Portillo v. Nebula Genomics, Inc.
1:24-cv-09894
N.D. Ill.Jul 24, 2025Background
- Antoinette Portillo, an Illinois resident, purchased genetic testing from Nebula Genomics and accessed results via Nebula's platform.
- Portillo alleges Nebula shared her genetic information with Meta, Google, and Microsoft (the "Tech Defendants") for advertising purposes, without her consent.
- Portillo filed a class action, alleging Nebula violated the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA) and the Tech Defendants were unjustly enriched.
- Nebula moved to transfer the GIPA claim to the District of Massachusetts based on a forum selection clause in its Terms of Use; alternatively, it sought dismissal.
- The Tech Defendants moved to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims; Google also moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s GIPA claim must be transferred to Massachusetts per the forum selection clause | GIPA claim is statutory and thus outside the scope; clause is permissive | Clause covers any dispute relating to Terms of Use and is mandatory | Transfer granted: GIPA claim relates to Terms of Use, and clause is mandatory |
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Google | Google’s analytics are ubiquitous and reach Illinois users | Google is not at home in Illinois; no suit-related conduct there | No jurisdiction: Google lacks sufficient Illinois contacts |
| Whether a standalone unjust enrichment claim can proceed under Illinois law | GIPA claim supports unjust enrichment claim | No standalone claim without underlying unlawful conduct | Dismissed: No standalone unjust enrichment allowed |
| Whether remaining claims against Meta and Microsoft should be dismissed | Unjust enrichment claim is valid if GIPA claim viable | Dependent on viability of GIPA claim; improper as stand-alone | Dismissed: only to be potentially refiled in Massachusetts |
Key Cases Cited
- Atl. Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. District Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (forum selection clauses should be given controlling weight in transfer analysis)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction requires respondent to be essentially at home in the forum state)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (forum selection clauses generally enforceable under § 1404(a))
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (personal jurisdiction requires suit-related conduct connecting defendant to forum)
- Omron Healthcare, Inc. v. Maclaren Exports Ltd., 28 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 1994) (forum selection clauses can broadly cover related statutory claims)