## Facts

- UOP retained Andersen Consulting LLP to perform a systems integration project.
- Andersen personnel used UOP’s internal email system to communicate with each other, with UOP, and at times with third parties.
- UOP terminated the project after becoming dissatisfied, and UOP (represented by Bickel & Brewer) sued Andersen in Connecticut state court; Andersen filed related defamation actions elsewhere.
- While the parties’ disputes were pending, UOP and Bickel & Brewer provided the contents of Andersen-related emails stored on UOP’s system to the Wall Street Journal, which published excerpts.
- Andersen sued UOP and Bickel & Brewer in federal court, asserting an ECPA claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1) and multiple related state-law claims based on the alleged unauthorized disclosure.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the entire complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether an employer-operated internal email system used by employees and project consultants constitutes an “electronic communication service to the public” under 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1), triggering the statute’s nondisclosure rule for stored communications.
2. Whether Andersen’s state-law claims based on the same disclosure stated plausible claims for relief given UOP’s control over its internal email system and the communications stored on it.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed all counts.
- The court dismissed the ECPA claim because UOP was not an entity “providing an electronic communication service to the public” within the meaning of § 2702(a)(1).
- The court dismissed the related state-law claims for failure to state viable claims on the pleaded facts.

## Legal Principles

- Liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1) requires that the defendant be a “person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public.”
- “To the public” requires provision of service to the community at large, not merely to a limited internal group such as a company’s employees or consultants.
- An internal corporate email system does not become a public electronic communication service merely because it can send messages to or receive messages from third parties over broader networks.
- Where communications are stored on a company-controlled internal system, conclusory allegations of wrongful disclosure may be insufficient to state state-law claims absent a cognizable duty or protected right as pleaded.

## Conclusion

The court held that an internal corporate email system is not an electronic communication service “to the public” under § 2702(a)(1), so the alleged disclosure of stored emails did not state an ECPA claim, and it dismissed the ECPA and related state-law counts at the pleading stage.


Andersen Consulting LLP v. UOP, 991 F. Supp. 1041 (N.D. Ill. 1998)