## Facts

- AOL sold dial-up internet access marketed as a flat monthly fee for “unlimited” access.
- Plaintiffs alleged AOL failed to disclose that subscribers could incur long-distance telephone charges depending on where AOL’s access numbers were located relative to the subscriber’s local calling area.
- Plaintiffs further alleged AOL’s software configured subscribers’ computers to dial access numbers selected by AOL, including long-distance numbers, without authorization, resulting in unexpected charges and alleged impairment to computer integrity.
- Miles and other subscribers claimed substantial, unexpected long-distance bills from their telephone carriers after connecting to AOL.
- Plaintiffs submitted thousands of consumer complaints (including approximately 4,700 letters from one call center) as evidence of widespread, similar harm involving relatively small individual losses.
- The operative claims included FDUTPA and common-law fraud theories, plus a CFAA claim alleging unauthorized access/dialing that caused loss or damage.

## Issues

1. Whether the CFAA claim was so insubstantial that it could not support federal-question jurisdiction.
2. Whether the proposed subscriber class satisfied Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), particularly predominance and superiority, in light of asserted individualized issues of reliance, causation, and damages.

## Decision

- The court held the CFAA claim was not immaterial or frivolous and therefore supported federal-question jurisdiction.
- The court granted the renewed motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
- The court narrowed the class definition to reduce individualized reliance/causation issues by limiting the class to subscribers who incurred long-distance charges and whose conduct supported an inference of reliance (e.g., written complaints or discontinuation of service).

## Legal Principles

- A federal claim supports federal-question jurisdiction unless it is immaterial and asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction, or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.
- Rule 23(a) requires numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
- Rule 23(b)(3) requires that common questions predominate over individual questions and that a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication.
- In deceptive-marketing and consumer billing disputes involving uniform advertising or centrally controlled practices, a court may find predominance despite individualized issues by narrowing the class to members for whom reliance can reasonably be inferred from objective conduct.

## Conclusion

The court retained jurisdiction because the CFAA allegations were sufficient to invoke federal law and certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class, defined narrowly to focus on subscribers who incurred long-distance charges and whose actions (such as written complaints or canceling service) supported an inference of reliance on AOL’s marketing and configuration practices.


Miles v. Am. Online, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 297 (M.D. Fla. 2001)