Bownes v. Aftermath Entertainment
254 F.Supp.2d 629
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Case Number CIV 02-40170
Before District Judge Gadola
Decided on March 28, 2003

Relevancy of the Case: Applicability of one-party consent exception in conversations recorded without the consent of the other party

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510
• The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 34 U.S.C. § 10101
• The Michigan Eavesdropping Statute, Section 750.539c
• The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 12(b)(6))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• Rap music artists Andre Young, Snoop Dogg, Ice Cube, and Eminem performed as a part of their tour at Joe Louis Arena in Detroit. During the tour, a short video introduced the headline performers.
• Detroit City officials were against playing this short video, citing obscenity. The plaintiffs had two meetings with the defendants to discuss this issue. These meetings were secretly recorded and videotaped.
• They later used it in their concert DVD and profited from it. As a result, the plaintiffs brought actions against them for numerous privacy violations.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the defendants violated the Federal Wiretap Act. Moreover, the defendants are barred under the doctrine of equitable estoppel from asserting one-party consent exception as they intentionally deceived and led the plaintiffs to believe that the conversation was a private, unrecorded meeting.
• The defendants’ counsel argued that the plaintiffs’ subjective expectations were not justifiable under the circumstances. The conversations were not private; therefore, they are not “oral communications” under the Federal Wiretap Act. Further, the court’s allowance to amend the complaint would be futile.

Opinion of the Bench

• The conversations between the plaintiff and tour representatives constitute oral communication under the Federal Wiretap Act.
• The one-party consent exception in Section 2511(2)(d) is not applicable as the defendants intercepted conversations for a tortious purpose.

Final Decision

• The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff’s second motion for leave to amend their complaint.

Parul Anand, an undergraduate student at the National Law University, Jodhpur, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2022.