Dobrowolski v. Intelius, Inc., 1:17-cv-01406

Background

Plaintiffs Anna Dobrowolski and Nicole Vinci filed putative Illinois class actions against people-search companies (Intelius, Instant Checkmate, BeenVerified, Spokeo) under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA), alleging defendants used their full names in paid search-engine ads generated by dynamic keyword insertion.
Ads allegedly displayed plaintiffs’ names (e.g., “We found [name]”), driving clicks to paid membership/report pages; plaintiffs were not customers and did not consent.
Defendants removed to federal court under CAFA; motions to dismiss followed. Intelius separately moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and sought sanctions.
The court refused to consider website exhibits appended to the motions at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage because the complaints’ focal allegations concerned paid search ads, not site content.
The court dismissed Intelius without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction (plaintiff failed to show Intelius expressly targeted Illinois), denied Intelius’s sanctions request, and granted the other defendants’ motions to dismiss without prejudice for failure to state an IRPA claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction over Intelius	Intelius placed ads that used plaintiff’s name and thus purposefully availed/expressly aimed at Illinois residents (geotargeting plausible).	Nationwide/automated ads are insufficient; plaintiff alleges only that ads appear when her name is searched and has no allegations Intelius targeted Illinois.	No personal jurisdiction (plaintiff failed to make prima facie showing Intelius expressly aimed ads at Illinois); jurisdictional discovery denied.
Sanctions under §1927 / inherent authority	No bad faith; dismissal/refiling in state court was permissible.	Counsel multiplied proceedings and coordinated with similar suits (bad faith).	Denied — no specific evidence of bad-faith litigation conduct.
IRPA: is use of name alone sufficient identification?	IRPA lists “name” as identity; dynamic insertion of plaintiff’s name into ads identifies plaintiff to viewers searching that name.	Name-alone (without additional context/plus factors) is insufficient to identify a particular individual; use may be coincidental.	Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to allege facts plausibly showing the ads identified these plaintiffs to a reasonable audience (no plus factors).
IRPA: endorsement or intrinsic commercial-value requirement	Not required; IRPA protects unauthorized commercial use even without celebrity status. Plaintiffs’ names had commercial value to defendants.	Right of publicity requires intrinsic value or implication of endorsement for actionable use.	Court: endorsement/intrinsic-value not required under IRPA, but plaintiffs still failed on identifiability so these arguments were not reached on the merits.

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) complaints)
Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (plaintiff cannot be the only link establishing specific jurisdiction)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (limits on general jurisdiction based on corporate contacts)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due process standard)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (specific jurisdiction principles; purposeful availment/contacts analysis)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test for intentional-tort jurisdictional analysis)
Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff’s prima facie burden for jurisdiction on written materials)
Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2014) (internet advertising and jurisdiction considerations)
Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (definition of prevailing party for fee awards)