Nielsen Consumer LLC v. LiveRamp Holdings, Inc.
5:24-cv-07355
N.D. Cal.Jun 6, 2025Background
- Nielsen Consumer LLC accuses LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. and LiveRamp, Inc. of infringing two trademarks associated with its "Label Insight" data platform.
- LiveRamp is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco, operating a nationwide data connectivity platform and contracts with Circana, a competitor of Nielsen.
- A related action by Nielsen against Circana is pending in the Northern District of Illinois; Circana is based in Illinois and competes with Nielsen in data analytics.
- LiveRamp moved to transfer this California action to the Northern District of Illinois, citing efficiency and the relationship between the two lawsuits.
- The core legal question is whether the Illinois court had personal jurisdiction over LiveRamp when Nielsen filed suit, affecting whether transfer is permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The court considered both briefing and oral argument specifically focused on jurisdictional requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction in Illinois | Illinois lacks personal jurisdiction over LiveRamp; no express aiming or injury in Illinois | Illinois has jurisdiction due to LiveRamp's nationwide site and contract with Circana | Illinois lacks specific personal jurisdiction over LiveRamp |
| LiveRamp's consent to jurisdiction | Defendant's consent is irrelevant under precedent | Consent should permit transfer and consolidation | Defendant’s consent cannot substitute for requisite jurisdiction |
| Impact of website and contract on jurisdiction | Nationwide services and contract insufficient for jurisdiction | Website plus contract with Illinois firm satisfies jurisdiction | Neither alone nor together suffice to confer jurisdiction |
| Knowledge of effects in Illinois | No evidence LiveRamp knew effects would be felt in Illinois | Nielsen's location as a Chicago company implies knowledge | No evidence LiveRamp knowingly targeted injury to Illinois |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court rejects transfer based on defendant’s consent or waiver; transfer requires actual jurisdiction and venue)
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (presence of a website alone, accessible in forum, does not establish personal jurisdiction)
- Citadel Grp. Ltd. v. Washington Reg’l Med. Ctr., 536 F.3d 757 (a contract with a forum resident alone does not automatically create minimum contacts)
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (setting out the three-prong test for specific jurisdiction in intentional tort cases)