A. Action under trespass to chattels
Trespass to an intangible property right arising under contract requires actual injury to the property interest. Courts haven't recognized diminished value of personal information due to collection or dissemination by a contracting party or by a third party who receives the information from a contracting party.
"To state a claim for trespass to chattels... [w]here the trespass alleged is to an intangible property right arising under a contract, actual injury to the claimed property interest must be shown. School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz, 3 Misc. 3d 278, 771 N.Y.S.2d 804, 807 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003); see also Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 404 (2d Cir. 2004) ('A trespass to a chattel may be committed by intentionally... using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another, where the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value.') (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 217(b), 218(b) (1965)... Where the trespass alleged is to an intangible property right arising under a contract, actual injury to the claimed property interest must be shown. Kronos, 81 N.Y.2d at 95.[1]
"In this case, plaintiffs allege rather generically that they have suffered 'actual damages' or, in the alternate, 'an irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law' as a result of the data transfer.... They do not, however, allege that the quality or value of their personal information was in any way diminished as a result of defendants' actions, nor do they allege any facts that could sustain such a showing. The only type of harm plaintiffs allege anywhere in the Amended Complaint is harm to their privacy interests, and even if their privacy interests were indeed infringed by the data transfer, such a harm does not amount to a diminishment of the quality or value of a materially valuable interest in their personal information. Plaintiffs also have not been deprived of the use of their personal information at any point, let alone for a substantial period of time. See Kuprewicz, 771 N.Y.S.2d at 807-08. Thus, plaintiffs have not established that they suffered the type of harm that may be redressed through a claim for trespass to chattels."[2]
[1] In re JetBlue Airways Corp. Privacy Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 328 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
[2] Id. at 328-329.
B. Damages for unjust enrichment
"To state a claim for trespass to chattels... [w]here the trespass alleged is to an intangible property right arising under a contract, actual injury to the claimed property interest must be shown. School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz, 3 Misc. 3d 278, 771 N.Y.S.2d 804, 807 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003); see also Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 404 (2d Cir. 2004) ('A trespass to a chattel may be committed by intentionally... using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another, where the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value.') (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 217(b), 218(b) (1965)... Where the trespass alleged is to an intangible property right arising under a contract, actual injury to the claimed property interest must be shown. Kronos, 81 N.Y.2d at 95.[1]
"In this case, plaintiffs allege rather generically that they have suffered 'actual damages' or, in the alternate, 'an irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law' as a result of the data transfer.... They do not, however, allege that the quality or value of their personal information was in any way diminished as a result of defendants' actions, nor do they allege any facts that could sustain such a showing. The only type of harm plaintiffs allege anywhere in the Amended Complaint is harm to their privacy interests, and even if their privacy interests were indeed infringed by the data transfer, such a harm does not amount to a diminishment of the quality or value of a materially valuable interest in their personal information. Plaintiffs also have not been deprived of the use of their personal information at any point, let alone for a substantial period of time. See Kuprewicz, 771 N.Y.S.2d at 807-08. Thus, plaintiffs have not established that they suffered the type of harm that may be redressed through a claim for trespass to chattels."[2]
[1] In re JetBlue Airways Corp. Privacy Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 328 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
[2] Id. at 328-329.
B. Damages for unjust enrichment
Copyright 2014-2015 by Dennis O'Reilly/Rag Hall -- All rights reserved.