Ambrozewicz v. 6Sense Insights, Inc.
3:24-cv-07489
N.D. Cal.May 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs alleged that 6Sense Insights, Inc. used their identities without consent to promote paid subscriptions to its sales and marketing platform.
- The 6Sense platform offers free and paid plans, including access to large databases of professional contact information; user profiles are displayed with prompts to upgrade to a paid plan.
- Plaintiffs claimed they never registered with 6Sense, did not consent to use of their identities, and suffered mental anguish and harm to their right of publicity.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim; alternatively, they sought to strike portions of the complaint.
- The court addressed whether plaintiffs had standing (injury in fact) and whether 6Sense's actions constituted actionable "commercial use" under state right of publicity statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Injury in fact for standing | Mental anguish over loss of control suffices for standing; no need for third-party viewership | Only third-party viewership could create injury; 5 of 6 plaintiffs' info was viewed only by their counsel's agent | Sufficient injury alleged (mental anguish) for standing; third-party viewership not required |
| Causation for standing | Doubt and worry traceable to 6Sense's publication of information | No causation since plaintiffs' own agent viewed the information | Causation satisfied because harm derives from 6Sense's publication |
| Commercial "use" under right of publicity | Use of personal info alongside ads for upgrades is a commercial use | Display not sufficiently linked to advertising a product; info is part of a general directory | Not a commercial use as contemplated by right of publicity law; info not leveraged to promote paid plans |
| UCL claim under unlawful/unfair conduct | Right of publicity violations constitute UCL violation | No actionable violation if there is no underlying right of publicity claim | No claim stated; UCL claim fails with right of publicity claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021) (concrete injury for Article III standing)
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U.S. 216 (2000) (voluntary cessation and mootness)
- White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992) (commercial interest in celebrity identity under right of publicity)
- Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 440 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2006) (publication occurs when website is publicly accessible)