Christou v. Beatport, LLC

Last updated

Christou v. Beatport, LLC
Map of USA CO.svg
Court United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Full case nameChristou v. Beatport, LLC
DecidedMarch 14, 2012
Docket nos.1:10-cv-02912
Defendant Beatport, LLC
Citation(s)849 F. Supp. 2d 1055
Holding
The court held that the plaintiff's MySpace profile constituted a trade secret, which the defendant had misappropriated.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting R. Brooke Jackson
Keywords
Trade secrets, Social media, Antitrust

Christou v. Beatport, LLC, 849 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (D. Colo. 2012), was a District Court of Colorado case in which the court held that MySpace friend lists could constitute trade secrets. While the names in the friend lists could be found in public directories, the court considered that the "ancillary information" of the friend list provided a means of contact with permission that was not publicly available. [1]

Contents

Background of the case

Shinichi Osawa at Beta Nightclub. Plaintiff Regas Christou claimed that Defendant Bradley Roulier coerced DJs into playing at Beta instead of Christou's nightclubs. Shinichi Osawa at Beta Nightclub.jpg
Shinichi Osawa at Beta Nightclub. Plaintiff Regas Christou claimed that Defendant Bradley Roulier coerced DJs into playing at Beta instead of Christou's nightclubs.

During the 1990s, plaintiff Regas Christou founded several nightclubs in the Denver area, comprising the South of Colfax Nightlife District (known as “SOCO”). These clubs hosted live performances from DJs playing electronic dance music. In 1998, the defendant Bradley Roulier was employed by Christou as a talent buyer for booking A-list DJs at Christou's SOCO venues. [1]

While employed under Christou, Roulier and other coworkers conceived the idea of Beatport, an online marketplace founded in 2003 after Christou had loaned an initial $50,000 in exchange for eventual partial ownership of the company. Christou continued to promote Beatport as it grew into the premier marketplace for electronic dance music. However, in March, 2008, Roulier left Christou's employment to found Beta Nightclub, and never fulfilled his promise of granting Christou partial ownership of Beatport. [1]

Given the influence of Beatport in the electronic dance music marketplace and experiences of DJs canceling shows at his own SOCO clubs in exchange for rebooking at Beta, Christou alleged that Roulier used Beatport to coerce DJs into playing at Beta instead of one of his SOCO nightclubs. Christou filed a complaint to the District Court of Colorado seeking damages, suing Beatport for nine claims including unlawful tying in, attempted monopolization, and theft of a trade secret—the MySpace profile credentials used for connecting his SOCO clubs to DJs. [2] [3] [4]

Opinion of the Court

On 14 March 2012, the court responded to the defendants' motions to dismiss each of plaintiff’s claims. The court dismissed Christou's individual antitrust claims but denied defendants Beatport's, Beta’s, and Mr. Roulier’s motions to dismiss the antitrust claims brought by plaintiffs The Church and Vinyl, as well as those plaintiffs’ claims for misappropriation of trade-secrets. [1]

Trade Secret Misappropriation

To determine whether plaintiff’s MySpace profile was in fact a trade secret, the court consulted the analysis presented in Colorado Supply Co. v. Stewart, 797 P.2d 1303, 1306-07 (Colo. App. 1990): whether reasonable steps were taken to protect the secrecy and restrict access of the profile, whether employees knew customers' names from general experience, whether customers commonly dealt with more than one supplier, whether customer information could be readily obtained from public directories or other sources outside of plaintiff's business, and lastly whether the owner of the customer list expended great cost and effort over a considerable period of time to develop the files, and whether it would be difficult for a competitor to duplicate the information. [1]

The court agreed with the plaintiff's argument that the profile was a "database" of contact information and permission to contact instead of a mere list of names: the profile not only held contact information for thousands of individuals self-identified as interested customers, but also served as the means (email addresses) and consent to notify and promote DJ performances directly to these potential customers with the authority of plaintiffs’ nightclubs. As a result, the court held that because the MySpace profile had been properly password protected to a select few of Christou's personnel, took great cost to develop, and provided the means and permission to contact instead of just a simple customer list of names, the profile could be held as a trade secret. [1]

Moreover, because Roulier was aware of the password protection of the profile and did not reconstruct his own MySpace friend list to promote DJs, the court ruled that Beatport (Roulier) had knowingly misappropriated the trade secret when it used plaintiffs’ MySpace account to promote his competing nightclub as well as Beatport, citing the analysis used in Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Indus. Ltd., 9 F.3d 823, 847 (10th Cir. 1993) -- that the defendant had a trade secret that was used without consent, and that the trade secret was obtained by improper means. The court also considered the public use of the trade secret, as Beatport had promoted itself using the plaintiff's MySpace profile, as grounds for Roulier's knowing of improper acquisition. [1]

