Ladot

facts giving rise to Article III standing and therefore the panel rejected LADOT’s assertion that the complaint was beyond the panel’s constitutional purview because it was premised on a hypothetical invasion of privacy that might never occur. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiff as it was required to do at the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) stage, the proper reading of the complaint was that plaintiff alleged that the collection of the MDS location data itself—without more—violated his constitutional rights.

The panel concluded that the third-party doctrine, which provides that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties, foreclosed plaintiff’s claim of a reasonable expectation of privacy over the MDS data. Focusing first on “voluntary exposure,” the panel had little difficulty finding that plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily disclosed location data to the e-scooter operators. Unlike a cell phone user, whose device provides location information by dint of its operation, without any affirmative act on the part of the user, plaintiff affirmatively chose to disclose location data to e- scooter operators…