Facts

Bailey Ziencik and Pascale Wasson used Snapchat, a messaging app. In separate incidents, they received threatening messages from users unknown to them. Both notified Snapchat of the threatening messages through the app's internal messaging system, but neither received a response.

For Ziencik, she reported the threatening messages to the University of Pittsburgh Police the following day she received the message, and the Police asked Snapchat to preserve the threatening message account information that same day. Approximately two weeks later, the Police obtained a search warrant, emailing the warrant to Snapchat. When about a week passed with no response, the Police tried but failed to obtain a response through Snapchat's advertised "Law Enforcement number." It also sent an email requesting a status update in regard to the warrant. Another two weeks passed before Snapchat responded, advising the University Police that the warrant would not prevent Snapchat from notifying the owner of the Snapchat accounts that his information had been disclosed. The University Police then obtained a sealed search warrant for the same subscriber information and emailed it to Snapchat two days later. About a week thereafter, Snapchat responded with the requested subscriber information.

Wasson also contacted the police, Wellesley Massachusetts Police. Two days after the incident, the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office sent an administrative subpoena to Snapchat requesting information about the Snapchat accounts that had messaged Wasson. A little less than a month later, Snapchat responded to the administrative subpoena from the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office and provided the identity and location of the person behind the Snapchat accounts that had messaged Wasson.

When Bailey Ziencik and Pascale Wasson sued Snap, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Snapchat removed the action to the USDC Western Pennsylvania who then transferred the case to USDC Central.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs brought 16 causes of action against defendant for: strict products liability; breach of implied and express warranties; negligence; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; violations of unfair practices and consumer protection laws; negligent and intentional misrepresentation; unconscionability; and violation of Stored Communications Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONENTIONS: Defendant contended that its app does not constitute a product; if anything, it is more a service than a product and which would not be subject to strict product liability laws. Moreover, plaintiffs suffered no economic injury and were not consumers. Finally, plaintiffs' claims were barred by the Communications Decency Act.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss and judgment was entered in its favor.