Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc., 1:14-cv-01919

Plaintiffs Michael Peterson and Matthew Lyons allege Aspen Way (an Aaron’s franchisee) installed and activated PC Rental Agent’s “Detective Mode” on a leased laptop, capturing screenshots, keystrokes, and webcam images without consent. Lyons was the lessee; Peterson was not on the lease.
Detective Mode was installed on Lyons’ laptop on October 21, 2010 and used through February 7, 2011; Aaron’s contends it learned of franchisees’ use of Detective Mode only later.
Plaintiffs asserted claims including intrusion upon seclusion, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment, and GCSPA violations; unjust enrichment and GCSPA claims were dismissed and class certification denied.
Aspen Way moved for summary judgment on intrusion upon seclusion; Aaron’s moved for summary judgment on aiding and abetting.
Court applied Georgia choice-of-law rules and determined Oklahoma law governs Lyons’ privacy claim (Lyons was in Oklahoma when Detective Mode was active).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing (injury-in-fact)	Lyons suffered concrete injury from nonconsensual privacy intrusion; Peterson lacked interest in the leased laptop.	Defendants argued mere statutory/procedural violations or fear of future harm are insufficient.	Lyons has standing (privacy invasion is concrete); Peterson lacks standing.
Choice of law	Apply law where injury occurred.	N/A	Oklahoma law applies to Lyons’ intrusion claim.
Intrusion upon seclusion (Aspen Way)	Detective Mode captured private data; lessee retained reasonable expectation of privacy; keystrokes/screenshots unreasonable and highly offensive.	Aspen Way argued leased status, business use, and default undermined expectation of privacy; repossession rights justified some access.	Denied summary judgment as to Lyons: genuine issues remain on expectation of privacy and offensiveness; capture of keystrokes/screenshots could be highly offensive. Granted as to Peterson (no injury).
Aiding and abetting (Aaron’s)	Aaron’s knew Detective Mode was intrusive and knew some franchisees used it; its failure to stop franchisees supports inference it knew Aspen Way’s conduct.	Aaron’s lacked actual knowledge that Aspen Way activated Detective Mode; knowledge of other franchisees or PCRA’s capabilities is insufficient.	Aaron’s entitled to summary judgment—no evidence of actual knowledge of Aspen Way’s tortious conduct.

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (clarifies that statutory or procedural violations require a concrete injury to confer standing)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d 38 (3d Cir. 2011) (data-breach fear of future identity theft may be insufficient for injury)
People v. Sotelo, 336 P.3d 188 (Colo. 2014) (distinguishes expectation of privacy in containers/packages from expectation in vehicle; discussed analogies about privacy in items despite custodial/possession issues)