Jackson v. LinkedIn Corporation

Background

Jacqueline Jackson brought a proposed class action against LinkedIn Corporation. She alleged that LinkedIn used its Insight Tag to obtain and use information from LinkedIn users visiting the California Department of Motor Vehicles website. According to Jackson, the tag transmitted information to LinkedIn, incorporated it into users’ LinkedIn profiles, and supported targeted advertising.

Jackson alleged that she used a MyDMV account to renew a disability parking placard. She claimed that the Insight Tag transmitted information including a URL showing that she was renewing the placard, her disability information, and her email address. Her claims were brought under the federal Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

In an earlier order, the court dismissed Jackson’s DPPA claim but allowed her CIPA claim to continue. Jackson then filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims.

The DPPA claim

The DPPA prohibits knowingly obtaining, disclosing, or using personal information from a motor vehicle record for an impermissible purpose. The court explained that a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the information was personal information, came from a motor vehicle record, and was obtained, disclosed, or used for an impermissible purpose.

The court found that Jackson adequately alleged that some information transmitted by the Insight Tag was personal information. In particular, the court treated disability information and an email address as information covered by the DPPA. It also explained that URLs and button-click information do not qualify when they do not identify the user.

The court nevertheless found that Jackson failed to plausibly allege that the personal information came from a motor vehicle record. Most of the information allegedly transmitted to LinkedIn came from Jackson herself or from her interactions with the DMV website. Information that is merely identical to information in a motor vehicle record does not come from that record when it was obtained from an independent source.

Jackson also alleged that her first name appeared on a button after she logged into her MyDMV account and was transmitted to LinkedIn. The court did not definitively decide whether a first name qualifies as DPPA personal information. Instead, it held that Jackson had not adequately alleged that the first name came from a motor vehicle record. The court reasoned that the first name was maintained for access to the MyDMV website, not specifically in connection with a driver’s operating permit, title, registration, or identification card.

Because Jackson had already been given an opportunity to amend and had not corrected this deficiency, the court granted LinkedIn’s motion to dismiss the amended DPPA claim. The claim was dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

The remaining CIPA claim and jurisdiction

LinkedIn argued that, after dismissal of the federal claim, the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Jackson’s remaining CIPA claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.

The court stated that the federal and state claims arose from a common set of facts, so supplemental jurisdiction existed initially. But it concluded that comity—the interest in allowing state courts to decide state-law issues—strongly favored declining that jurisdiction. The court noted that the case remained at an early stage and involved a novel state-law claim concerning a proposed class likely composed primarily of Californians.

Jackson argued that the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) provided an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. CAFA generally allows federal jurisdiction over qualifying class actions involving at least 100 class members, specified interstate citizenship, and more than $5 million in controversy.

The court expressed serious concerns that CAFA’s home-state exception might apply. That exception requires a federal court to decline jurisdiction when more than two-thirds of the proposed class members are citizens of the state where the action was filed. The court stated that the proposed class appeared likely to consist overwhelmingly of California citizens, but found that the existing evidence was insufficient to make a final determination.

Disposition

The court granted LinkedIn’s motion to dismiss the DPPA claim. The claim was dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. The court did not issue a final dismissal of the CIPA claim in this order. Instead, it ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs of no more than 10 pages, together with supporting evidence, within 21 days addressing whether the CAFA home-state exception applies.