Antitrust Claims

The court also ruled in favor of the plaintiff's claim that Beatport could be charged with attempted monopoly in the market for A-list DJ live performances. At the time of the ruling, Roulier and his club Beta controlled over half of the Denver metro area market for live performance by A-list DJs, and showed specific intent to monopolize and further such a monopoly in using anticompetitive and predatory conduct. The court also granted all other antitrust claims made by the plaintiff. The court dismissed violations of RICO because the plaintiffs did not meet pleading requirements in not demonstrating patterns of racketeering activity (specifically, acts of wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud and theft) by Beatport and Roulier. [1]

The court dismissed Mr. Christou’s individual claim of unlawful tying. The court wrote that, although Christou's SOCO nightclubs had sufficient facts to support antitrust standing, it must consider Christou as an individual. The court found that Christou had alleged sufficient facts that there had been an antitrust injury (to his reputation), but not that the injury to Christou as an individual resulted directly from the antitrust violation. [1]

Case significance

In this case, a federal court held that a MySpace friend list could constitute a trade secret. While the court considered the Colorado statute for trade secrets in its decision, other states such as Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia have nearly identical statutes adopted under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. [5] [6]

The analysis presented by the court, concluding that the MySpace profile held "ancillary information" including contact information, consent to contact, and the ability to contact on behalf of the plaintiffs leveraging their reputation and authority that "cannot be found in public directories" provided a differing viewpoint from past cases, such as Sasqua Group, Inc. v. Courtney, 2010 WL 3613855 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2010) which determined that social media connections such as on Facebook or LinkedIn were not in fact trade secrets due to the fact that the lists of connections were available to the public. Professor of Law Eric Goldman criticized the opinion, saying that it was "opaque and confused." The court holding failed to answer many questions regarding the trade secret ancillary information, such as whether one can copy a MySpace friends list without committing any trade secret misappropriation. Goldman wrote in a blog post that this clearly should be possible. He then pointed out that a user with a copy of the friends list could then send private messages to each of those friends, which again, should not be a violation of trade secret either. Ultimately, he suggested that the decision may have been clearer if the Court treated the account's login credentials as a trade secret instead. [7]

The commentary surrounding this case has been careful to avoid the affirmative declaration that Christou's friends list was a trade secret. [5] [6] [7] [8] This is because the court's order applied to a motion to dismiss. An order from this context does not actually certify that the friends list was a trade secret. Instead, the court concluded "only that Roulier, et al., had not proven that the list could not be a trade secret." The decision allowed Christou to proceed with his claim, and he would then have to prove that the friends list was a trade secret. Plaintiffs’ trade secret claims subsequently survived a motion for summary judgment and proceeded through trial. At the conclusion of the parties’ presentation of evidence, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their trade secret claims as a tactic to force the jury to focus on the antitrust claims. [9]

In a similar case regarding whether social media accounts could be held as trade secrets, PhoneDog v. Kravitz , the United States District Court for the Northern District of California determined that Twitter follower lists and passwords could constitute trade secrets. [8] [10]

Law firm Hahn Loeser ranked this case #7 in its Trade Secret Litigator's Top 10 Trade Secret and Non-Compete Cases of 2012. The list envisioned that businesses would soon come to terms with the increasing importance of corporate social media account ownership policies, and that there would be fewer such disputes. [11]

Related Research Articles

A trade secret is an intellectual property that has inherent economic value because it is not generally known or readily ascertainable by others, and which the owner takes reasonable measures to keep secret. Types of trade secret include includes formulas, practices, processes, designs, instruments, patterns, or compilations of information.

<i>MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.</i> Ok Google Ok Google

MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, was a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which addressed the issue of whether the loading of software programs into random-access memory (RAM) by a computer repair technician during maintenance constituted an unauthorized software copy and therefore a copyright violation. The court held that it did, although the United States Congress subsequently enacted an amendment to 17 U.S.C. § 117 to specifically overrule this holding in the circumstances of computer repair.

Beatport is an American electronic music-oriented online music store owned by LiveStyle. The company is based in Denver, Los Angeles, and Berlin. Beatport is oriented primarily towards DJs, selling full songs as well as resources that can be used for remixes.

