Janek v. Carrier IQ, Inc., et al.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT filed by Erin Janek; in excess of 5,000,000. Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 0752-6619806. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Holland, Eric)

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ERIN JANEK, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CARRIER IQ, INC.
)
)
SERVE:
National Registered Agents, Inc.)
200 West Adams Street
)
Chicago, IL 60606
)
)
HTC, INC. and HTC AMERICA, INC.
)
)
SERVE:
National Registered Agents, Inc.)
200 West Adams Street
)
Chicago, IL 60606
)
)
Defendants.
)

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, by and through their undersigned counsel, on information and belief, and for
their Complaint against Defendants Carrier IQ, Inc., HTC, Inc. and HTC America, Inc.
state as follows:
1.

Defendants have unlawfully intercepted private electronic communications

emanating from private mobile phones, handsets and smart phones. This practice violates
Federal Law.

1

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.

Erin Janek is a natural person and citizen and resident of the State of

Illinois.
3.

All references to “Plaintiff(s)” throughout this Complaint are made on

behalf of the named Plaintiff(s) and the proposed plaintiff class(es), and vice versa.
4.

The amount in controversy in this action, as defined by 28 U.S.C. §

1332(d)(6), exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of costs and interest.
5.

Defendant, Carrier IQ, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “CIQ”) is a citizen of

California as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) with its principal place of business in
California.
6.

Defendants HTC, Inc. and HTC America (collectively referred to as

“HTC”) are citizens of Washington, with their principle place of business in Bellevue,
Washington.
7.

Defendants are residents of the Northern District of Illinois as they have

ongoing and systematic contacts with residents of the Northern District of Illinois.
Defendants have, at all material times, conducted business in the Northern District of
Illinois. Moreover, Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with the State of
Illinois such that the assumption of jurisdiction will not offend traditional notation of fair
play and substantial justice.
8.

When reference in this Complaint is made to any act or omission of

Defendants, it should be deemed to mean that the officers, directors, agents, employees,
or representatives of Defendant committed or authorized such act or omission, or failed to
2

adequately supervise or properly control or direct their employees while engaged in the
management, direction, operation, or control of the affairs of Defendant, and did so while
acting within the scope of their employment or agency.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
9.

Defendant, CIQ is the leading provider of mobile services intelligence

solutions to the wireless industry.
10.

Defendant, CIQ claims on their website “As the only embedded analytics

company to support millions of devices simultaneously, we give wireless carriers and
handset manufacturers unprecedented insight into their customers mobile experience.”
11.

Defendant, CIQ uses software in mobile phones to measure performance

and user experience with no visible notice or impact to the user.
12.

Defendant, CIQ’s data processing center collects the data for near real-time

monitoring and intelligence.
13.

Defendant, CIQ is the only company in the industry embedding diagnostic

software in millions of mobile phones, having done so in over 130 million phones
globally.
14.

Defendant, CIQ captures and records every keystroke entered on the mobile

device, as well as location and other data.
15.

Defendant, HTC produces mobile phones and handsets, including

“Android” smart phones.
16.

The CIQ software is embedded in HTC Android phones.

3

17.

The information collected by CIQ is transmitted to various service

providers, including Sprint and AT&T.
18.

Plaintiff, Erin Janek owns an HTC Android phone using the Sprint

network. At all relevant times Plaintiff used her phone to electronically send over her
cell phone network various types of private data. This data was not readily accessible to
the general public. She did not know that Defendants were surreptitiously monitoring
and collecting this data, nor did she give them permission to do so.
19.

Defendants intercepted, recorded and collected information concerning the

substance, purport, or meaning of the electronic communications transmitted without the
authorization of the parties to those communications.
20.

During all times relevant herein, Plaintiff used and maintained a cellular

phone on the Sprint wireless network.
21.

Plaintiff and Class Members, as defined below, were unaware of

Defendant’s wrongful conduct, and unable to discover it until December 2011, as
Defendants conduct by nature was secret and concealed.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
22.

This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves

and on behalf of all those similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(1), (2), and
(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed class is defined as follows:
All United States residents who operate a cellular phone
device manufactured by HTC, Inc. and/or HTC America, Inc.
and from which Carrier IQ, Inc. collected electronic
communications. (the “Class” or “Class Members”).
4

Specifically excluded from the class are: any Judge
conducting proceedings in this action and their parents,
spouses and children as well as any other member of their
family residing in the judge’s household; counsel of record in
this action; the legal representatives, heirs, successors and
assigns of any excluded person.
23.

The exact number of the members of the class (or sub-classes) is not

presently known, but is so numerous that joinder of individual members in this action is
impracticable. The exact number of the members of the class (or sub-classes) can only be
ascertained through discovery, because such information is in the exclusive control of
Defendant. However, based on the nature of the activities alleged herein, Plaintiffs
believe that the members of the class (or sub-classes) number the millions and are
geographically dispersed throughout the United States. The addresses of the members of
the class (or sub-classes) are readily obtainable from the Defendants and their agents and
on information and belief are maintained in the computer database of Defendants and are
easily retrievable.
24.

Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (or sub-

classes) and have retained counsel that are experienced and capable in class action
litigation. Plaintiffs understand and appreciate their duties to the class (or sub-classes)
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and are committed to vigorously protecting the rights of absent
members of the class (or sub-classes).
25.

Plaintiffs are asserting claims that are typical of the claims of each member

of the class (or sub-classes) they seek to represent, in that the claims of all members of
the class (or sub-classes), including Plaintiffs, depend upon a showing that the
5

Defendants violated federal law. All claims alleged on behalf of the class (or subclasses) flow from this conduct as well. Further, there is no conflict between any
Plaintiff and other members of the class (or sub-classes) with respect to this action.
26.

There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and

fact involved affecting the parties to be represented. Questions of law and fact arising out
of Defendants’ conduct are common to all members of the class (or sub-classes), and
such common issues of law and act predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members of the class (or sub-classes).
27.

Common issues of law and fact include, but are not limited to, the

following:
a.

Whether the data collected from Plaintiffs’ cellular phone devices
are electronic communications protected by the Federal Wiretap
Act.;

b.

Whether Defendants’ interception of data collected from Plaintiffs’
devices was intentional within the meaning of the Federal Wiretap
Act;

c.

The proper measure of damages under the Federal Wiretap Act;

28.

The relief sought is common to the entirety of the class (or sub-classes).

29.

Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class (or sub-

classes), thereby making final injunctive relief or corresponding injunctive relief
appropriate with respect to the class (or sub-classes) as a whole.
30.

This action is properly maintained as a class action in that the prosecution

of separate actions by individual members would create a risk of adjudication with

6

respect to individual members which would establish incompatible standards of conduct
for the Defendants.
31.

This action is properly maintained as a class action in that the prosecution

of separate actions by individual members of the class (or sub-classes) would create a risk
of adjudications with respect to individual members of each class (or sub-classes) which
would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other members not
parties to the adjudication, or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect
their interests.
32.

A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

efficient adjudication of the claims asserted herein given that, among other things:
(i)

significant economies of time, effort, and expense will inure
to the benefit of the Court and the parties in litigating the
common issues on a class-wide instead of a repetitive
individual basis.

(ii)

the size of the individual damage claims of most members of
the class (or sub-classes) is too small to make individual
litigation an economically viable alternative, such that few
members of the class (or sub-classes) have any interest in
individually controlling the prosecution of a separate action;

(iii)

without the representation provided by Plaintiffs herein, few,
if any, members of the class (or sub-classes) will receive legal
representation or redress for their injuries;

(iv)

class treatment is required for optimal deterrence;

(v)

despite the relatively small size of the claims of many
individual members of the class (or sub-classes), their
aggregate volume coupled with the economies of scale
inherent in litigating similar claims on a common basis, will
enable this case to be litigated as a class action on a cost
7

effective basis, especially when compared with respective
individual litigation;
(vi)

(vii)

33.

no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the
management of this class action;
plaintiffs and members of the class (or sub-classes) have all
suffered irreparable harm and damages as a result of
Defendants’ unlawful and wrongful conduct;

Concentrating this litigation in one forum would aid judicial economy and

efficiency, promote parity among the claims of the individual members of the class (or
sub-classes), and result in judicial consistency.
COUNT I
34.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 33

as if fully set out herein.
35.

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, also known as

the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq., provides:
[A]ny person who-- … intentionally intercepts, endeavors to
intercept, … any wire, oral, or electronic communication; …
shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be
subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).
18 U.S.C.A. § 2511.
36.

At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs, and Class Members were persons

entitled to the protection of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 as they were individuals who were party to
electronic communications.

8

37.

On information and belief, Defendants intercepted information concerning

the substance, purport, or meaning of Plaintiffs’ electronic communications on more than
one occasion.
38.

The Federal Wiretap Act also provides that:
[A]ny person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication
is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of
this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or
entity … which engaged in that violation such relief as may
be appropriate.
In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes -… (2) damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in
appropriate cases; and (3) a reasonable attorney’s fee and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred … [T]he court may
assess as damages whichever is the greater of – (A) the sum
of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits
made by the violator as a result of the violation; or (B)
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 a day
for each violation or $10,000.

18 U.S.C. § 2520
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class pray that the Court enter judgment in their
favor and against Defendants as follows:
a.

Ordering that this action be maintained as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

b.

Declaring that Defendant’s collection of electronic communications
violates 18 U.S.C. §2511; and

c.

Awarding Plaintiffs and Class Members statutory damages pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 2520, including punitive damages, costs of suit, and
attorneys’ fees; and

d.

Injunctive and declaratory relief as deemed appropriate.

9

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Eric D. Holland
Eric D. Holland, #6207110
Steven J. Stolze, #6203254
Steven L. Groves, #6211737
300 N Tucker, Suite 801
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 314.241.5554
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

/s/ Christopher M. Ellis
BOLEN, ROBINSON & ELLIS, LLP
Jon D. Robinson
Christopher M. Ellis
Shane M. Mendenhall
BOLEN, ROBINSON & ELLIS, LLP
202 South Franklin Street, 2nd Floor
Decatur, Illinois 62523
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 217.329.0034
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

/s/ Charles Schaffer
Charles Schaffer
Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
Telephone: [phone]
Facscimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

10