Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc.
SJC-12237, October 16, 2017 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., does not prohibit an electronic communication service provider from voluntarily disclosing the contents of a deceased user's email account to the personal representatives of their estate when those representatives provide lawful consent on the decedent's behalf.
Facts:
- John G. Ajemian died intestate in a bicycle accident on August 10, 2006, at the age of forty-three, leaving no will or instructions regarding his digital assets.
- John G. Ajemian used a Yahoo!, Inc. (Yahoo) email account as his primary email address, which he and his brother, Robert Ajemian, had opened four years prior.
- John G. Ajemian's siblings, Robert Ajemian and Marianne Ajemian, were subsequently appointed as personal representatives of his estate.
- Marianne Ajemian sent a written request to Yahoo seeking access to the contents of John G. Ajemian's email account.
- Yahoo declined to provide access to the account contents, asserting that the Stored Communications Act (SCA) prohibited such disclosure and that its terms of service granted it discretion to reject the request.
Procedural Posture:
- Marianne Ajemian and Robert Ajemian filed a complaint in the Norfolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on September 15, 2009, seeking a judgment declaring their entitlement to unfettered access to the decedent's email account and an order compelling Yahoo to provide access.
- The Probate and Family Court judge allowed Yahoo's motion to dismiss the complaint, ruling that a forum selection clause in the terms of service required the action to be brought in California and that res judicata precluded the claim.
- The Appeals Court vacated the judgment of dismissal, concluding that res judicata did not apply and that the forum selection and limitations clauses in the terms of service could not be enforced against the personal representatives, and remanded the matter to the Probate and Family Court (Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc., 83 Mass. App. Ct. 565 (2013)).
- On remand, the Probate and Family Court judge heard cross-motions for summary judgment from both parties.
- The Probate and Family Court judge allowed Yahoo's motion for summary judgment solely on the basis that the SCA barred Yahoo from complying with the requested disclosure, but denied Yahoo's motion for summary judgment on the alternative contention that the terms of service contractually limited the decedent's property interest due to disputed material facts concerning contract formation.
- Robert Ajemian and Marianne Ajemian appealed the Probate and Family Court's allowance of summary judgment for Yahoo.
- The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., prohibit an electronic communication service provider from voluntarily disclosing the contents of a deceased user's email account to the personal representatives of the decedent's estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Lenk, J.
No, the Stored Communications Act (SCA) does not prohibit a service provider from voluntarily disclosing the contents of a deceased user's email account to the personal representatives of the decedent's estate. The court reasoned that the 'lawful consent' exception under 18 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(3) applies, permitting a service provider to disclose stored communications 'with the lawful consent of the originator.' Personal representatives, acting in their capacity to marshal estate assets under state probate and common law, can provide 'lawful consent' on a decedent's behalf. The court emphasized a strong presumption against federal preemption of traditional areas of state regulation, like probate law, absent clear congressional intent. Neither the statutory language of 'lawful consent' nor the legislative history of the SCA evinced a clear congressional intent to limit consent to 'actual consent' from a living user, which would severely curtail a personal representative's ability to manage an estate that increasingly includes digital assets. The court rejected the 'agency exception' argument, noting that personal representatives are controlled by the court, not the decedent. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Yahoo regarding the terms of service, finding material issues of fact remained concerning contract formation and enforceability.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Gants, C.J.
Chief Justice Gants concurred with the majority that the Stored Communications Act (SCA) does not prohibit Yahoo from disclosing the decedent's email messages to the personal representatives. However, he dissented from the decision to remand the case for further proceedings on the enforceability of Yahoo's terms of service. Chief Justice Gants argued that even assuming the terms of service agreement was binding and enforceable, the termination provision only allowed Yahoo to 'remove and discard' content without liability for doing so, but did not grant Yahoo ownership or the right to destroy content once litigation seeking its production had commenced. Such destruction, he reasoned, would violate the prohibition against spoliation of evidence and could constitute contempt of a court order. Therefore, he contended that judgment should have been ordered in favor of the personal representatives on their motion for summary judgment, granting them access to the email contents, rather than subjecting them to further litigation costs.
Analysis:
This case is significant as it addresses the novel challenge of digital assets within traditional probate law, clarifying that federal privacy statutes like the SCA do not automatically override state authority over estate administration. By interpreting 'lawful consent' broadly, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ensures that personal representatives can access a decedent's digital communications, which are increasingly crucial for managing an estate. The decision reinforces the presumption against federal preemption, requiring clear congressional intent to displace established state common law. It also highlights the ongoing need for legal frameworks, such as the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA), to explicitly define the inheritability and access rights to digital assets, an area where the law continues to evolve.
