Carroll v. The J.M. Smucker Company

Background

Keith Carroll and Rebeka Rodriguez brought a proposed class action against The J.M. Smucker Company and anonymous defendants. The complaint asserted one claim under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), which prohibits certain disclosures of video-rental or video-sale records. The plaintiffs alleged that Smucker owned and operated www.folgerscoffee.com and used Facebook’s Tracking Pixel, a tool that collects website-visitor data for targeted advertising. They claimed the pixel sent Facebook information identifying what videos visitors watched on the website.

Carroll visited the website and was identified as a Virginia resident. Rodriguez, identified as a California resident, visited the website in March 2023 and watched a marketing video. The complaint alleged that both plaintiffs had essentially the same experience and that the pixel tracked website visitors indiscriminately.

Motion and jurisdictional standard

Smucker moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court stated that only specific personal jurisdiction was at issue because the plaintiffs did not assert general jurisdiction.

Specific personal jurisdiction concerns whether the lawsuit arises from or relates to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. The court explained that the plaintiffs had to show that Smucker purposefully directed its activities toward California, that the claim arose from or related to those California-related activities, and that exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable. Because the alleged privacy violation sounded in tort, the court applied the “effects” test, which asks whether the defendant committed an intentional act expressly aimed at the forum and causing harm the defendant knew was likely to be suffered there.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the complaint adequately alleged an intentional act. It alleged that Smucker knowingly placed the Facebook Pixel on the Folgers website and configured it to transmit visitor data. The court also treated operation of the allegedly offending website as an intentional act.

The court found, however, that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege that Smucker expressly aimed its conduct at California. The plaintiffs relied on the website’s interactive and commercial features, including options to sign up for information, submit questions, use live chat, and find locations where products could be purchased. The court held that these general features did not show interactivity directed specifically at California. The complaint did not allege that the plaintiffs used those features, and the alleged tracking appeared to provide the same experience regardless of where a visitor accessed the website.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on the website’s commercial nature, its connection to a separate online store, general online sales to California, and the plaintiffs’ past purchases of Folgers coffee. Those allegations were not sufficiently tied to the video-viewing conduct at issue. The complaint did not show that the plaintiffs’ video viewing related to a contemplated or completed commercial transaction. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the purposeful direction required for specific personal jurisdiction.

The court declined the plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery, explaining that information about Smucker’s California and nationwide online sales would not cure the jurisdictional deficiencies in the amended complaint.

Disposition

Judge William Alsup granted Smucker’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim without leave to amend because the plaintiffs had already amended the complaint once. The court did not decide Smucker’s separate argument that the VPPA claim failed to state a claim. The Clerk was ordered to close the file.