STEINARSDOTTIR v. TRIPSCOUT, INC.
1:23-cv-01528
| D.D.C. | Feb 13, 2025Background
- Asa Steinarsdottir (Steinars), an Icelandic influencer, alleges that Tripscout, a travel marketing company, reposted her Instagram content without proper authorization.
- Tripscout had shared Steinars’s content over several years, claiming Steinars consented to, encouraged, and benefited from this sharing.
- The court previously denied Tripscout’s motion to dismiss Steinars’s copyright infringement claims and rejected Tripscout’s argument that Instagram's policies gave them a license.
- Tripscout filed three counterclaims against Steinars: fraudulent inducement, tortious interference with contract, and unjust enrichment.
- Steinars moved to dismiss all counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The core dispute centers on whether Steinars’s interactions with Tripscout or the terms of Instagram permitted Tripscout’s use of her content.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraudulent Inducement | No false representation or intent to deceive by Steinars. | Steinars misled Tripscout about consent to use her content. | Dismissed; no falsehood or intent pled with particularity. |
| Tortious Interference | No valid contract or breach alleged between parties/Instagram. | Tripscout had a contractual right via Instagram policies wrongfully interfered with by Steinars. | Dismissed; Instagram's policies do not create the claimed rights or breach. |
| Unjust Enrichment | No unjust benefit at Tripscout’s expense; mutual publicity. | Steinars unjustly benefitted by increased followers from reposts. | Dismissed; no unjust enrichment or evidence of detriment to Tripscout. |
| Leave to Amend | Not properly requested under court rules. | Sought in opposition, without proposed amended pleading. | Denied; improper and insufficient request. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility on a motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (motion to dismiss standard requires plausible factual allegations)
- Africare, Inc. v. Xerox Complete Document Sols. Md., LLC, 436 F. Supp. 3d 17 (elements for fraudulent inducement under D.C. law)
- Castle Rock Ent., Inc. v. Carol Publ’g Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (distinguishing between sharing and reposting content under copyright law)
- Bregman v. Perles, 747 F.3d 873 (requirements to state a claim for unjust enrichment under D.C. law)