<i>Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.</i> American legal case

Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that addressed to what extent non-literal elements of software are protected by copyright law. The court used and recommended a three-step process called the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test. The case was an appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in which the district court found that defendant Altai's OSCAR 3.4 computer program had infringed plaintiff Computer Associates' copyrighted computer program entitled CA-SCHEDULER. The district court also found that Altai's OSCAR 3.5 program was not substantially similar to a portion of CA-SCHEDULER 7.0 called SYSTEM ADAPTER, and thus denied relief as to OSCAR 3.5. Finally, the district court concluded that Computer Associates' state law trade secret misappropriation claim against Altai was preempted by the federal Copyright Act. The appeal was heard by Judges Frank Altimari, John Daniel Mahoney, and John M. Walker, Jr. The majority opinion was written by Judge Walker. Judge Altimari concurred in part and dissented in part. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling as to copyright infringement, but vacated and remanded its holding on trade secret preemption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Restraint of trade</span> Common law doctrine

Restraints of trade is a common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business. It is a precursor of modern competition law. In an old leading case of Mitchel v Reynolds (1711) Lord Smith LC said,

it is the privilege of a trader in a free country, in all matters not contrary to law, to regulate his own mode of carrying it on according to his own discretion and choice. If the law has regulated or restrained his mode of doing this, the law must be obeyed. But no power short of the general law ought to restrain his free discretion.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving antitrust law and civil procedure. Authored by Justice David Souter, it established that parallel conduct, absent evidence of agreement, is insufficient to sustain an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It also heightened the pleading requirement for federal civil cases by requiring for plaintiffs to include enough facts in their complaint to make it plausible, not merely possible or conceivable, that they will be able to prove facts to support their claims. The latter change in the law has been met with a great deal of controversy in legal circles, as evidenced by the dissenting opinion from Justice John Paul Stevens.

Denise Louise Cote is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

<i>Rivendell Forest Products, Ltd. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.</i>

Rivendell Forest Prods. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 28 F.3d 1042 was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, which had decided that Rivendell had failed to establish the existence of a trade secret in its customized computer software system, "Quote Screen", which was used to quote lumber prices to customers.

The Manufactured Superstars are an electronic dance music DJ/production duo from Denver, Colorado consisting of Bradley Roulier and Shawn Sabo.

National Basketball Association v. Motorola, 105 F.3d 841 is a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case in which the National Basketball Association (NBA) purported that Motorola and STATS infringed the NBA's copyright on the broadcast of games and misappropriated the data presented on the SportsTrax pager.

<i>Ho v. Taflove</i> U.S. Seventh Circuit case about the copyrightability of scientific data

Ho v. Taflove is a Seventh Circuit case about the copyrightability of scientific data. In 2011, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a 2009 decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois holding that the expression of ideas can be copyrighted but not the ideas themselves.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992), is a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that even though an equipment manufacturer lacked significant market power in the primary market for its equipment—copier-duplicators and other imaging equipment—nonetheless, it could have sufficient market power in the secondary aftermarket for repair parts to be liable under the antitrust laws for its exclusionary conduct in the aftermarket. The reason was that it was possible that, once customers were committed to the particular brand by having purchased a unit, they were "locked in" and no longer had any realistic alternative to turn to for repair parts.

Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064, was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida which ruled that individuals do not own their tissue samples when researchers take them for testing.

<i>PhoneDog v. Kravitz</i>

PhoneDog v. Kravitz, No. 11-03474, was a case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California about whether Twitter accounts and their passwords could be company property or trade secrets. In this case a mobile device news website PhoneDog sued Noah Kravitz, its former employee, after Kravitz refused to turn over password information for the Twitter account he developed and cultivated during his employment. When Kravitz asked the court to dismiss this case, the court held that Twitter accounts and their passwords could constitute trade secrets and that failure on behalf of the employee to relinquish an account could constitute misuse of a trade secret or "trade secret misappropriation." This case is often cited in arguments for the importance of including clauses about social media account ownership in employment contracts.

Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp., 187 Cal.App.4th 1295 (2010), is the second appeal on a dispute dated back to 1999. During the original 2000 case, defendant E*Trade, an online financial services company, was found liable for maliciously and willfully misappropriating trade secrets pertaining to wireless stock trading technology acquired from the plaintiff, Ajaxo. Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act E*Trade was required under a mutually signed Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to keep Ajaxo's trade secrets confidential. After a jury trial in 2003, E*Trade was fined $1.3 million to be paid to Ajaxo for the misappropriation and breach of NDA. The court denied Ajaxo's request for additional damages. All parties appealed. In 2005 the California courts of appeal affirmed the original ruling but remanded the case back to the trial court to determine additional damages. A jury verdict in 2008 rejected claims raised and demands for royalty damages from Ajaxo. In trade secret cases it is common for a plaintiff to seek royalty damages when they are unable to show an actual loss or that the defendant received some inequitable benefit from the misappropriation. In this case the court refused to allow evidence of royalty damages, claiming there were no net damages. Ajaxo appealed. In 2010 the California courts of appeal once again remanded the case back to the trial court reasoning that in such cases an exact quantitative measure of wrongful enrichment damages incurred by the plaintiff might not be sufficient to reject the claim of reasonable royalties based damages

