Analysis could also affect liability of enterprises using cloud computing technologies.

Steinbach v. Village of Forest Park, No. 06-4215, 2009 WL 2605283 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2009)

Local elected official Steinbach had an email account that was issued by the municipality. Third party Hostway provided the technology for the account. Steinbach logged in to her Hostway webmail account and noticed eleven messages from constituents had been forwarded by someone else to her political rival.

Steinbach sued the municipality, her political rival and an IT professional employed by the municipality. She brought numerous claims, including violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. She also brought a claim under Illinois common law for intrusion upon seclusion, and the court’s treatment of this claim is of particular interest.

The defendant IT professional moved to dismiss the intrusion upon seclusion claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)(for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). The court denied the motion.

The court looked to the case of Busse v. Motorola, Inc., 813 N.E.2d 1013 (Ill.App. 1st. Dist. 2004) for the elements of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. These elements are:

• defendant committed an unauthorized prying into the plaintiff’s seclusion;
• the intrusion would be highly offensive to the reasonable person;
• the matter intruded upon was private; and
• the intrusion caused the plaintiff to suffer.

The defendant presented three arguments as to why the claim should fail, but the court rejected each of these. First, the defendant argued that the facts allegedly intruded upon were not inherently private facts such as plaintiff’s financial, medical or sexual life, or otherwise of an intimate personal nature. Whether the emails were actually private, the court held, was a matter of fact that could not be determined at the motion to dismiss stage. Plaintiff’s claim that emails from her constituents were private was not unreasonable.

The defendant next argued that Steinbach had not kept the facts in the email messages private. But the court soundly rejected this argument, stating that the defendant failed to explain how Steinbach displayed anything openly. Plaintiff asserted that she had an expectation of privacy in her email, and defendant cited no authority to the contrary.

Finally, the defendant argued that the intrusion was authorized, looking to language in the Federal Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act that states there is no violation when the provider of an electronic communication services intercepts or accesses the information. The court rejected this argument, finding that even though the municipality provided the email address to Steinbach, Hostway was the actual provider. The alleged invasion, therefore, was not authorized by statute.

The court’s analysis on this third point could have broader implications as more companies turn to cloud computing services rather than hosting those services in-house. In situations where an employer with an in-house provided system has no policy getting the employee’s consent to employer access to electronic communications on the system, the employer—as provider of the system—could plausibly argue that such access would be authorized nonetheless. But with the job of providing the services being delegated to a third party, as in the case of a cloud-hosted technology, the scope of this exclusion from liability is narrowed.