Mannacio v. Information.com LLC

Background

Eugene Mannacio alleges that Information.com LLC owns and operates a website described as a “People Search Engine.” According to the complaint, the website offers free search tools and displays “teaser profiles” containing enough information to identify a searched person. Users who want additional information must pay for access.

Mannacio alleges that Information.com publicly displayed at least two teaser profiles containing his information. One profile included his first and last name, his city and state of residence, and an offer for a $0.99 five-day trial that would provide access to additional reports. He alleges that Information.com knowingly used teaser profiles, including his own, to advertise and solicit subscriptions. He also alleges that third parties searched for and viewed his profile and then subscribed to the website. Mannacio states that he never consented to the use of his name and would not have consented if asked.

Mannacio alleges that the conduct harmed his dignity and peace of mind, caused concern about his inability to control how his name and personal information were used, and caused monetary harm in the form of the reasonable royalty he should have received for use of his persona. He asserts claims under California Civil Code section 3344, California common law for misappropriation of his name and likeness, and the unlawful and unfair prongs of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Motion to Dismiss and Standing

Information.com moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Because the standing challenge was a facial challenge, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true and construed them in Mannacio’s favor. The court applied the same general approach to the failure-to-state-a-claim challenge.

The court explained that Article III standing requires a concrete and particularized injury, a connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a court order would remedy the injury. Information.com argued that Mannacio had not alleged a concrete injury because he had not used or visited the website.

The court rejected that argument at the pleading stage. It found persuasive decisions from the Northern District of California concluding that harms involving the unauthorized use of a person’s identity, including harm to feelings, peace of mind, agency, and control over one’s image, can be sufficiently concrete for standing. The court found Information.com’s reliance on a contrary decision unpersuasive and concluded that Mannacio plausibly alleged Article III standing.

Misappropriation and Right-of-Publicity Claims

For the common-law misappropriation claim, the required elements are use of the plaintiff’s identity, appropriation of the plaintiff’s name or likeness for the defendant’s advantage, lack of consent, and resulting injury. Section 3344 additionally requires a knowing use for advertising or selling products or services, with a direct connection between the use and the commercial purpose.

Information.com argued that Mannacio failed to allege commercial use because the profile would be used commercially only if a third party actually viewed it. The court found that argument unpersuasive. Relying on the reasoning of an earlier decision, the court concluded that making the profile publicly accessible and using it to offer a trial subscription could constitute use of Mannacio’s name and identifying information for the purpose of increasing sales. The court also noted that Mannacio alleged that third parties searched for his profile and later subscribed.

The court concluded that Mannacio’s allegations were sufficient to state both his common-law misappropriation claim and his claim under California Civil Code section 3344.

Unfair Competition Law Claim

The court held that Mannacio adequately alleged the unlawful prong of the Unfair Competition Law because the court had found that he stated a claim under section 3344. A business practice cannot be unlawful under that prong without violating another law.

Information.com also argued that Mannacio had not adequately alleged commercial use for the unfair prong. The court rejected that argument for the same reasons discussed in connection with the misappropriation and section 3344 claims and concluded that Mannacio had alleged sufficient facts to state his Unfair Competition Law claim.

Disposition

The court denied Information.com’s motion to dismiss. The order directed Information.com to file an answer by November 5, 2024, and set an initial case management conference for January 17, 2025, with a joint case management statement due by January 10, 2025. The order addressed whether the complaint adequately alleged standing and viable claims; it did not determine whether Information.com is ultimately liable.