At CIPAWorld, we talk a lot about the use of CIPA against web recording or web analytics companies.  Even though historically CIPA was designed to prevent wiretapping over the phone.

But, we have a case today that is a good old-fashioned “wiretapping” case.

Kinda.

In Gladstone v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 2024 WL 3276490 (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2024), Andrea Gladstone banked with Capital One bank.  Capital One uses a service called Amazon Connect.  Amazon Connect records and analyzes callers’ voice and conversations. The service is a “machine-learning powered contact center service”.  Importantly, Amazon “is collecting the content of any conversation before said data is provided” to Capital One.

Ms. Gladstone argued that Amazon’s CIPA violation is based on the first two clauses of Section 631: (1) intentional wiretapping and (2) willfully attempting to learn the contents or meaning of a communication in transit over a wire.

Amazon claimed it is exempt from Section 631 because they were a party to the conversation.  Amazon is correct when they state a party is exempt from CIPA claims, however, they are considered a third party “when they have the ‘capability’ to use customer data ‘for any other purpose (just as a tape recorded has no independent capability to divulge the recording for any other purpose but that of its owner).”

Amazon’s own Service Terms stated that they will use the information from Amazon Connect and how consumers interact with the Services to improve those services.  Gladstone also stated that Capital One agreed that Amazon “may use and store Amazon Connect ML Content” to develop and improve Amazon’s services.  So, clearly, this use is for “any other purpose”.  The Court found that Ms. Gladstone had sufficiently alleged a violation of Section 631. 

Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss was denied and the Court told the parties to propose a trial schedule.  We will watch this one more.