<i>Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.</i> U.S. court decision

Rosetta Stone v. Google, 676 F.3d 144 was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The Court overturned a grant of summary judgment for Google that had held Google AdWords was not a violation of trademark law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defend Trade Secrets Act</span> United States federal law

The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) is a United States federal law that allows an owner of a trade secret to sue in federal court when its trade secrets have been misappropriated. The act was signed into law by President Barack Obama on May 11, 2016. It underscored Congress’s desire to align closely with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which had been adopted in some form in almost every U.S. state. Technically, the DTSA extended the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, which criminalizes certain trade secret misappropriations.

United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., was a 2005 Third Circuit antitrust decision in the United States finding that Dentsply, a monopolist manufacturer-supplier of dental supplies, used its exclusive dealing policy to keep rival firms' sales "below the critical level necessary for any rival to pose a real threat to Dentsply's market share,".

California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court involving the right to make petitions to the government. The right to petition is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as: "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This case involved an accusation that one group of companies was using state and federal regulatory actions to eliminate competitors. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to petition is integral to the legal system but using lawful means to achieve unlawful restraint of trade is not protected.

Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated was a noted American antitrust case, in which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accused Qualcomm's licensing agreements as anticompetitive, mainly because their practices excluded competition and harmed competitors in the modern chip market, which according to the FTC, violated both Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act. On May 21, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the FTC, by alleging that Qualcomm had indeed violated the federal antitrust laws by (1) refusing to license its patents to direct competitors, in its relevant product market (2) by placing an extra fee on rival chip sales through its licensing of its patent, and (3) by entering in an exclusive business deal with Apple from 2011 to 2013. The case was seen as controversial when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided to unanimously reverse the decision of the district court by arguing that the FTC failed to prove through its rule of reason analysis that Qualcomm's policies have a considerable negative effect towards the consumer in the CDMA and cellular chips market.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Christou v. Beatport, LLC, 849F. Supp. 2d1055 (D. Colo.2012).
  2. ↑ John Wenzel; Ricardo Baca (December 3, 2010). "Denver nightclub owner sues a rival". The Denver Post. Retrieved October 2, 2013.
  3. ↑ "Nightclub owner Christou sues rival Roulier". Denver Business Journal. December 2, 2010. Retrieved October 7, 2013.
  4. ↑ Vail, Jeffrey S. (December 1, 2010). "Complaint and Jury Demand" (PDF).
  5. 1 2 Don, Ethan L. "Employers' Social Media "Friends" May Be Trade Secrets". The Paley Rothman Blog. Archived from the original on November 1, 2013. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
  6. 1 2 Pushalik, Andy (June 22, 2012). "My friends are your friends? U.S. court rules that an employer's myspace "friends" list can be a trade secret". Lexology. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
  7. 1 2 Goldman, Eric (April 25, 2012). "MySpace Profile and Friends List May Be Trade Secrets (?)--Christou v. Beatport". Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
  8. 1 2 Maciel, Kara M. (April 20, 2012). "Are Employer Social Networking Accounts Protectable Trade Secrets?". Health Employment and Labor. Retrieved October 2, 2013.
  9. ↑ Judge Jr., Walter E. "Social Networks and Trade Secret Misappropriation: Can your company's "friends" list be a trade secret?" . Retrieved November 20, 2013.
  10. ↑ Bell, David A. (June 21, 2013). "Social Media Accounts and Ownership Rights" (PDF). Haynes and Boone, LLP. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 31, 2013. Retrieved October 2, 2013.
  11. ↑ Marsh, John. "The Trade Secret Litigator's Top 10 Trade Secret and Non-Compete Cases of 2012: Nos. 4 through 7". Archived from the original on November 13, 2013. Retrieved November 13, 2013.

Text of Christou v. Beatport, LLC is available from:  Justia    Leagle    Brooklyn Law School: Trade Secret Institute  Text of Colorado Supply Co. v. Stewart is available from:  Leagle  Text of Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Indus. Ltd. is available from:  Leagle  Text of Sasqua Group, Inc. v. Courtney is available from:  Google Scholar  

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.