Perkins v. Linkedin Corp.
53 F. Supp. 3d 1222
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege LinkedIn harvested emails and sent reminder emails using Plaintiffs' names and likenesses for commercial benefit.
- SAC asserts California common law right of publicity, statutory right of publicity under Civ. Code § 3344, and UCL claims; federal claims were previously dismissed.
- During sign-up, LinkedIn allegedly collected email contacts and promised not to share passwords or emails without permission.
- Reminder emails followed initial invitations, potentially violating consent and implying endorsements by Plaintiffs.
- LinkedIn’s sign-up flow included consent language and various provider account screens; some users linked Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL, or Apple Mail.
- Court granted in part and denied in part LinkedIn’s motion to dismiss and took judicial notice of certain invitation/reminder emails and AB 826 drafting history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3344 minimum damages viability | Miller supports mental anguish damages for minimum statutory damages. | 3344 requires mental harm; economic-only claims cannot trigger minimum damages. | 3344 minimum damages dismissed; leave to amend allowed. |
| CDA immunity applicability | LinkedIn liable as content provider for reminder emails. | LinkedIn immune as interactive service provider unless acting as information content provider. | CDA immunity denied; LinkedIn may be liable for reminder emails. |
| First Amendment defenses | Reminder emails are misleading commercial speech; not protected. | Reminders are noncommercial/public-interest and protected. | First Amendment defenses rejected; claims survive. |
| Incidental use doctrine | Reminder emails were endorsements using Plaintiffs' names/likenesses for LinkedIn's benefit. | Use was incidental to invitations or protected under incidental-use. | Incidental use defense rejected; not exempt. |
| Leave to amend on 3344 claim | Amendment could cure deficiencies; 3344 viable with factual tweaks. | Amendment would be futile or prejudicial. | Leave to amend granted for the 3344 claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Collectors Universe, Inc., 159 Cal.App.4th 988 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (minimum statutory damages target mental anguish for non-celebrity plaintiffs)
- Starbucks Corp. v. Super. Ct., 168 Cal.App.4th 1436 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (statutory interpretation of §3344 post-Miller)
- Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (economic loss can support §3344 claim with actual damages; not on minimum)
- Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (Carafano discusses CDA immunity as to content created by others)
- Roommates.com, LLC v. User to look, 521 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (provider vs. content provider and )