Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert
August 9, 2006, Alert No. 1,428.
Home Page | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues | Reference
9th Circuit Holds There is No Secondary Liability for Violation of ECPA's § 2702

8/8. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [15 pages in PDF] in Freeman v. DirecTV, a class action alleging violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal by the District Court. It and held that there is no secondary liability for violation of §§ 2702 and 2707 of the ECPA, which bar an electronic communication service provider from divulging electronic communications, and provide a private right of action for violation of the bar.

Introduction. The Court of Appeals' opinion is based on a plain reading of the statute, which clearly imposes the bar on divulging communications only upon the electronic communication service provider. The Court of Appeals declined to infer any secondary liability.

This case involves a frivolous class action against DirecTV for obtaining from the operator of a satellite signal piracy message board, the contents of communications of that message board, following the bringing of a legal action, and pursuant to a court order authorizing seizure. Nevertheless, this case is far reaching. This opinion holds that there is no secondary liability under §§ 2702 and 2707. § 2702 also serves as the basis for criminal liability for divulging the contents of electronic communications.

Moreover, the Court of Appeals suggested in dicta that there is no secondary liability for violation of any section of the ECPA.

Preventing satellite signal pirates from brining frivolous class action suits against the companies from which they are stealing signals is hardly noteworthy. However, there are other circumstances in which someone might conspire with an electronic communication service provider to obtain the contents of communications for which there are strong policy arguments for imposing civil or criminal liability upon both the service provider and the conspirator. This holding precludes the imposition of such secondary liability.

It should also be noted that § 2702 is drafted differently from 18 U.S.C. § 2511, which bars both wiretapping and procuring another to wiretap, and then bars subsequent disclosure of the fruits of the wiretap. It provides criminal and civil liability for any person who "intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication" or who "intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection".

Background. DirecTV is a direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service provider. It uses conditional access technology that encrypts its satellite transmissions. It then provides its paying customers with access cards that decrypt these satellite transmissions.

Numerous persons, who do not wish to pay for DBS service, use equipment, software, and programming codes to obtain pirated access to DBS service, which is barred by statute. DirecTV frequently takes legal action against distributors of these piracy technologies.

Lawrence Freeman, a plaintiff in the present action, has previously been sued by DirecTV for distribution of illegal signal theft devices.

Freeman also posted communications on electronic message boards operated by Daryl Gray in British Columbia, Canada. Gray operated web sites that provided an online meeting place for participants to discuss, exchange, and post DBS piracy technology information.

In a previous lawsuit, DirecTV sued Gray in Canada. DirecTV prevailed, obtaining both an injunction, and a civil writ of seizure. The Canadian writ allowed DirecTV to enter Gray's offices to "search for, examine, and remove or copy" evidence of piracy related activities including "the web sites, databases contained therein, electronic storage media and computer equipment." The writ also allowed DirecTV to remove or copy "any document, record, article, notes, information, instructions, correspondence, sent and received, electronic mail, howsoever stored, fixed, expressed or embodied". It further allowed DirecTV to designate an entity for this purpose. DirecTV designated ICG, which is also a party to the present appeal.

The order further allowed DirecTV to use "any and all evidence seized or delivered up pursuant to the order [to] be used in subsequent civil proceedings commenced by DirecTV against any third party, including, but not limited to proceedings against [Gray’s] customers, suppliers, members, and subscribers."

DirecTV obtained copies of Freeman's communications as a result of execution of this writ.

District Court Proceeding. Freeman filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (CDCal) against DirecTV and ICG, seeking class action status, alleging that DirecTV's seizure of his communications pursuant to the Canadian Court order violated the ECPA. An amended complaint identified Michael Scherer as a second named plaintiff.

The plaintiffs asserted that the ECPA was violated because of the manner in which the seized material was divulged and held. They assert that it is significant that when the servers and hard drives were seized, they were placed in the custody, not of DirecTV's attorneys, but an independent solicitor.

The District Court dismissed for failure to state a claim, on the grounds that 18 U.S.C. § 2702 does not provide a basis for asserting conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims. See, order [PDF].

Statute. 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1) provides the general prohibition. It states that "Except as provided in subsection (b) -- (1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service".

18 U.S.C. § 2707(a) provides a private right of action for violation of the prohibition. It states that "Except as provided in section 2703(e), any provider of electronic communication service, subscriber, or other person aggrieved by any violation of this chapter in which the conduct constituting the violation is engaged in with a knowing or intentional state of mind may, in a civil action, recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate."

The statute prohibits a provider of an electronic communication service from divulging communications. In the present case, Gray is the provider of the electronic communications service. He is not the defendant. DirecTV and ICG are not the providers of the electronic communications service. But, they are the named defendants. They are the deep pockets.

Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Freeman's argument is that DirecTV is liable under the statute for aiding and abetting the violation of the statute by Gray. Yet, neither § 2702(a)(1) nor § 2702(a)(1) contains a reference to either "conspiracy", "aiding and abetting", or similar conduct.

The Court of Appeals wrote that "There is no explicit provision in §§ 2702 and 2707 or anywhere else in the ECPA, providing for secondary liability. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that Congress knew what it was doing by not including such claims." The Court of Appeals wrote that it would not infer secondary liability.

The Court of Appeals held that "that the unambiguous language of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2702 and 2707 limits liability to providers of electronic communication services that knowingly divulge the contents of those communications while being stored by that provider. We reject Freeman and Scherer's to read implicitly into these statutory provisions claims for conspiracy or aiding and abetting. In addition to being contrary to the plain language of §§ 2702 and 2707, such an implied interpretation is not supported by legislative history or case law."

