112 F. Supp. 3d 855
D. Minn.2015Background
- Plaintiff Matthew Carlsen sues GameStop, Inc. and Sunrise Publications, Inc. d/b/a Game Informer (collectively, Defendants) seeking class relief over alleged privacy-policy violations.
- Plaintiff paid $14.99 for a one-year digital Game Informer subscription to access enhanced content.
- Game Informer’s Privacy Policy claims it does not share personal information with others, with limited exceptions.
- Plaintiff alleges Defendants shared his Facebook ID and content-viewing data via a Facebook SDK embedded on Game Informer’s site.
- The Privacy Policy is incorporated into the site's Terms of Service and governs information gathered online through the Site.
- Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and dismisses with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff has Article III standing. | Plaintiff asserts injury from overpayment or would-not-have-shopped theories. | Defendants contend Plaintiff lacks concrete injury and economic loss. | Plaintiff lacks standing; claims dismissed. |
| Whether overpayment theory supports standing. | Overpayment due to undisclosed data practices shows economic injury. | Overpayment theory is insufficient without specific monetary loss. | Overpayment theory fails to establish injury-in-fact. |
| Whether the would-not-have-shopped theory supports standing. | Plaintiff would not have paid or would have avoided content if knew of data handling. | No concrete injury; value received identical for paying and non-paying users. | Would-not-have-shopped theory fails; no injury in fact. |
| Whether alleged disclosure of data constitutes a breach of contract injury. | Disclosure breached contract and misrepresented protections. | Privacy Policy applies to all users; no difference in bargain. | Breach-of-contract injury not established; no standing. |
| Whether any other theories confer standing (e.g., unjust enrichment). | Disclosures render unjust enrichment claims viable. | No injury in fact or causation. | Unjust enrichment theories fail to establish standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 66 F.Supp.3d 1154 (D. Minn. 2014) (insufficient overcharge/financial injury in data breach context)
- LinkedIn User Privacy Litig., 932 F.Supp.2d 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (no bargain for heightened security; privacy policy did not create injury)
- AOL, LLC v. Target Corp., 719 F.Supp.2d 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (security promises insufficient for standing without concrete injury)
- Coghlan v. Wellcraft Marine Corp., 240 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2001) (overpayment/benefit-of-bargain sufficiency depends on damages shown)
- Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd., 789 F.Supp.2d 1148 (D. Minn. 2011) (benefit-of-bargain damages; standing requires injury)