Judge Tana Lin, nominated by President Biden to the district court in the Western District of Washington, ruled against Amazon’s efforts to throw out a class action challenging it for invasion of privacy relating to consumers’ communications with their banks. The case can now move forward towards trial. The July 2024 decision was in Gladstone v Amazon Web Services Inc.
What is the background of this case?
Andrea Gladstone lives in Los Angeles and is a banking customer of Capital One. She routinely makes phone calls to Capital One about banking matters that she assumes are confidential. For example, in 2022, she made a number of calls on subjects including how to transfer funds from one account to another, initiate a partial refund using her travel insurance, and get information about an electronic transfer.
What she did not know, because neither Capital One nor anyone else told her, was that Capital One had contracted to use the Amazon Connect service to help “manage and monitor” the phone lines used by customers like Gladstone to receive support. The result, she contends, is that Amazon “records, gains access to,” and “learns the contents of” banking calls involving Capital One and customers like Gladstone. Customers are not told of the arrangement and do not provide consent.
In 2023, Gladstone filed a class action against Amazon, contending that its conduct violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), which authorizes damages for violations. Amazon filed a motion to dismiss the case as a matter of law, without discovery.
How did Judge Lin Rule and Why is it Important?
In a careful opinion, Judge Lin rejected Amazon’s motion to dismiss and ordered that the case should go forward. She thoroughly analyzed CIPA and relevant precedent, She recognized that the key legal issue in the case is whether a third party like Amazon who is hired by one of the parties to a communication can be liable for invasion of the privacy rights of the other party to the communication, like Gladstone.
Lin noted that courts had differing views on this issue. After careful review, she agreed that third parties like Amazon can be liable for invasion of privacy of people like Gladstone, noting that a“growing number” of other courts have so ruled. She similarly rejected other legal assertions by Amazon and concluded that Gladstone had “sufficiently alleged” a violation of CIPA for the case to move forward with discovery and trial.
Judge Lin’s decision is obviously important to Andrea Gladstone and other Capital One customers who seek relief for the invasion of privacy that they contend Amazon committed. The ruling is also significant to the proper interpretation of state privacy laws, particularly in California. In addition the decision serves as an example of the importance of prompt confirmation of fair-minded judges to our federal courts.