ST. LOUIS — A proposed class action alleging violations of the Wiretap Act and unjust enrichment by Build.com Inc. has been dismissed by U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig.
In an order dated Nov. 13, Fleissig held that plaintiff Rhonda Jurgens' suit against Build.com is time-barred because she waited more than two years after she alleges the company mishandled her credit card details after she purchased $703 worth of plumbing hardware.
Jurgens' suit alleged that on the business' payment page, customers’ names, addresses, telephone numbers, and credit card information are intercepted; and the details are disclosed to unrelated third parties, without the customers’ consent.
The interception of credit card details is done through the use of JavaScripts computer commands, Jurgens alleged.
Jurgens claimed that the business disclosed her credit card information to six or more third parties, which were providers of services such as image and video advertising, "user tracking and profiling, and tracking of user mouse movements and clicks—none of which is necessary to process payments."
The order indicates that Jurgens made her purchase on March 29, 2014, but waited until Dec. 30, 2016 before filing suit.
Jurgens explained the lapse as not having the technical knowledge "or reasonable means to detect the unrestricted JavaScripts that Defendant executed on her computer and to understand their implications for privacy and security, and that she only learned of the violation through the investigation of her counsel in August 2016," the order states.
Fleissig did not buy Jurgens’ argument.
"Although Plaintiff claims she did not have the technical knowledge to identify the computer code on her own, her lack of technical expertise is not a reason to toll the statute of limitations here," the order states.
Regarding the claim for unjust enrichment, Fleissig held that Jurgens failed to state a claim that she conferred a benefit on Build.com, the retention of which would be "inequitable."
"Plaintiff claims that the unjust enrichment here is the money she paid to Defendant for merchandise, which she received in full, because part of that money should have gone to pay for better data security measures," Fleissig wrote. "But Plaintiff does not allege any facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that any specific portion of the money she paid was intended or required to be spent on data protection."