Long v. Insight Communications of Central Ohio, LLC
804 F.3d 791
6th Cir.2015Background
- In early 2012 plaintiffs (the Long family) were TWC subscribers at a Chardon, Ohio residence; TWC assigned their account an IP ending in .70.
- BCI agent investigating online child pornography located illicit material hosted at IP ending in .170 and obtained a grand jury subpoena to TWC seeking subscriber records for .170.
- TWC responded by providing subscriber details for the Longs (the .70 address) because it “ran the wrong IP address”; police executed a disruptive search but found no criminal evidence and stopped when the mistake was discovered.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2707(a)) and on Ohio state-law theories (invasion of privacy, intentional disclosure, IIED, breach of contract).
- The district court dismissed all claims, relying principally on the SCA’s § 2707(e) good-faith-defense and concluding plaintiffs failed to plead the required knowing/intentional state of mind or other elements of Ohio claims.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the complaint alleged only an inadvertent/mistaken disclosure and therefore failed to plausibly plead the SCA’s knowing/intentional mental state; Ohio claims also failed as pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SCA liability (18 U.S.C. § 2707(a)) exists for TWC's disclosure | Long: disclosure of subscriber info was unauthorized; SCA claim suffices without detailed mens rea allegations | TWC: disclosure was inadvertent; SCA requires knowing/intentional conduct, not mere negligence | Court: Dismissed SCA claim — complaint alleges only mistake/negligence, not the knowing/intentional state of mind required |
| Whether § 2707(e) good-faith-reliance defense bars liability | Long: defense should apply only when provider relied on a facially invalid subpoena, not when provider ran wrong data | TWC: good-faith reliance on a valid grand jury subpoena shields disclosure made in response | Court: Did not decide scope of § 2707(e) here because plaintiffs failed on mens rea ground; district court’s invocation of the defense need not be resolved |
| Validity of state-law privacy/invasion/IIED claims under Ohio law | Long: TWC’s disclosure supports claims for invasion of privacy and intentional emotional distress | TWC: disclosure was negligent/mistaken; Ohio law requires intentional intrusion or outrageous conduct for those torts | Court: Affirmed dismissal — allegations amount to negligent intrusion, insufficient for invasion of privacy or IIED under Ohio law |
| Breach of contract based on Subscriber Agreement/Privacy Notice | Long: agreement and privacy notice were breached by disclosing personal data | TWC: contract authorized compliance with legal process (e.g., subpoenas); it reasonably believed it was responding to a subpoena | Court: Dismissed breach claim — contract permitted disclosure in response to legal process and no facts alleged that TWC did not believe it was complying |
Key Cases Cited
- Courie v. Alcoa Wheel & Forged Prods., 577 F.3d 625 (6th Cir.) (standard of review for 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (must plead factual content supporting plausible inference of wrongdoing)
- McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015) ("knowingly" applies to objects of verbs; interpret mens rea scope)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (mens rea requires knowledge of facts making conduct wrongful)
- Sams v. Yahoo! Inc., 713 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir.) (discussion of good-faith subpoena defense under ECPA/SCA)
- Freedman v. Am. Online, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 638 (E.D. Va.) (good-faith-reliance tests and discussion of disclosure-vs.-validity mistakes)