable where pattern or practice is generally applicable to class)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing for injunctive relief requires likelihood of future injury)