741 F.Supp.3d 849
C.D. Cal.2024Background
- Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class, sued Learfield Communications, LLC and Sidearm Sports, LLC over privacy violations on college athletics websites they operate, including www.usctrojans.com.
- Plaintiffs allege two main violations: one concerning the use of Facebook Pixel transmitting personal info to Facebook regarding viewed videos (VPPA), and the other relating to Search Bars transmitting users’ search terms to third parties via Google’s infrastructure (CIPA, Wiretap Act).
- Plaintiffs claim they believed their search or video data was only going to the colleges, not to Learfield or third-party tracking entities like Google, Meta, Oracle, The Trade Desk, and comScore.
- Defendants moved under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7) to dismiss all claims and argued that the University of Southern California (USC)—formerly a defendant—was an indispensable party.
- Similar cases have been litigated by Plaintiffs’ counsel in other districts, with courts dismissing VPPA claims.
- The court ruled without oral argument, granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| VPPA (video info/Facebook Pixel) | Disclosure of Facebook ID and video data is PII; disclosure without consent violates VPPA | Facebook ID is not sufficient PII unless profile info is public; Plaintiffs failed to allege that | Dismissed with leave to amend |
| CIPA § 631 (Search Bar/wiretapping) | Search terms sent to tracking entities were intercepted and disclosed without user knowledge | No privacy interest in search data; Defendants were parties, not eavesdroppers; consented | Denied—claims plausibly pled |
| CIPA § 635 (device for eavesdropping) | Defendants possessed/assembled Sidearm Pixel for interception | No concrete injury from mere possession; no standing | Dismissed with leave to amend |
| Invasion of CA Constitutional Privacy | Secret collection/monetization of unique search terms is highly offensive, actionable intrusion | Collection was not offensive; no expectation of privacy | Denied—claims plausibly pled |
| Federal Wiretap Act | Same as CIPA § 631 (intercepted contents in transit) | Same as CIPA above | Denied—claims plausibly pled |
| Indispensable Party (USC) | USC not essential; relief can be granted without, and no inconsistent obligations | USC is indispensable party (insufficient Rule 19 argument) | Denied—Defendants' argument insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state plausible claim)
- Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729 (purpose of 12(b)(6) motion)
- Mollett v. Netflix, Inc., 795 F.3d 1062 (VPPA elements—need for PII disclosure)
- Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc., 876 F.3d 979 (narrow VPPA PII definition)
- In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589 (CIPA, CA Const. privacy)
- Ribas v. Clark, 38 Cal. 3d 355 (difference between party and eavesdropper)
- Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist. v. Lee, 672 F.3d 1176 (Rule 19 framework)
- Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (interception in transit under Wiretap Act)
- Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson, 110 Cal. App. 3d 868 (CIPA standing, damages)