People ex rel. Harris v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Decision Date | 25 May 2016 |
Docket Number | A139238 |
Citation | 247 Cal.App.4th 884,202 Cal.Rptr.3d 395 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE EX REL. Kamala HARRIS, as Attorney General, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. |
Counsel for Appellant: Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert Morgester, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Adam Miller, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Stacey D. Schesser, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, for State of California.
Counsel for Respondent: David J. Schindler, Los Angeles, Jennifer C. Archie (pro hac vice admitted), Drew R. Wisniewski (pro hac vice admitted), Latham & Watkins, LLP, for Delta Airlines, Inc.
Amicus Curiae for Respondent Delta Airlines, Inc.: Robert S. Span, Los Angeles, Steinbrecher & Span LLP, for Air Transport Association of America, Inc., doing business as Airlines for America.
, J.
In this appeal we hold that this lawsuit filed by the People, on behalf of the State of California (the State), under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et. seq. (UCL)1
), against Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta) is expressly preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (49 U.S.C. § 41713 (b)(1) ) (ADA). By its complaint, the State seeks injunctive and monetary damages based on an allegation that Delta's Fly Delta mobile application is in violation of the privacy policy requirements mandated by California's Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (Bus. & Prof.Code, §§ 22575 –22579 ; Stats.2003, ch. 829, § 1). Agreeing with Delta that the State's lawsuit was expressly preempted by the ADA, the superior court dismissed the complaint with prejudice after sustaining Delta's demurrer without leave to amend.2 We affirm.
In 2003, the Legislature added sections 22575
through 22579 to the Business and Professions Code, known as the Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (OPPA), to address the obligations of an operator of a commercial Web site or online service regarding the posting of a privacy policy on the Internet. (Stats.2003, ch. 829, § 1.) The Legislature found and declared all of the following: [¶] (Stats.2003, ch. 829, § 2.)
(Assem. Com. on Business and Professions, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 68 (2003–2004 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 28, 2003, p. 2; see Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 68 (2003–2004 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 2, 2003, p. 3 [‘ ’ ].) (Apple Inc. v. Superior Court (2013) 56 Cal.4th 128, 148, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 841, 292 P.3d 883
.)
Since its enactment in 2003, the OPPA has been amended three times. (Stats.2004, ch. 183, § 21; Stats.2004, ch. 865, § 32; and Stats.2013, ch. 390, § 1.) The statute currently contains detailed requirements addressing the drafting of a privacy policy and the posting of the privacy policy on an Internet website or online services. (Bus. & Prof.Code, §§ 22575
, 22576, 22578, subds. (a), (b).) In pertinent part, Business & Professions Code section 22575, reads:
Additionally, Business & Professions Code section 22577
defines certain terms used in the statute in the following manner: The OPPA further provides that an operator of an Internet website or online services is in violation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kemp v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.
...clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ pre-emptive intent.’ " ’ " ( People ex rel. Harris v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 884, 895, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 395.) "There is also a second rule that may be relevant to an analysis in preemption cases, namely, ......
-
In re Yahoo! Inc.
...does not provide for a private action or public prosecution for any violation of its provisions." People ex rel. Harris v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 247 Cal. App. 4th 884, 891 (2016). Moreover, Plaintiffs do not dispute that the OPPA does not provide Plaintiffs with a private right of action. ......
- People v. Lehman
-
Martin v. Meredith Corp.
... ... , IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, DOTDASH MEDIA, INC., and DOTDASH MEREDITH, INC., Defendants. No ... www.people.com ("People.com"). Most of the content ... Holdings (USA), Inc, v. United Air Lines, Inc. , 747 F.3d ... 145, 151-52 (2d Cir ... any violations of its provisions." People ex rel ... Harris v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. , 202 ... ...
-
California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Update: Substantive Law
...838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016).71. 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.72. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 109875 et seq.73. Ebner, 838 F.3d at 965.74. 247 Cal. App. 4th 884 (2016).75. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22575-22579.76. 49 U.S.C. §41713 et seq.77. Delta Airlines, 247 Cal. App. 4th at 906.78. 2 Cal. App......
-
California Online Privacy Laws: the Battle for Personal Data
...v. Google Inc., No. 13-cv-04080-BLF, 2015 WL 1503429 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2015).150. People ex rel. Harris v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 247 Cal. App. 4th 884, 888-90...