Austin-Spearman v. AMC Network Entertainment LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d 662

Plaintiff Ethel Austin‑Spearman alleges AMC’s website incorporated Facebook’s SDK which, via cookies, transmitted her Facebook ID and the URLs/titles of videos she viewed to Facebook.
Austin‑Spearman is a long‑time Facebook user who remained logged in and visited AMC to watch clips of The Walking Dead.
She sued under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), claiming AMC knowingly disclosed "personally identifiable information" about a consumer.
AMC moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and for failure to plead that plaintiff was a VPPA "consumer" (i.e., a "subscriber").
The Court held that a VPPA statutory disclosure can constitute an Article III injury, but dismissed the complaint because plaintiff had not pleaded she was a "subscriber."
The Court granted plaintiff leave to amend to allege additional facts (she later claimed she subscribed to an AMC newsletter), but expressed skepticism about whether amendment will ultimately salvage the claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing: Is a statutory VPPA disclosure alone an "injury in fact"?	VPPA disclosure itself is a cognizable injury sufficient for standing.	Congress cannot create Article III standing merely by statutory cause of action; plaintiff must allege further concrete harm beyond disclosure.	The court held VPPA creates a specific privacy right whose deprivation by disclosure alone suffices for Article III standing.
VPPA "consumer"/"subscriber" definition: Does visiting/streaming without signing up make plaintiff a "subscriber"?	Accessing AMC’s free streaming (which allowed AMC to access cookies) makes her a consumer/subscriber under the VPPA.	"Subscriber" requires an affirmative, durable affiliation (e.g., account, registration, ongoing relationship); casual visitors are not subscribers.	The court held "subscriber" requires more than passive use; plaintiff’s allegations (as pled) did not show the requisite subscription relationship, so claim dismissed.
Leave to amend: Should plaintiff get to amend to add facts about newsletter subscription?	Plaintiff offered new facts that she registered for an AMC newsletter and received promotional emails.	AMC opposed dismissal with prejudice.	The court granted leave to amend (liberally required) but warned the new allegations may still be insufficient and raised consent/other defenses.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements).
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (Congress cannot by statute alone erase Article III standing limits).
Donoghue v. Bulldog Investors Gen. P'ship, 696 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2012) (statute can create legal rights whose deprivation alone confers standing).
Kendall v. Employees Ret. Plan of Avon Prods., 561 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2009) (statutory violation does not automatically confer standing unless the statute creates a specific right to sue).
Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 770 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2014) (VPPA plaintiffs have standing based on disclosure alone).
Jin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2002) (leave to amend should be freely granted absent futility, bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice).