Joe Whitcomb
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reviewed a class action suit brought by Jason Courtemanche, Brett Foresman, Juan Rios, and Dennis Williams against Motorola Solutions, Inc., its subsidiary Callyo 2009 Corp., and officials with the Massachusetts State Police. The plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations and unlawful recordings related to the use of Motorola's Callyo surveillance applications. The case raised several questions about the regulatory compliance of Motorola’s products, their marketing to law enforcement, and the foreseeability of resulting privacy violations.
Allegations and Background
The plaintiffs claimed they were recorded without consent using Motorola's Callyo applications, which were sold to the Massachusetts State Police (MSP). These recordings were not disclosed in subsequent criminal proceedings. The plaintiffs asserted violations of constitutional rights, including those protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, and Massachusetts consumer protection laws (Chapter 93A).
The court noted that Motorola marketed its Callyo applications as covert surveillance tools, including features like concealed video previews. In 2017, MSP informed Motorola that the applications did not comply with the Massachusetts Wiretap Act. Despite this, Motorola allegedly continued to market and sell the apps without modification, and the default settings continued to allow surreptitious recordings.
Motion to Dismiss Outcomes
The court addressed motions to dismiss filed by Motorola, Callyo, and the state police. The court issued mixed rulings:
-
The conspiracy claim under § 1983 was dismissed against Motorola and Callyo.
-
The Chapter 93A claim was allowed to proceed, based on allegations of unfair conduct through regulatory noncompliance.
-
The breach of express warranty claim was dismissed due to a lack of specific promises alleged.
-
The breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim survived.
-
The claim for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose was dismissed.
-
The Massachusetts Wiretap Act claim was allowed to proceed against Motorola and Callyo but was deemed moot against the state police.
-
The constitutional claims under § 1983 survived against the MSP official.
Legal Reasoning and Regulatory Noncompliance
The court found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged Motorola engaged in unfair practices by continuing to sell the apps after learning of their noncompliance. The decision emphasized that Chapter 93A claims can be based on regulatory noncompliance, and that plaintiffs need not show direct consumer relationships if there is an indirect impact on the public.
Regarding proximate cause, the court determined it was foreseeable that continued use of the apps would result in secret recordings, particularly after Motorola was explicitly informed by MSP about the compliance issue. The court emphasized that these foreseeability questions are typically left for a jury to evaluate.
Conclusion
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. It allowed several claims to proceed, including those under Chapter 93A and the Wiretap Act, while dismissing others for lack of sufficient factual support. The ruling highlighted the court's willingness to examine business practices under regulatory noncompliance theories when those practices allegedly lead to harm.
How We Can Help
If your organization needs guidance with federal or state regulatory compliance, including concerns about surveillance software, consumer privacy, or administrative rule adherence, the team at Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC can help you assess your obligations and mitigate legal risks.