Farrell v. LinkedIn Corporation

Background

Nicholas Farrell and Jeff Ganan brought separate cases against LinkedIn Corporation concerning alleged collection of private information through browser extensions. Farrell moved to consolidate the cases. LinkedIn moved to dismiss both complaints.

Standing analysis

The court held that both plaintiffs failed to adequately allege standing, meaning a sufficient personal injury to invoke federal court jurisdiction. To establish an injury in fact, a plaintiff must allege a concrete and particularized harm.

Ganan did not allege that he had any browser extensions installed. Farrell alleged that he had several extensions installed and that browser extensions can reveal sensitive information generally, but he did not allege that one of his own extensions revealed private information. The court held that generalized descriptions of information that could hypothetically be exposed did not connect the alleged harm to either plaintiff’s circumstances.

The court also rejected Ganan’s argument that the injury was the unauthorized investigation itself rather than the information obtained. The court stated that, in the internet-privacy context, the nature of the collection and the sensitivity of the information collected matter. A plaintiff must identify embarrassing, invasive, or otherwise private information collected by the defendant.

Disposition

The court granted LinkedIn’s motions to dismiss in both cases. The dismissals were entered with leave to amend, and any amended complaint had to be filed within 14 days of the order. If no amended complaint was filed by that deadline, the dismissal would be without leave to amend but without prejudice to refiling the action in state court.

The court denied Farrell’s motion to consolidate as moot. The order stated that if both plaintiffs amended and both successfully stated a claim, the cases would be consolidated, Farrell would be the lead plaintiff, and Farrell’s counsel would serve as interim class counsel.