Mark Jones v. Ford Motor Company, 85 F.4th 570

Ford vehicles include infotainment systems that automatically download and indefinitely store connected phones’ call logs and text messages; deletions on the phone do not remove the stored vehicle copies and owners cannot delete them.
Plaintiff Jones connected his phone to a Ford vehicle and allegedly had private text communications with plaintiff McKee that were thereby recorded and stored on the vehicle’s on-board memory.
Plaintiffs do not allege Ford actually accessed the stored communications; they allege third-party tools (e.g., Berla) can extract the stored data and such tools are available to select law enforcement and private investigators.
Plaintiffs sued in Washington state court under the Washington Privacy Act (WPA); Ford removed under CAFA and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The district court dismissed for failure to plead an injury to the plaintiff’s business, person, or reputation as required by Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.060, and alternatively held manufacturing liability did not extend to Ford; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing / remand	Ford’s motion alleged plaintiffs failed to plead a WPA statutory injury, which plaintiffs say rebuts federal jurisdiction and warrants remand	Article III injury-in-fact is separate from a statute-specific merits requirement; CAFA removal removes the presumption against federal jurisdiction	Plaintiffs had Article III standing based on alleged privacy violation; district court properly retained jurisdiction and remand denied
WPA statutory injury requirement	A statutory violation of the WPA (unauthorized recording) itself is an invasion of privacy and thus satisfies the statute’s injury element	The WPA requires an injury to one’s business, person, or reputation beyond a bare statutory violation or invasion of privacy	An invasion of privacy alone is insufficient; plaintiffs must plead injury to business, person, or reputation; plaintiffs failed to do so
Whether manufacturing/sale constitutes WPA liability	Manufacturing/selling vehicles with the system violates the WPA	WPA liability should not extend to manufacturers as a matter of law	Court did not reach this issue because the statutory-injury ruling was dispositive; alternative manufacturing holding need not be addressed

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury-in-fact)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (CAFA removal not subject to state-court-removal presumption)
Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060 (Article III standing distinct from merits/statutory pleading requirements)
Salmon Spawning & Recovery All. v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220 (statutory standing failure is a Rule 12(b)(6) merits failure when Article III injury is present)
In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589 (privacy statute violations can supply concrete injury for Article III standing)
Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc., 876 F.3d 979 (privacy violations actionable at common law)