Vinci v. Spokeo, Inc., 1:17-cv-01519

Background

Plaintiffs Anna Dobrowolski and Nicole Vinci (Illinois residents) sued Intelius, Instant Checkmate, BeenVerified, and Spokeo alleging violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA) for using their full names in paid internet search ads generated by dynamic keyword insertion.
Ads automatically insert the searcher's queried first-and-last name into generic advertisements for background-report services; plaintiffs say the ads imply the companies have information about the named person and induce clicks/sales.
Cases were removed to federal court under CAFA as putative Illinois resident class actions; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Intelius) and for failure to state an IRPA claim (all defendants). Intelius also sought sanctions.
Court declined to consider defendants’ website printouts attached to the motions at the 12(b)(6) stage because those exhibits were not central to the complaints.
The court dismissed Intelius without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction (plaintiff failed to plead that Intelius expressly aimed its ads at Illinois residents) and denied Intelius’s sanctions request.
The court dismissed the remaining defendants without prejudice on the merits of the IRPA claim because the complaints failed to plausibly allege that the ads identified the plaintiffs to a reasonable audience (name alone, without “plus factors,” was insufficient).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction over Intelius	Intelius targeted Illinois residents by purchasing search ads and used Dobrowolski’s name in ads; jurisdiction exists where effects are felt in Illinois	Intelius argued no Illinois-specific targeting was alleged; national ads do not establish specific jurisdiction	Held: No personal jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to allege Intelius expressly aimed ads at Illinois, and plaintiff cannot be the sole link to the forum (Walden)
Sanctions under §1927 / inherent authority	Plaintiff’s counsel acted properly in dismissing and refiling; no bad faith	Intelius alleged counsel multiplied litigation and coordinated similar suits (Siegel) to harass company	Held: Denied; no specific evidence of bad faith or willful abuse of judicial process
IRPA — identification by name alone	Use of plaintiffs’ full names in dynamic ads made reasonable viewers believe defendants located info on them; that suffices as identification	Defendants: name alone (without additional context) is insufficient because ads could refer to any person with the same name	Held: Dismissed — name alone, absent contextual "plus factors" showing identification to a reasonable audience, fails to plead IRPA appropriation
IRPA — intent, endorsement, and intrinsic value	Plaintiffs: intent to use names for commercial purpose is plausibly alleged; IRPA protects ordinary people too and does not require endorsement or prior commercial value	Defendants: no intent to identify specific plaintiff (auto-population); IRPA requires endorsement or intrinsic/commercial value of identity	Held: Court rejected defendants’ endorsement and intrinsic-value arguments as requirements under IRPA but did not reach them because plaintiff failed on identifiability element; intent to gain commercial advantage need not be exclusionary identification

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (clarifies that plaintiff cannot be the only link for specific jurisdiction; defendant must have forum-directed conduct)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction requires defendant to be at home in the forum)
Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (Seventh Circuit standard for specific personal jurisdiction; contacts must directly relate to claim)
Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796 (Seventh Circuit discussion of internet contacts and specific jurisdiction)
uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (national advertising and purposeful availment analysis)
Hunt v. Moore Bros., Inc., 861 F.3d 655 (sanctions look to bad-faith conduct for §1927 or inherent authority)
Salmeron v. Enterprise Recovery Sys., Inc., 579 F.3d 787 (standards for awarding sanctions under inherent authority or §1927)