Shapiro v. Peacock TV LLC

Background

Scott Shapiro, Corey Amundson, Tanya Marshall, Daniel Weiss, and McKenzie Evans brought a proposed class action against Peacock TV LLC under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2710. They alleged that Peacock used the Facebook Pixel, also called the Meta Pixel, to send Facebook information identifying them and connecting them to video materials they requested or obtained on Peacock’s website. The alleged disclosures occurred when subscribers viewed pages containing trailers for specific prerecorded videos or lists of episodes, including when they were not logged into their Peacock accounts.

Peacock moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiffs were not VPPA consumers, that trailers and episode lists were not personally identifiable information involving specific video materials, and that Peacock did not knowingly disclose the information because the Facebook Pixel collected it.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that they were VPPA consumers. They alleged that they created Peacock accounts, provided personal information, and paid a fee. Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in Salazar, the court ruled that a plaintiff need only show some subscriber relationship with a website; the plaintiff need not show a separate connection between that subscription and the disclosure at issue.

The court held that the website’s trailers were “video materials” under the VPPA. It reasoned that trailers consist of moving images and that the statute does not exclude advertising content. The court therefore rejected Peacock’s argument that trailers could never qualify because they primarily serve as advertisements.

The court reached a different conclusion about lists of episodes. It found that disclosing that a subscriber looked through a list of available episodes, without more, did not identify the subscriber as having requested or obtained specific video materials. The court compared browsing an episode list to browsing the titles in a store, rather than renting or purchasing a specific video.

The court also held that the allegations adequately pleaded a knowing disclosure. The complaint alleged that Peacock affirmatively installed the Facebook Pixel to monetize its website and knew that the tool sent information to Facebook. The fact that the Pixel transmitted the information did not prevent the alleged disclosure from being attributed to Peacock.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Peacock’s motion to dismiss. The VPPA claim remains alive only to the extent it is based on Peacock’s alleged disclosure of the URLs of trailers the plaintiffs viewed. The plaintiffs may not proceed on the theory that Peacock unlawfully disclosed information showing that they viewed lists of available episodes. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the pending motion and scheduled a status conference for May 8, 2025.