119 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2015Background
- Austin-Spearman coaches a privacy-privacy claim against AARP and AARP Services Inc. for allowing third parties to collect her PII via the AARP website
- She purchased a three-year AARP membership for $43 and then created an online account, reviewing the Privacy Policy during registration
- The Privacy Policy has sections on information collected from users, third parties, and sharing with service providers
- Plaintiff asserts breach, unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, fraud by omission, and DCCPPA claims based on allegedly improper data sharing
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and failure to state a claim; the court held the complaint fails to show a cognizable injury and therefore lacks standing
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the alleged policy breach caused injury-in-fact | Austin-Spearman relied on an overpayment theory | Policy breach did not occur or did not injure her economically | No cognizable injury; overpayment theory rejected |
| Whether the Privacy Policy terms were part of the membership contract | Policy promises kept private data as part of membership | Policy not part of contract or not essential | Policy not part of the binding membership contract; no contractual injury |
| Whether the complaint plausibly shows a policy violation by AARP | Policy guarantees third-party data restrictions | Policy permits third-party data collection and sharing | Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a violation given the policy’s plain terms |
| Whether standing could be established under any other injury theory | Other injuries from data sharing exist | No other cognisable injury pleaded | Standing absent under current allegations; overpayment theory rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (S. Ct. 2004) (privacy injuries can arise from data disclosures)
- In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (standing requires a concrete injury; careful not to decide on merits at 12(b)(1))
- S.A.I.C., 45 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.D.C. 2014) (economic injury from data breach requires loss of bargain value; not shown here)
- LinkedIn Privacy Litig., 932 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (overpayment standing theory rejected when privacy terms not part of bargain)
- Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2008 WL 3272101 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (economic injury requires loss of bargain value; not shown when plaintiff received bargain)
- Trustees of Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1819) (private contract requires private beneficial interest; contracts require bargained-for terms)
- Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2009) (standing where contract benefit not shown to be denied)
- Williams v. Purdue Pharma Co., 297 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D.D.C. 2003) (standing requires injury from purchase of a product; not satisfied here)