DELONG v. PHE, INC.
2:24-cv-05212
| E.D. Pa. | Aug 25, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Shawn Delong, a Pennsylvania resident, brought a class action suit against PHE, Inc., operator of the Adam & Eve adult products website.
- Delong alleged PHE violated Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA) by sharing his non-anonymized IP address and detailed shopping behavior with Google Analytics, without consent.
- Delong argued such tracking and sharing of sensitive, intimate information from an adult products site constituted a concrete injury akin to intrusion upon seclusion.
- PHE moved to dismiss on three grounds: lack of Article III standing (no concrete injury), lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.
- The court addressed standing and personal jurisdiction; it did not reach the merits of the WESCA claim.
- The complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing (Injury-in-fact) | Disclosure of highly sensitive, personal data constitutes a concrete injury similar to intrusion upon seclusion | No reasonable expectation of privacy for website browsing; no concrete or particularized harm | No standing; no concrete injury shown |
| Common-law Analogue (Intrusion upon Seclusion) | Sharing adult-product activity with Google mirrors traditional privacy torts | Typical online activity is not private; no explicit privacy promise given as in prior cases | No close relationship to common-law harm; no actionable intrusion |
| Personal Jurisdiction | PHE purposefully availed itself by selling to Pennsylvanians | Website's sales are nationally available, not targeted at Pennsylvania; site activity not linked to forum-specific harm | No personal jurisdiction; activity not sufficiently aimed at or related to Pennsylvania |
| Implications of Product Sensitivity | Nature of products heightens privacy concerns | Sensitive products do not elevate standard privacy expectations for online retail | Product type alone does not change privacy expectation for online shopping |
Key Cases Cited
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021) (statutory violations require concrete, particularized injury for Article III standing)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (statutory claims still require a concrete injury closely related to common-law analogue)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to show injury-in-fact for standing)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021) (specific jurisdiction requires claim to arise from or relate to defendant's forum contacts)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (personal jurisdiction requires fair play and substantial justice)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (minimum contacts purposeful availment standard)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (specific jurisdiction requires claim to arise out of forum contacts)
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction)
- Susinno v. Work Out World Inc., 862 F.3d 346 (3d Cir. 2017) (common-law analogues for intangible injuries)