773 F.Supp.3d 868
N.D. Cal.2025Background
- Plaintiffs are subscribers to MUBI, Inc.’s online movie streaming service, and allege that MUBI unlawfully transmitted their viewing information to third parties (notably Meta/Facebook) using tracking pixels without proper consent.
- The Meta Tracking Pixel purportedly sent URLs, which included video titles, and Facebook IDs to Meta for targeted advertising.
- Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), California Civil Code § 1799.3, California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).
- MUBI moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, challenging standing for the federal claims, the adequacy of pleadings, and whether consent was properly obtained via website terms/privacy policy.
- The Court granted the motion to dismiss the CIPA claim with prejudice (no opposition), granted dismissal with leave to amend for the UCL and injunctive relief claims, and denied the motion as to VPPA and § 1799.3 claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing under VPPA | Substantive privacy rights were violated by unauthorized disclosures | Only a procedural violation alleged; no concrete harm | Plaintiffs have Article III standing |
| VPPA claim sufficiency | URLs transmitted identify videos watched, disclosing PII | URLs don’t prove videos were watched; just page visits | Sufficiently pled; factual dispute for later stage |
| Consent under § 1799.3 | No conspicuous notice or meaningful assent to privacy-disclosure terms | Users agreed to privacy policy via sign-in wrap and hyperlinks | No valid consent; design did not provide conspicuous notice/assent |
| Definition of "sales" under § 1799.3 | MUBI’s subscription qualifies as video sales/service | Subscription not a “sale or rental” under plain meaning | Plaintiffs plausibly alleged MUBI provides sales/service |
| Transmission via TikTok and X pixels | All three tracking pixels sent PII to third parties | Insufficient specifics on TikTok and X Pixels | Allegations sufficient for pleading; may clarify in discovery |
| UCL adequacy of remedy at law | (Not addressed in opposition) | Plaintiffs have adequate legal remedy; didn’t plead inadequacy | UCL claim dismissed with leave to amend |
| Standing for injunctive relief | Current subscribers at risk of future harm | Only past harm; no facts showing continuing or likely future use | No standing for injunctive relief; leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021) (defining Article III standing requirements, including intangible harm)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (articulating pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc., 876 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2017) (VPPA privacy rights and definition of PII)
- Mollett v. Netflix, Inc., 795 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2015) (pleading standards for VPPA and Section 1799.3 claims)
- Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC, 847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017) (UCL standing/economic harm requirements)
- Oberstein v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., 60 F.4th 505 (9th Cir. 2023) (website terms and conspicuous notice evaluation)
- Keebaugh v. Warner Bros. Ent. Co., 100 F.4th 1005 (9th Cir. 2024) (web contract assent and notice principles)
- Chabolla v. ClassPass Inc., 129 F.4th 1147 (9th Cir. 2025) (sign-in wrap contract formation and manifestation of assent)