第九巡回法院裁定恢复针对收集用户数据提起的集体诉讼（案例简介）

更新时间：2017-09-18 15:41:30   张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1587次

Verizon（美国电信公司）的客户曾控告某广告公司通过“ZombieCookies”（一种恶意地储存或读取数据的技术）从其智能手机收集个人数据。本周二(2017年9月4日)，第九巡回法院已作出裁定：这些客户将有第二次机会对该广告公司提起集团诉讼。

联邦法官（本文指地区法院的法官）曾裁定中止原告对Turn公司提起的集团诉讼，并认为Turn公司被指控的行为应当根据首席原告与Verizon公司之间的协议强制仲裁。由三名法官组成的上诉庭（appeals panel）支持了用户的请求并推翻了联邦法官作出的裁定。上诉庭法官一致认为下级法院犯了明显的错误，并在裁定书中写道：“我们明确且坚定地认为下级法院犯了错误。”

2015年，Verizon公司的纽约用户在加利福尼亚北部地区起诉Turn广告公司，声称该广告公司使用“Zombie Cookies”通过用户的移动设备监视其网络行为。

广告商使用一些称为cookies的数据收集用户的网络信息，这些信息可用于针对性地对用户投放广告。用户通常可以删除Cookie，但首席原告Anthony Henson指出，Turn公司的“zombie cookies”能够逃避检测而无法被删除，即使强行删除，该公司也会重新进行创建。

去年，美国地区法官Jeffery White认为，原告对Turn公司提出的索赔与Verizon公司的客户服务协议（其中包含仲裁条款）紧密相关，于是支持了Turn公司提出的中止集团诉讼并强制仲裁的请求。

原告辩称，因Turn公司并不是协议的当事人，强制仲裁的申请应当被驳回。但White法官则认为，若索赔是由合同条款“直接产生”且该合同要求通过仲裁解决争议，这种情况下必须强制进行仲裁。

第九巡回法院驳回White法官的观点，认为原告的索赔并非基于客户协议。相反，法院认为原告的抱怨充满了对Turn公司不道德行为的指控，与客户协议毫无关联，这些不道德行为包括Turn公司在Verizon用户不知情的情况下收集数据，并绕过了用户手机的隐私控制程序进行信息传递。

委员会在其长达16页的意见书中写道：“原告所作的这些指控都非基于用户协议，也未试图从协议条款中寻求任何好处。”

原告代理律师Nimish Desai（旧金山Lieff Cabraser Heimann &Bernstein律师事务所合伙人）在周二表示，他与客户对法院作出的这项裁定都很满意。在一封电子邮件中，Nimish Desai写道：“我们期待能够作为集团诉讼原告的代理人提起诉讼。”

为得出结论，上诉庭援引1977年第九巡回法院在裁定“Bauman 诉 U.S. Dist. Court”案时确认的第三个要素，用于判断初审法院所作裁定在法律上是否存在错误。

上诉庭认为White法官错误地根据纽约州衡平法的禁止反言原则，并支持了Turn公司的强制仲裁请求。相反，White法官本应当根据加利福尼亚州衡平法的禁止反言原则，基于Turn公司并未在客户服务协议上签名的事实，在其被起诉时，对于该公司是否可以请求强制仲裁作出裁定。

第九巡回法院还认为，根据加利福尼亚州法律，若首席原告的索赔依据是用户协议，或索赔建立在该协议之上或与该协议紧密相关，则原告只能提交仲裁。

上诉庭在裁定书中写道：“地区法院没有适用加利福尼亚州（而是适用纽约州）的衡平法禁止反言原则，也没有正确地适用该州的法律，这是一个明显的错误。”

此外，上诉庭还发现，“Bauman案”确认的五个要素中，其中三个能够支持上诉请求。

截止周二，记者未能联系到Turn 公司的代理律师Wilson Sonsini（旧金山Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &Rosati律师事务所）发表评论。

今年四月，数字营销科技公司Amobee收购了Turn公司，根据Amobee网站的公告，Amobee公司与Verizon公司的代理律师均未对记者的请求予以置评。

根据亚利桑那州的指定，巡回法官William Fletcher、Richard Tallman和美国地方法院法官Roslyn Silver共同组成了第九巡回上诉庭。

  

【英文版】

9th Circuit Revives Class Action Over‘Zombie’ Smartphone Cookies

HELEN CHRISTOPHI September 5, 2017

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Verizon customers who accused an online ad company of using “zombie cookies” to collect personal data through their smartphones will have a second chance to sue the company as a class, the Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge appeals panel granted the subscribers’ petition to overturn a federal judge’s order staying their proposed classaction and compelling arbitration between the lead plaintiff and Verizon over Turn Inc.’s alleged conduct, ruling that the lower court had “committed clear error.”

“We are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” the per curiam opinion said.

A class of Verizon customers from New York sued Turn in the Northern District of California in 2015, claiming the company used “zombie cookies” to monitor their online behavior through their mobile devices.

Advertisers use bits of data called cookies to gather web information about users that can be used in targeted advertising. A user can delete a cookie, but lead plaintiff Anthony Henson said Turn’s “zombie cookies” evaded detection and could not be deleted. When a person deleted Turn’s cookies, the company recreated them, he claimed.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Jeffery White granted Turn’s motion to stay the class action and compel arbitration, finding the claims against Turn were “inextricably intertwined” with a Verizon customer agreement that includes an arbitration clause.

The plaintiffs had argued Turn’s motion to compel arbitration should be denied because Turn was not a party to the agreement. But White found arbitration must be compelled when claims “arise directly” from a provision of a contract that requires arbitration to settle disputes.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed with White Tuesday, finding the plaintiffs’ claims aren’t based on the customer agreement. Instead,their complaint was “replete with allegations of wrongdoing against Turn that have nothing to do with the customer agreement,” the court wrote, including that Turn collected data about Verizon users without their knowledge and bypassed their phones’ privacy controls in order to transmit their information to Turn.

“None of these allegations rely on the customer agreement or attempt to seek any benefit from its terms,” the panel wrote in its 16-page opinion.

Nimish Desai, a partner with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco who represents the plaintiffs, said Tuesday that he and his clients were pleased with the decision.

“We are looking forward to litigating these claims on behalf of the plaintiffs and the proposed class,” he said in an email.

To arrive at its conclusion, the panel relied on the third factor in Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, decided by the Ninth Circuit in 1977. The factor considers whether a trial court’s order is wrong as a matter of law.

The panel found that White had erred by granting Turn’s motion to compel arbitration under New York’s equitable estoppel doctrine. Instead, White should have applied the equitable estoppel doctrine of California – where Turn was sued – to determine whether Turn, as a nonsignatory to the customer agreement, can compel arbitration.

Under California law, Henson would have to arbitrate if his claims relied on the customer agreement, or if the claims were founded in or intertwined with the agreement, according to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.

“The district court committed clear error by applying New York’s equitable estoppel doctrine, rather than California’s, and by failing to apply California law correctly,” the panel wrote.

The panel found that three of the five Bauman factors weighed in favor of granting the petition.

Michael Rubin of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosatiin San Francisco represents Turn. He could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Digital marketing tech company Amobee acquired Turn this past April, according to an announcement on Amobee’s website.Representatives for Amobee and Verizon did not return requests for comment.

Circuit Judges William Fletcher and Richard Tallman and U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver, sitting by designation from the District of Arizona, made up the Ninth Circuit panel.