Defendant’s actions violated (1) the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (2)Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, (3) the Stored ElectronicCommunication Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, (4) the Illinois Computer Crime Prevention Law, 720ILCS 5/17-51, (5) the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815ILCS505/1,
., (6) Breach of Contract, and (7) Unjust Enrichment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because Defendantconducts substantial business in the State and maintains continuous and systematic contact withthe State. Defendant also has agents and representatives in the State and maintains an office at20 West Kinzie St., Chicago Illinois. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff because Plaintiff is domiciled in the State and was injured in the State.4.
This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and Defendant pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under federal statutes, namely the Federal WiretapAct, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, the Stored Electronic Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, and theComputer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Subject matter jurisdiction over this matteris also proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(“CAFA”) because the amount in controversyexceeds $5,000,000 and concerns more than 100 class members.