Hunter v. Securly, Inc.

Background

Nicole Hunter brought the case on behalf of her minor child, S.M., and others similarly situated. S.M. was a middle school student enrolled in Saint Paul Public Schools and used a school-issued iPad for school and personal use. Securly supplied the school with two products, Filter and Home, that monitored activity on school-issued devices both on and away from school grounds.

According to the amended complaint, Securly’s software tracked information including geolocation, keystrokes, web searches, websites visited, and videos watched. Hunter alleged that neither she nor S.M. knew that the software had been installed and that she had not received a disclosure that S.M.’s device data would be collected. Hunter became aware of the monitoring after receiving an activity-report email from Securly on September 16, 2022. She alleged that the reports included school-related searches and personal activities.

Hunter alleged that Securly unlawfully disclosed S.M.’s and other students’ educational data in violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. She also sought punitive damages.

Motions and standing analysis

Securly moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and under Rule 12(f) to strike allegedly immaterial allegations.

The court focused first on standing. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete and particular injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a court ruling would remedy the injury. Hunter identified nuisance and intrusion upon seclusion as her alleged injuries.

For nuisance, the court held that the amended complaint did not identify a specific harm. The court rejected Hunter’s later reference in her opposition memorandum to eavesdropping and wiretapping because those harms were not adequately alleged in the amended complaint.

For intrusion upon seclusion, Minnesota law requires an intrusion that is highly offensive and occurs in a matter in which the person has a legitimate expectation of privacy. The court found that Hunter had not met her burden to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the school setting. The court did not decide whether the alleged monitoring was highly offensive.

Ruling

The court held that Hunter had not adequately alleged an injury in fact and therefore lacked Article III standing. It granted Securly’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss and dismissed Hunter’s amended complaint without prejudice.

The court did not decide Securly’s arguments that the amended complaint failed to state claims under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act or that punitive damages were unavailable. Those issues were left unresolved. The court denied as moot Securly’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and Rule 12(f) motion to strike.