586 F.Supp.3d 666
E.D. Mich.2022Background
- Plaintiffs Richard Pratt and Larry Jones are paying subscribers to Guns & Ammo, RifleShooter, and Handguns who filed a putative class action alleging KSE Sportsman Media (Outdoor Sportsman Group) disclosed their "Private Reading Information" to data miners without written consent in violation of Michigan's PPPA (pre-2016 version).
- Alleged disclosures occurred between June 15, 2015 and July 30, 2016; suit was filed June 15, 2021.
- Defendant moved to dismiss asserting (1) a three-year limitations period (MCL § 600.5805(2)) bars the claims and (2) plaintiffs lack Article III standing if the PPPA is treated as a purely statutory right covered by § 600.5813 (six-year residual period).
- Central legal question: whether Michigan's three-year personal-injury limitation (§ 600.5805(2)) or the six-year residual limitation (§ 600.5813) applies to pre-2016 PPPA claims, and whether plaintiffs have Article III standing for a PPPA violation.
- Court applied Michigan substantive law and controlling Sixth Circuit precedent, held § 600.5813 governs statutory causes like the PPPA, found most alleged disclosures after June 15, 2015 timely, and concluded the PPPA violation confers Article III standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations governs PPPA claims? | § 600.5813's six-year residual period applies to statutory causes of action. | PPPA parallels traditional privacy torts so § 600.5805(2)'s three-year personal-injury period governs. | Six-year residual statute (§ 600.5813) applies (control: Sixth Circuit precedent). |
| Are plaintiffs' claims time-barred? | Claims accruing June 16, 2015–July 30, 2016 are within six years and timely. | Many alleged disclosures predate the six-year cutoff and are untimely (or three-year cutoff would bar more). | Claims accruing on/before June 15, 2015 are time-barred; claims accruing on/after June 16, 2015 survive. |
| Do plaintiffs have Article III standing for a PPPA violation? | A nonconsensual disclosure under the PPPA is a concrete, statutorily protected privacy injury sufficient for Article III standing. | If PPPA is only a statutory right (not common-law injury), plaintiffs lack the concrete injury required after TransUnion. | Plaintiffs have Article III standing; PPPA disclosure is a concrete, particularized intangible harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmer Park Square, LLC v. Scottsdale Ins., 878 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2017) (holds Michigan's six-year residual statute applies to statutory causes of action)
- Coulter-Owens v. Time Inc., [citation="695 F. App'x 117"] (6th Cir. 2017) (PPPA violation constitutes a concrete injury for Article III standing)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (concrete injury analysis for dissemination of information to third parties)
- Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237 (2016) (statutes of limitations ordinarily are nonjurisdictional)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (framework for Article III standing elements)