May It Please The Court

MIPTC Home
MIPTC
Features
RSS Feeds
Blogrolls
Profiles
 
MIPTC Author
About J. Craig Williams
Primer
Contributors
 

Bookstore:
May It Please The Court
by Leonard Rivkin
Barnes & Noble

 
Law.com CLE
Law.com Books
 
 

Weblog Comments
Return to the Weblog

Quote of the Day - Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds. - John Perry Barlow
Claim Your Profile on Avvo

California Supreme Court Slices Through Privacy Rights, Opens Corporate Records To Class-action Counsel

As MIPTC reported to you last April, Pioneer Electronics filed a challenge to a class-action plaintiff's request for the contact information for everyone who's written complaining to Pioneer about their DVD players.  Pioneer was trying to keep the size of the class down, while the plaintiff was trying to increase the size of the class.  In other words, it all turned on money:  whether it was going to stay either in Pioneer's pocket or in the pockets of the class-action attorneys and the class.

The flag that both sides waved before the courts, however, was privacy.  Yours, if you've ever written in to Pioneer Electronics asking to have your defective DVD repaired or replaced under the terms of the warranty.

The trial court required the parties to submit what's known as a "Colonial Life" letter because it thought your privacy rights were paramount.  That letter was to be sent by Pioneer to you asking your consent to provide your name to the class-action plaintiff.  The net effect of such a letter cuts class actions down to practically nothing because virtually no one responds to junk mail.  The trial court modified the letter, though and said if you don't reply, then your information will be provided to class-action counsel.

As you can imagine, Pioneer appealed.  The court of appeal, on the other hand, vacated the trial court's order, and restored the "Colonial Life" letter requirements.  Again, as you can imagine this time, the class-action plaintiff appealed to the California Supreme Court

The Supremes reversed the court of appeal and essentially ordered the parties back to the trial court's version of the notification to potential class-action members.  Now, Pioneer will send the letter and then if you fail to respond, give up your private information to class-action attorneys.  The California Supreme Court reasoned in part that if you wrote to Pioneer asking for warranty coverage, you probably wouldn't have much of an objection to someone invading your privacy rights and learning about this class action.

The case is a two-sided sword, with one blade slicing through your privacy rights while the other blade slices through Pioneer's checkbook. 

Who won?

Posted by J. Craig Williams on Friday, January 26, 2007 at 02:01 Comments (0)


Comments

No comments added yet. Be the first to comment on this entry!
Add your Comments
You may also leave audio comments by calling our audio comment line at 206-338-3088. Leave us a message and we'll post it here.

Please do not include any HTML or URLs in the comment field. If included, your comment will not be accepted.
*Indicates required fields
Name*:
Country*:
E-mail:
Comments*:
Character Count: