11/10/2023 0 Comments Discovery education incThe terms said that the platform was for “education and research purposes only,” and that users must keep login information “strictly confidential.” Id. But even if SchoolsPLP had read those terms, it would not have plausibly thought they covered Lincoln. Discovery also argues that in reselling the logins, Lincoln violated the platform’s public terms of use-and that SchoolsPLP must have known at least that. Discovery offers no details that suggest SchoolsPLP did. To know that Lincoln could resell the logins only to students, SchoolsPLP would have needed to know the terms of Lincoln’s private contract with Discovery. After all, Lincoln had to be able to resell the logins to someone-it did not buy them to learn math. But even if SchoolsPLP knew that there were some limits on Lincoln, it did not plausibly know what those limits were. Still, Discovery reasons, SchoolsPLP must have known, since it “is common practice in the industry” to limit the “use and sharing of log-in credentials with third parties.” Id. Yet Discovery offers no evidence that SchoolsPLP knew of that limit. But SchoolsPLP was forbidden to use the Lincoln logins only because Lincoln’s contract with Discovery said so. This suggests that SchoolsPLP bought them. It hints that SchoolsPLP did not steal the logins from Lincoln. 3 Discovery has not plausibly alleged that. Discovery concedes that to win these claims, it must prove that SchoolsPLP knew it could not buy the logins from Lincoln and resell them. It also claims that SchoolsPLP tortiously interfered with its contract with Lincoln. THE CFAA AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT CLAIMS FAIL Discovery brings two CFAA claims based on SchoolsPLP’s using the platform and reselling the logins without authorization. The parties have stipulated that I may apply Delaware law in resolving this motion. SchoolsPLP has moved to dismiss the two CFAA claims plus three of the statelaw claims (tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective business relations, and trespass to chattels). It sues under two federal laws, the Lanham Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Discovery has sued SchoolsPLP (but not Lincoln) for using its platform without authorization. But it claims the logins were the same ones it had given Lincoln-logins Lincoln was banned from reselling to companies like SchoolsPLP. Discovery does not say exactly how SchoolsPLP got those logins. It then allegedly gave Alabama schools some logins to Discovery’s platform. SchoolsPLP won the Alabama contract (and others). When SchoolsPLP bid against Discovery for a contract with Alabama schools, it claimed that it could give Alabama students access to Discovery’s platform as well as its own. 2 Yet somehow, SchoolsPLP got access to the platform anyway. But Lincoln could not resell access to another learning company. Discovery claims that under its contract with Lincoln, Lincoln could let a limited number of schools and students use the platform. But it also sells access to other online learning companies, who then bundle the platform together with their own products. BACKGROUND Discovery markets its platform directly to school districts. ![]() ![]() But since Discovery plausibly alleged that SchoolsPLP interfered with a business opportunity, a fifth claim survives. I will dismiss a fourth claim because Discovery failed to allege that SchoolsPLP damaged its platform. But Discovery pleads no details about what Lincoln told SchoolsPLP. So SchoolsPLP could have known about the ban only through Lincoln. Yet SchoolsPLP never dealt directly with Discovery. To win three of its claims, Discovery must show that SchoolsPLP knew it was banned from Discovery’s platform. Yet Lincoln apparently did that anyway, giving access to another competitor, SchoolsPLP. It let a competitor, Lincoln Learning, use its platform, but told Lincoln it could not resell access to other companies. Discovery runs an online learning platform. Because Discovery Education did not plausibly allege that knowledge here, I will dismiss most of its claims without prejudice. It is illegal to access a secured computer system without authorization-but only if you know you lack authorization. MEMORANDUM OPINION BIBAS, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation. Snyderman, Huaou Yan, BLANK ROME LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. McCune, BLANK ROME LLP, Wilmington, Delaware Jason A. Goeller, K&L GATES LLP, Wilmington, Delaware Anna Shabalov, K&L GATES LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. ![]() 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE DISCOVERY EDUCATION, INC., Plaintiff, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |