Jackson v. Fandom, Inc.

Background

Lucinda Jackson was a registered Fandom user. She alleged that she created a Fandom account, provided her name and email address, and watched prerecorded videos on the website. She also used Facebook and Instagram on the same device and browser.

According to the first amended complaint, Fandom used the Meta Pixel, a tracking tool, to send Meta Platforms, Inc. information about users’ activity. The alleged information included a user’s internet address, name, email address or phone number, the titles of videos viewed, and the user’s Facebook Profile ID. Jackson alleged that Fandom’s practices violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), a federal law restricting the knowing disclosure of video-viewing information, and unjustly enriched Fandom.

Fandom moved to dismiss both claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts and a legally recognized theory to proceed.

Requests Concerning Fandom’s Website Documents

Fandom asked the court to treat several website pages, including its Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, as part of the complaint. In the alternative, Fandom asked the court to take judicial notice of those documents, meaning to accept certain facts from them without requiring ordinary proof.

The court denied both requests. Jackson did not refer extensively to the webpages, and none formed the basis of her claims. The court also found that the versions submitted by Fandom might not be the same versions available when Jackson registered, so their accuracy and relevance could reasonably be disputed.

VPPA Claim

To plead a VPPA claim, Jackson had to allege that Fandom was a covered video-service provider, that it knowingly disclosed personally identifiable information about a consumer to another person, that the disclosure was not authorized by the statute, and that the information concerned the consumer’s video use.

Covered Video-Service Provider

The VPPA covers entities engaged in delivering prerecorded video or similar audiovisual materials. The court held that Jackson plausibly alleged Fandom qualified because Fandom hosts prerecorded streaming videos and its website was allegedly tailored to deliver video content. The court rejected Fandom’s argument that a website providing free access cannot qualify. The law does not require viewers to pay for the video service.

Consumer or Subscriber

The VPPA defines a consumer to include a renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a covered provider. The court held that Jackson plausibly alleged she was a subscriber. She did more than view freely available videos: she created an account, became a registered user, provided personal information, and then watched videos. The court explained that payment is not required if there is an ongoing relationship or commitment between the user and the provider.

Personally Identifiable Information and Viewing History

The court applied the standard asking whether an ordinary person could readily identify a specific individual’s video-watching behavior. Jackson alleged that Fandom sent Meta her Facebook Profile ID together with the titles of the videos she watched. She also alleged that the Profile ID could be used to locate the corresponding Facebook profile, which might contain identifying information.

Based on those allegations, the court found it reasonable to infer that an ordinary person could identify a Facebook user through the Profile ID. The court therefore held that Jackson plausibly alleged disclosure of personally identifiable information.

The court also held that Jackson plausibly alleged disclosure of her video-viewing history. She alleged that the Meta Pixel recorded which videos a user requested and watched and that Fandom sent Meta the full names of those videos with the user’s Facebook Profile ID.

Ordinary Course of Business

The VPPA permits certain disclosures made in the provider’s ordinary course of business, including debt collection, order fulfillment, request processing, and transfer of ownership. Fandom argued that sharing information with Meta helped it understand users’ requests to view content and therefore fell within this exception.

Jackson alleged instead that Fandom used the information to analyze website use and target advertising, increasing profits. The court held that the purpose of the sharing presented a factual issue that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. Accepting Jackson’s allegations as true, the court found that she plausibly alleged the disclosure was not part of Fandom’s ordinary course of business.

Unjust Enrichment Claim

Fandom argued that Jackson could not bring an unjust enrichment claim because its Terms of Use and Privacy Policy allegedly authorized the data sharing. The court declined to resolve that argument because the documents were not properly before it and the court could not assume at this stage that they were binding contracts agreed to by Jackson.

Jackson alleged that Fandom received advertising revenue by sharing users’ personal information without the consent required by the VPPA. The court found that these allegations sufficiently pleaded that Fandom received a benefit and unjustly retained it at Jackson’s expense. The court therefore denied Fandom’s motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim.

Disposition

The court denied Fandom’s motion to dismiss. It also denied Fandom’s requests for incorporation by reference and judicial notice of the website documents. The order allowed Jackson’s VPPA and unjust enrichment claims to proceed past the pleading stage; it did not resolve the ultimate merits of those claims.