Dropbox Case Law
David Angel Sefuentes v Dropbox
Identifying the Issue
The plaintiff David Angel Sefuentes filed a case in 2020 and with an amended plaint in 2021. He complained about his personal privacy being put at risk by Dropbox and that his information has been stolen by hackers. He argued that it was the duty of Dropbox to secure his data but it has remained vulnerable. He has brought up his various concerns such as criminals can use their basic information such as credit cards. Further, he has raised a number of causes of actions that can be legally entertained against Dropbox.
Explaining the Rules
The plaintiff David has argued in his complaint that Dropbox was negligent to protect his information. Further, he stated his privacy was invaded as his data was stolen from Dropbox. It was important data as well as his financial details that criminals can use for further fraud. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant has violated Fair Credit Reporting Act, Civil Code Section 1798.29, Michigan Comp. Laws § 445.72. He further asked for $550,000 as damages because it has caused serious mental pressure. While the defendant claimed that it has updated the Terms of Services under which Arbitration is mandatory.
Applying the Rules
The Federal Arbitration Act underscores the arbitration policy and any written agreement of arbitration is valid and enforceable. Under this provision, the defendant asked for the Arbitration court will decide the matter because the plaintiff has agreed to our TOS. However, Plaintiff argued that when he signed in and accepted the TOS in 2011, there was not any Arbitration clause. As a result, he was neither aware of this update nor Dropbox informed Plaintiff clearly.
Conclusion
The court heard the matter and decided in favour of the plaintiff.
The court upholds that the defendant has failed to show that the plaintiff has knowledge about the arbitration clause. Further, the defendant could not produce any notice or discerned inquiry that gives the direct or indirect notion that the plaintiff was aware of later TOS updates. As a result, the court denies the motion of the defendant.
Dropbox Suffers data breach attack
Comments
Post a Comment