Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72062
N.D. Ga.2015Background
- Aspen Way (Montana-based Aaron’s franchisee) sold/leased PCs containing PC Rental Agent software that allegedly allowed remote access to webcams, activity logs, and other private files without customers' knowledge.
- Plaintiffs Michael Peterson (CO) and Matthew Lyons (OK) allege Aspen Way remotely accessed and collected private information from their lease-purchase computers.
- Plaintiffs sued Aspen Way and Aaron’s, Inc. under the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act (GCSPA) and for common-law intrusion upon seclusion (invasion of privacy).
- Aspen Way moved to dismiss arguing GCSPA does not apply extraterritorially and contesting privacy claim scope; Aaron’s moved to dismiss arguing lack of direct involvement and challenging conspiracy/agency theories.
- Court considered whether GCSPA reaches out-of-state conduct and whether Aaron’s can be held jointly liable (conspiracy or aiding-and-abetting) for Aspen Way’s alleged invasive acts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GCSPA applies to out-of-state conduct | GCSPA can apply via choice-of-law and class members may include Georgia residents | GCSPA lacks extraterritorial text; alleged conduct occurred entirely outside Georgia | GCSPA claim dismissed as statute does not provide remedy for out-of-state conduct |
| Whether Aspen Way’s conduct states a common-law intrusion claim | Installing/using PC Rental Agent to monitor and collect private data without notice is an unreasonable intrusion | Use of software to recover stolen/defaulted computers is legitimate and not an unreasonable intrusion | Claim against Aspen Way survives; intrusion plausibly alleged |
| Whether Aaron’s is liable via civil conspiracy with Aspen Way | Aaron’s conspired with Aspen Way to use PC Rental Agent to spy on customers | No factual allegations show an agreement beyond conclusory labels | Conspiracy claim dismissed for failure to plead plausible agreement |
| Whether Aaron’s is liable for aiding/abetting Aspen Way’s invasion | Aaron’s promoted, trained, opened intranet access, and assisted Aspen Way with PC Rental Agent and knew of intrusive features | Georgia law limits independent aiding-and-abetting causes of action; but aiding theory can support joint liability for tort | Aiding-and-abetting theory adequately pleaded; invasion claim against Aaron’s survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions need not be assumed true at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state a plausible claim; labels and conclusions insufficient)
- Accu-Tech Corp. v. Jackson, 352 F. Supp. 2d 831 (statutory scope vs. choice-of-law distinction in extraterritoriality analysis)
- McIntee v. Deramus, 313 Ga. App. 653 (elements and proof standards for civil conspiracy under Georgia law)
- Insight Technology, Inc. v. FreightCheck, LLC, 280 Ga. App. 19 (discussion of aiding-and-abetting and scope of independent aiding claims under Georgia law)