JACKSON v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., a Delaware corporation

Background

O’Shea Jackson, known professionally as Ice Cube, sued Robinhood Markets, Inc. after Robinhood used an image of him from the movie Are We Done Yet? in a March 8, 2021 Robinhood Snacks newsletter about falling technology stocks and market corrections. The newsletter displayed the words “Correct yourself, before you wreck yourself,” paraphrasing the line “Check yo self before you wreck yo self” from Jackson’s song “Check Yo Self.”

Jackson alleged that the image and paraphrased catchphrase created the false impression that he was associated with or endorsed Robinhood’s products and services. He asserted a false-association claim under the Lanham Act, federal trademark law; claims for unauthorized use of his likeness under California law and California common law; and a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Motions and legal standard

Robinhood moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. It also moved to dismiss the claims under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the newsletter was a noncommercial news report, that the First Amendment protected it, that the use was creative, that federal copyright law preempted the state claims, and that other defenses defeated the claims. Robinhood separately moved to strike the state-law claims under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, which addresses certain claims based on protected speech.

The court treated the standing challenge as a facial challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction. It therefore accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and viewed them favorably to Jackson. Standing requires an injury that is concrete and personal, caused by the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be remedied by a favorable decision.

Analysis

The court held that Jackson plausibly alleged both his celebrity status and economic harm from the unauthorized use of his identity. But the court found that he did not plausibly allege the required injury because Robinhood’s use of his image and paraphrased lyric did not suggest that he endorsed Robinhood’s products.

The court distinguished cases involving explicit or clearly implied endorsements. Robinhood used Jackson’s image and the paraphrased lyric to illustrate an article about market corrections, and the court concluded that the newsletter was demonstrably not an advertisement. The court also held that Jackson had not alleged how Robinhood’s use created the required misunderstanding that he sponsored, endorsed, or was affiliated with Robinhood. Because Jackson lacked standing, the court did not reach his argument that a cited Supreme Court decision applied only to a different type of Lanham Act claim.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss by dismissing the complaint for lack of standing. It denied the motion to strike as moot. The court directed Jackson to file any amended complaint within 21 days and to attach a marked comparison showing the changes. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.