Elliott v. Pubmatic, Inc.

Background

Hugo Elliott, a U.K. citizen residing in England, sued PubMatic, Inc. under the United Kingdom’s General Data Protection Regulation (U.K. GDPR). Elliott alleged that PubMatic placed unique identifying cookies on his browser to monitor and track his online activities while he browsed websites in the United Kingdom. He alleged that these practices violated his U.K. data-privacy rights and sought to represent a proposed class consisting of people who resided or had resided in England and Wales and had a PubMatic cookie placed on their device during the relevant period.

Elliott asserted one cause of action under the U.K. GDPR. PubMatic moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), raising standing, forum non conveniens, and international comity. PubMatic also submitted a declaration agreeing to submit to the jurisdiction of courts in England and Wales if the case were dismissed on forum non conveniens or international comity grounds.

Forum Non Conveniens

Forum non conveniens allows a court to decline to hear a case when a foreign forum would be more convenient. The court determined that courts in the United Kingdom were an adequate alternative forum because PubMatic was willing to accept jurisdiction there, and both parties acknowledged that the U.K. courts would provide an adequate forum.

The court gave Elliott’s choice of a U.S. forum less weight because he was a foreign plaintiff seeking to represent a proposed class made up entirely of foreign class members. The private-interest factors were generally neutral because neither forum was entirely convenient and the locations of evidence and witnesses were unclear. The public-interest factors, however, strongly favored the United Kingdom: Elliott and the proposed class allegedly suffered their injuries there, the claims arose under U.K. law, and the United Kingdom had the stronger interest in interpreting and applying its own privacy law. The court also found that applying the relatively undeveloped U.K. GDPR would burden the court and California jurors.

The court concluded that the factors favored dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds and dismissed the case on that basis.

International Comity

International comity is a principle under which a court may defer to another country’s courts when that country has a legitimate and stronger interest in resolving the dispute. The court found that adjudicatory comity also supported dismissal because the alleged injuries occurred in England and Wales, the proposed class consisted of people connected to those places, and the claims concerned rights created by U.K. legislation. The United Kingdom also had a strong interest in interpreting and applying its own internet-privacy regulations.

Ruling

Because it granted dismissal on forum non conveniens and international comity grounds, the court did not reach the standing issue. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted PubMatic’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to filing the case in the appropriate forum.