Shapiro v. Peacock TV LLC
7:23-cv-06345
S.D.N.Y.Mar 31, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, subscribers to Peacock TV, allege Peacock unlawfully disclosed their personally identifiable information (PII)—specifically, data linking their Facebook IDs to video trailers and episode lists viewed on Peacock’s website—to Facebook via the Meta/Facebook Pixel.
- Plaintiffs contend these disclosures violate the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), which prohibits video service providers from knowingly sharing PII concerning consumers’ video material requests or views.
- The case is at the motion to dismiss stage, with the court examining whether plaintiffs have adequately pled that they are “consumers” under the VPPA, that the disclosed information constitutes “PII,” and that Peacock “knowingly” made such disclosures.
- Recent Second Circuit guidance in Salazar clarified that a “subscriber” under the VPPA need not show a direct nexus between their subscription and the alleged disclosure, influencing the court’s analysis.
- The court ultimately denies dismissal in part, allowing the claim regarding disclosure of trailer URLs to proceed, but finds the disclosure of only episode lists is not enough to constitute a VPPA violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are "subscribers"/"consumers" | Account creation and fee payment suffices | Subscription must have nexus to the disclosed video material | Nexus not required under Salazar; plaintiffs qualify as consumers |
| Whether disclosed info (trailers/lists) is "PII" | Trailer views and lists show specific videos | Trailers are ads, lists aren't "specific video material" | Trailers are PII under the VPPA; lists of episodes are not |
| "Knowingly" disclosed by defendant | Peacock installed Pixel to monetize knowing use | Facebook, not Peacock, made disclosures via Pixel | Installation is sufficient for "knowing" under the VPPA |
| Scope of VPPA's application to episode lists | Viewing/showing list equals requesting content | Viewing lists is just browsing, not "requesting/obtaining" | Episode lists alone are not "specific video material" under VPPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Salazar v. Nat'l Basketball Ass'n, 118 F.4th 533 (2d Cir. 2024) (clarifies subscriber status under VPPA does not require a content-nexus)
- In re Nickelodeon Consumer Priv. Litig., 827 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2016) (provides overview on VPPA's private right of action and PII)
- Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc., 876 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2017) (discusses legislative intent, definition of PII under VPPA)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (standards for surviving a motion to dismiss)