KISHORE v. BCCL WORLDWIDE, INC.

Background

Hari Kishore and Brett Walker filed a putative class action alleging that Times Internet (UK) Ltd., which operates the Willow TV streaming service, disclosed information about their personal video-viewing habits without consent. The plaintiffs alleged that Willow TV used Meta Pixel code on its website to send Meta the URLs and full titles of videos subscribers watched. They further alleged that Meta could match this information to Facebook and Instagram accounts for targeted advertising.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and Willow TV’s own promise not to provide personally identifiable information to third-party websites without consent. Times Internet moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, and that the VPPA and UCL claims should be dismissed.

Standing

The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing. Article III standing requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege an actual injury caused by the defendant that a court decision could remedy.

As to Kishore, Times Internet argued that he had not been exposed to Meta Pixel because he watched Willow TV videos only through the smartphone application, while the Pixel operated only on the web platform. The court found that this argument depended on factual issues tied to the merits of the claims. Because the company’s supporting declaration provided only conclusory statements and the plaintiffs did not yet have access to information about how and where the Pixel was used, the court resolved the factual dispute in the plaintiffs’ favor at this stage.

The court also found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged an injury by claiming that they paid more for Willow TV than they otherwise would have paid if they had known their video-viewing information was being disclosed. The court stated that this price-premium theory supported standing under both Article III and the UCL. It rejected the company’s argument that Walker’s continued subscription made the alleged injury implausible, explaining that weighing credibility was not appropriate on a motion to dismiss.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice. Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority to exercise power over a defendant. The plaintiffs relied primarily on specific personal jurisdiction, which requires a connection between the defendant’s forum-related conduct and the claims.

The plaintiffs identified several California contacts, including allegations that California consumers subscribed to Willow TV, that Willow TV maintained a United States office in Santa Clara County, that Willow TV used California servers and a California collection agent, and that its subscriber terms selected California law. The court found that these facts could support a finding that Times Internet purposefully engaged in business connected to California, but the plaintiffs had not shown that their VPPA and UCL claims arose from or related to those California contacts. Their opposition to dismissal did not address that second part of the specific-jurisdiction test.

The court therefore granted dismissal on the current record. It did not make a final determination that personal jurisdiction could never be established. The court stayed the final jurisdiction decision and allowed jurisdictional discovery before the plaintiffs amend the complaint and the parties re-brief the issue.

Jurisdictional Discovery and Other Case Management Rulings

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery. It found that the request was supported by more than speculation because the record raised factual questions about Willow TV’s California office, servers, collection agent, use of California law, and marketing or targeting of customers in California and the United States. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about the scope and length of that discovery and to submit proposals by September 27, 2024.

The court stayed merits discovery while the personal-jurisdiction issue remained unresolved. It denied the plaintiffs’ administrative motion to schedule an initial conference or require Times Internet to participate in a conference about merits discovery. The court also set a case management conference for October 8, 2024.