Meghan Mollett v. Netflix, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13362
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Netflix is a subscription streaming service with password-protected accounts; users can view queues and recommendations on their account page and on Netflix-ready devices.
- Disclosures at issue involve viewing history, queue, and recommendations that become visible on a TV if a device is registered to the account and the TV is on.
- Subscribers’ family, friends, or guests may view those disclosures when using the subscriber’s account on Netflix-ready devices or in the same viewing environment.
- Plaintiffs allege violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) and California Civil Code § 1799.3 for those disclosures to third parties.
- The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, concluding disclosures were to the consumer and thus permissible.
- On appeal, the panel reviews de novo the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and whether the disclosures were lawful under VPPA and § 1799.3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| VPPA violation due to disclosures to third parties | Mollett alleges disclosures were not to the consumer and were unlawful | Netflix discloses to the consumer; third-party access is incidental | Disclosures to the consumer; no VPPA violation |
| California § 1799.3 violation for disclosures | Disclosures to third parties violated § 1799.3(a) and willfulness element | Disclosures to the subscriber are permitted | Disclosures to the subscriber are permitted; no § 1799.3 violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaint failure to state a claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requires plausible claims)
- Hinds Invs., L.P. v. Angioli, 654 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2011) (12(b)(6) dismissal when facts insufficient under cognizable theory)
- Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; plausible claim requires factual matter)
- Daniel v. Cantrell, 375 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2004) (VPPA privacy protections do not require technological disclosure precautions)