Callahan v. Ancestry.com Inc.
3:20-cv-08437
| N.D. Cal. | Mar 1, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs (California residents Meredith Callahan and Lawrence Abraham) sued Ancestry for placing their decades-old yearbook photos and associated identifying information in Ancestry’s Yearbook Database without consent and using those records to solicit paid subscribers.
- Ancestry’s Yearbook Database contains hundreds of millions of records (names, photos, school, year, location, and some estimated data); Ancestry encourages yearbook donations and republishes donated content on its site, in pop-up ads, and in subscription marketing emails.
- Plaintiffs are non-subscribers who never donated yearbooks and allege Ancestry profited from their likenesses without compensation or consent.
- Causes of action: violation of California right of publicity (Cal. Civ. Code § 3344), UCL unlawful/unfair practices, intrusion upon seclusion, and unjust enrichment on behalf of a putative California class.
- Ancestry moved to dismiss (lack of Article III standing, § 230 immunity, statutory preemption, failure to state intrusion/unjust enrichment claims) and to strike (statutory damages/restitution and anti‑SLAPP).
- The court dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing (with leave to amend) and alternatively held Ancestry immune under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1); it denied the anti‑SLAPP motion (not a public issue) and otherwise found motions to strike moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (injury in fact) | Ancestry’s commercial exploitation of plaintiffs’ public yearbook profiles causes concrete economic and statutory injury (lost earnings, denial of § 3344 control). | Use of publicly distributed yearbook information to solicit subscribers, without more, does not plead a concrete, particularized injury. | Dismissed for lack of standing; plaintiffs failed to allege more (e.g., implication of personal endorsement or comparable economic interest). Leave to amend granted. |
| CDA § 230(c)(1) immunity | Ancestry’s extraction, reformatting, adding fields and interactive buttons created or materially contributed to content and thus is not immune. | Ancestry is an interactive computer service that republished third‑party yearbook content; its formatting and interface additions are editorial/platform functions protected by § 230. | Ancestry immune under § 230(c)(1); it did not materially create or develop the underlying yearbook content. |
| Anti‑SLAPP (protected speech/public issue) | Plaintiffs’ claims chill protected speech; Ancestry’s publication of yearbook material is public‑forum speech on an issue of public interest. | Yearbook publication is protected speech and public‑interest activity, so anti‑SLAPP applies. | Anti‑SLAPP motion denied: inclusion of decades‑old yearbook information is not an issue of public interest under § 425.16. |
| Motion to strike statutory damages and UCL restitution | Statutory damages under § 3344 should remain; restitution under UCL is duplicative of § 3344 remedies. | Statutory damages require allegations of mental anguish; restitution claim improper when § 3344 provides adequate remedy. | Motion to strike as to anti‑SLAPP denied; other strike requests ruled moot given dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (standing requires a concrete, particularized injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three constitutional standing elements)
- Fraley v. Facebook, 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (personalized endorsements via platform features can support economic injury)
- Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp., 53 F. Supp. 3d 1190 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (endorsing Fraley’s economic‑injury theory for platform endorsements)
- Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc., 836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2016) (platform additions like star ratings do not negate § 230 immunity)
- Roommates.com, LLC v. Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (§ 230 immunity defeated only where defendant materially contributes to alleged unlawfulness)
- Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc., 934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019) (framework for § 230(c)(1) immunity)
- In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) (statutory privacy claims demonstrate Congress’s and state legislature’s intent to protect certain privacy rights for standing analysis)