Matthew Carlsen v. GameStop, Inc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14999
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Carlsen, a GameStop Game Informer subscriber, alleges GameStop disclosed his personal information in violation of the privacy policy.
- The online subscription is governed by terms of service that incorporate Game Informer’s privacy policy.
- Carlsen alleges disclosure occurred via the Facebook SDK, transmitting his Facebook ID and browsing history to Facebook if logged in.
- He asserts breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and Minnesota CFA claims, seeking class relief.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1); the court below also addressed Rule 12(b)(6) issues.
- The Eighth Circuit affirms standing and analyzes the merits under Rule 12(b)(6) standards, concluding no breach or CFA violation established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carlsen has standing to sue. | Carlsen alleges injury from breached contract and data disclosure. | No injury-in-fact because policy did not cover his Facebook ID/browsing history and disclosure was not unique to paid users. | Carlsen has standing to present breach, unjust enrichment, and CFA claims. |
| Whether the contract claim is viable under Minnesota law. | Terms of service and privacy policy create a breached promise not to disclose PII. | Privacy policy does not expressly include Facebook ID or browsing history as PII; no breach. | No breach; privacy policy language unambiguously excludes Facebook ID and browsing history from PII. |
| Whether Carlsen's Minnesota CFA claim states a misrepresentation. | Policy misrepresented nondisclosure of PII; disclosure to Facebook breached policy. | PII defined in policy does not include Facebook ID or browsing data; no misrepresentation. | CFA claim not stated; misrepresentation not shown under policy language. |
| Whether unjust enrichment or money had and received states a claim. | Payment for privacy protection not provided; retention of fee unjust. | No identified benefit conferred for protection of PII; no inequitable retention shown. | No unjust enrichment or money had and received claim stated. |
Key Cases Cited
- ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 645 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2011) (standing injury-in-fact framework and distinctions between 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6))
- Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann, 808 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 2011) (contract formation and performance elements under Minnesota law)
- Grp. Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 621 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 2001) (private action under Minnesota CFA and standing to sue)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing injury-in-fact requirements)
- Campbell v. Minneapolis Pub. Hous. Auth. ex rel. City of Minneapolis, 168 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 1999) (standing and merits separation; threshold standing analysis)
- Ben Oehrleins & Sons & Daughter, Inc. v. Hennepin Cty., 115 F.3d 1372 (8th Cir. 1997) (injury-in-fact and economic injury sufficiency)
- Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Ill. Paper & Copier Co., 848 N.W.2d 539 (Minn. 2014) (contract breach elements under Minnesota law)