June 5, 2020

June 05, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 04, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 03, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 02, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Delta Finds Reprieve in State Court, but Not Everyone Will Get to Fly the Friendly Skies

California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ attempt to bring an enforcement action against Delta Air Lines, Inc. won’t be leaving the runway. California Superior Court Judge Marla J. Miller has dismissed a data privacy complaint against Delta brought by Attorney General Harris. The development comes as an unexpected bump in the road for the Attorney General’s office, which has made enforcement of state privacy regulations a top priority. Judge Miller agreed with Delta’s argument that the claim should be dismissed on federal preemption grounds.

As we wrote previously, the claim against Delta arose in connection with the “Fly Delta” mobile application which, according to Attorney General Harris, violates California’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“CalOPPA”) because it fails to post a privacy policy. In October 2012, Delta was one of 100 mobile application developers to receive a warning letter from the Attorney General’s office, requesting that its application be brought into compliance with state law. After the warning letter’s 30 day period expired, Attorney General Harris filed an action alleging that Delta’s application continued to engage in unfair business practices by violating CalOPPA.

While the dismissal of the complaint against Delta is not the outcome the Attorney General wanted, it is properly viewed as a set-back rather than defeat. The Attorney General’s office has worked systematically over the past two years to build consensus around its claim that mobile applications are an “online service” and therefore must comply with CalOPPA. Its complaint against Delta was widely viewed as a test case signaling the Attorney General’s intention to increase enforcement efforts. Although the complaint was dismissed, Judge Miller’s holding that the federal Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 preempts application of CalOPPA to the Fly Delta application is industry-specific. Attorney General Harris is still free to (and likely will) bring enforcement actions against non-compliant mobile applications that aren’t operated by commercial airlines. Whether the same preemption argument would apply to other federally-regulated industries remains an open question.

So then, if you’re not in the business of operating a commercial airline, what does this mean for you? It means there is no time like the present to make sure that your mobile application or website service complies with CalOPPA’s requirements. An advisor to Attorney General Harris has already confirmed that in addition to preparing an appeal of the dismissal of the claim against Delta, the Attorney General’s office is preparing to bring a number of additional enforcement actions. As we have noted previously, the $2,500 per violation fine associated with this type of claim would potentially be staggering, since each download of a non-compliant application would constitute a separate violation. The potential penalties likely exceed the cost to comply by a large multiple.

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.


About this Author

Cynthia Larose, Privacy, Security, Attorney, Mintz Levin, Law Firm, electronic transactions lawyer
Member / Chair, Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice

Cynthia is a highly regarded authority in the privacy and security field and a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP). She handles the full range of data security issues for companies of all sizes, from start-ups to major corporations. Cynthia is masterful at conducting privacy audits; crafting procedures to protect data; advising clients on state, federal, and international laws and regulations on information use and data security; helping organizations respond to breaches; and planning data transfers associated with corporate transactions. She is an in-...

Evan Nadel, Member, Mintz Levin, Class Action Consumer Product Safety Privacy & Cybersecurity Insurance Consulting & Risk Management Employee Mobility & Trade Secrets

Evan is a litigator who represents clients in disputes related to technology and handles the full gamut of class action cases. Evan’s work on technology-related and business disputes encompasses false advertising / unfair competition, trademark, licensing, privacy, and contract matters. He defends clients facing putative class actions around false advertising and product liability, including cases with California unfair competition and consumer protection law claims. Evan also has an active insurance litigation practice, handling coverage claims and disputes among primary and excess insurers in a variety of contexts.

Evan Co-chairs the firm's Class Action practice group and his complex litigation practice is focused on technology-related litigation and class actions involving intellectual property, commercial contract disputes, along with insurance, trade secret, unfair competition, and other Internet-related litigation.

Evan has spent more than a decade defending putative class actions in California and elsewhere, including consumer products, false advertising, and other product liability claims. The majority of these lawsuits involved claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. He also has extensive experience in insurance coverage, contribution actions and is a member of the firm's Sports & Entertainment Practice.