The Court of Appeals added that "Even if we were to accept Freeman and Scherer's invitation to consider the policy goals and legislative history, there is nothing about those goals or history that contradicts our determination that Congress intended to limit liability to providers of electronic communication services. Freeman and Scherer’s argument that the ECPA aims to protect the privacy of electronic communications is true, but inconsequential. Such broad goals tell us nothing about how Congress decides to accomplish a particular task."

Hence, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim.

There are other issues not addressed in the present opinion. For example, DirecTV also argued that Freeman's "claims were barred under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine". The Court of Appeals wrote that since it affirmed the judgment of the District Court on the grounds relied upon by the District Court, "DirecTV and ICG’s alternative arguments are not necessary."

Also, there is no mention in the Court of Appeals opinion regarding where this case arose. The provider of the electronic communication service (Gray) was in Canada, as were his servers. The order authorizing seizure of the communications was issued by a Canadian court. The seizure of the communications took place in Canada.

This case is Lawrence Freeman and Michael Scherer v. DirecTV, Inc. and ICG, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 04-56500, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Gary Klausner presiding, D.C. No. CV-04-02374-RGK. Judge Stephen Trott wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Margaret McKeown joined.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey Wilens, of the Lakeshore Law Center, who has filed other complaints against DirecTV, seeking class action status, under a variety of legal theories. See, for example, RICO complaint [PDF] and unfair competition complaint [PDF]. See also, Wilens' DirecTV web page.

The defendants are represented by Michael Williams of the Los Angeles office of the law firm of Quinn Emanuel.

Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
Wednesday, August 9

The House will next meet at 2:00 PM on Wednesday, September 6. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will next meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, September 5.

11:00 AM. The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) will host a news conference by teleconference to discuss the findings of the CDT study titled "Following the Money II: The Role of Intermediaries in Adware Advertising". The speakers will be Ari Schwartz and Alissa Cooper. The study will be published in the CDT web site at 10:00 AM. The call in number is 800-377-8846. The participant code is 92713123#.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will commence Auction 66. This is the auction of Advance Wireless Services (AWS) licenses in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz (AWS-1) bands. See also, notice in the Federal Register, June 2, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 106, at Pages 32089-32091.

Day one of a three day continuing legal education (CLE) seminar hosted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) titled "Practical Patent Prosecution for New Lawyers". See, notice [PDF]. For more information, call 703-415-0780. Location: Hilton Crystal City, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

Thursday, August 10

Day two of a three day continuing legal education (CLE) seminar hosted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) titled "Practical Patent Prosecution for New Lawyers". See, notice [PDF]. For more information, call 703-415-0780. Location: Hilton Crystal City, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

Friday, August 11

Day three of a three day continuing legal education (CLE) seminar hosted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) titled "Practical Patent Prosecution for New Lawyers". See, notice [PDF]. For more information, call 703-415-0780. Location: Hilton Crystal City, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division regarding its draft [11 pages in PDF] of Special Publication 800-96, titled "PIV Card / Reader Interoperability Guidelines".

Tuesday, August 15

1:00 - 3:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee will meet to prepare for ITU Radiocommunication Sector's Special Committee on Regulatory/Procedural Matters that will take place on December 4-8, 2006, in Geneva, Switzerland. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 4, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 86, at Pages 26397-26398. Location: Boeing Company, 1200 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. Day one of a two day continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Software Patent Primer: Acquisition, Exploitation, Enforcement and Defense" hosted by the DC Bar Association. The speakers will include Stephen Parker (Novak Druce), Brian Rosenbloom (Rothwell Figg Ernst & Manbeck), David Temeles (Temeles & Temeles), and Martin Zoltick (Rothwell Figg). The price to attend ranges from $95-$170. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice and notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

Wednesday, August 16

6:00 - 9:15 PM. Day two of a two day continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Software Patent Primer: Acquisition, Exploitation, Enforcement and Defense" hosted by the DC Bar Association. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice and notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

Caprio Named President of Progress and Freedom Foundation

8/7. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) named Dan Caprio to be its next President. He will replace Raymond Gifford, who will become a partner in the Denver, Colorado law firm of Kamlet Shepherd Reichert. Gifford has been a special counsel for the firm. He was previously Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Gifford will remain an adjunct fellow at the PFF. See, PFF release.

rightCaprio (at right) joined the PFF in April of 2006 as a Executive Vice President, and a Senior Fellow. Before that, he was the Department of Commerce's Chief Privacy Officer and acting Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy.

Prior to working at the DOC, Caprio was Chief of Staff to former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Orson Swindle, who is now is a Distinguished Fellow at the PFF.

DC Circuit Affirms in Trudeau v. FTC

7/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in Trudeau v. FTC, affirming the District Court's dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Previously, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought an enforcement action against Kevin Trudeau in the U.S. District Court (NDCal) alleging false and misleading advertising in violation of the FTC Act. The FTC and Trudeau settled that action. The FTC published a release that describes the action and settlement.

Trudeau then filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (DC) against the FTC alleging that the FTC's release was false and misleading. He argued that the FTC exceeded its statutory authority, and violated his First Amendment rights.

The District Court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the release was not a final agency action within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act. Hence, it dismissed the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court also concluded that Trudeau failed to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), FRCP.

The Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis that Trudeau failed to state a claim.

This opinion may be significant in two respects. First, it stands as authority for the proposition, which journalists have long understood, that federal agencies may, and sometimes do, issue false and misleading press releases.

Second, this opinion contains a long and detailed discussion of the Administrative Procedure Act and the nature of, and jurisdiction in, judicial review of a final agency action.

This case is Kevin Trudeau v. FTC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, App. Ct. No. 05-5363, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, D.C. No. 05cv00400. Judge Garland wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Henderson and Edwards joined.

About Tech Law Journal

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for journalists, federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2006 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.