Jackson v. LinkedIn Corporation

Background

Jacqueline Jackson brought a class action data-privacy lawsuit against LinkedIn Corporation. She alleged that LinkedIn’s Insight Tag, also called the LinkedIn Pixel, obtained personal disability information from LinkedIn users visiting the California Department of Motor Vehicles website. Jackson alleged that she used the DMV website in 2023 to renew a disability placard and entered her name, date of birth, disability information, and email address. She alleged that LinkedIn received information from the DMV website through URLs and used the information for its marketing and targeted-advertising services.

Jackson asserted claims under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, a federal law governing certain personal information from motor-vehicle records, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, a state law addressing unauthorized interception or use of communications. LinkedIn moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7), arguing that the DMV was a necessary party, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Jackson had not adequately stated either claim.

The DMV Was Not a Necessary Party

The court denied LinkedIn’s Rule 12(b)(7) motion. It concluded that Jackson could obtain complete relief from LinkedIn for LinkedIn’s own use of the Insight Tag, without suing the DMV. The court explained that Jackson was not asserting privacy claims against the DMV, and that the lawfulness of the DMV’s collection or transmission of her information was not at issue in this case.

The court also rejected LinkedIn’s arguments that the DMV’s contractual interests required its participation. Even if LinkedIn were held liable, the court said, that would not necessarily require a finding that the DMV breached its advertising agreement with LinkedIn. LinkedIn could pursue a separate contract-based indemnification claim against the DMV, assuming it satisfied the requirements for such a claim against a California government entity.

Driver’s Privacy Protection Act Claim

The court granted LinkedIn’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the DPPA claim, with leave to amend. A DPPA claim requires allegations that the defendant knowingly took affirmative action to obtain, disclose, or use personal information from a motor-vehicle record for an impermissible purpose.

The court found that Jackson had not adequately alleged that the information LinkedIn received was from a “motor vehicle record” as defined by the DPPA. Her allegations described disability information that she entered on DMV webpages and that was transmitted to LinkedIn through URLs. The court said Jackson did not explain how that information qualified as a motor-vehicle record maintained by the DMV.

The court distinguished an earlier related proceeding involving similar technology because, in that proceeding, the plaintiff alleged that the information was contained within a “MyDMV” account. Jackson did not allege that her disability information was stored in such an account. The court therefore dismissed the DPPA claim, while allowing Jackson an opportunity to amend it.

California Invasion of Privacy Act Claim

The court denied LinkedIn’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the CIPA claim. The court explained that CIPA can prohibit both intercepting communications and using information obtained through an interception. Jackson alleged that LinkedIn received, read, and used sensitive disability information transmitted from the DMV website for its own marketing services.

The court acknowledged that Jackson did not identify exactly what of her personal information was sent to LinkedIn or allege that she received an advertisement related to her disability status. But the court found that her allegations about how the Insight Tag operated were enough to plausibly allege that LinkedIn at least read or learned the information. That allegation was sufficient to state a CIPA claim, even though the allegations about LinkedIn’s specific use of her information might not be sufficient by themselves.

Disposition

The court denied LinkedIn’s Rule 12(b)(7) motion, denied its Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the CIPA claim, and granted with leave to amend its Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the DPPA claim. The court stated that Jackson could file an amended complaint within 21 days if she chose to do so.