Finlay v. MyLife.com Inc.

Background

Brion Finlay alleged that MyLife created an online profile about him that appeared in Google search results and stated, “Brion Finlay (C), 42 - Minneapolis, MN Has Court or Arrest Records.” The profile stated in bold that “Brion DOES have Arrest or Criminal Records,” referred to possible arrest or conviction records, and suggested that the profile might contain graphic content and sensitive details. Finlay alleged that he was not a sex offender and that his traffic tickets were petty misdemeanors rather than crimes.

Finlay also alleged that MyLife created a “Reputation Score” using public records and user reviews, marketed its profiles and scores to employers, and sold information to third parties. He claimed that MyLife sought payments from individuals to remove information from their profiles. His amended complaint asserted willful and negligent violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and common-law defamation.

MyLife’s motion

MyLife moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). It argued that Finlay had not plausibly alleged an injury sufficient for federal standing, that MyLife’s profiles were not “consumer reports” and MyLife was not a “consumer reporting agency” under the FCRA, and that Finlay had not adequately alleged willful FCRA violations. MyLife also argued that Finlay’s defamation claim failed because he had not alleged third-party publication, sufficient detail, or falsity.

Standing

The court held that Finlay plausibly alleged an injury that was personal and concrete. His allegations that he was seeking employment, that his information was widely available online, and that individuals seeking to employ him had consulted his profile supported a reasonable inference that third parties viewed the information. The court also found that the alleged harm was fairly traceable to MyLife because the complaint alleged that MyLife created the reputation score and made the challenged statements. Damages or injunctive relief could redress the alleged harm, so Finlay adequately alleged standing at the pleading stage.

Fair Credit Reporting Act claims

The court found that Finlay plausibly alleged that MyLife provided “consumer reports.” The profile contained information bearing on his general reputation, and the complaint alleged that MyLife marketed its profiles to employers, expected them to be used for employment purposes, and knew they were used that way.

The court also found that Finlay plausibly alleged that MyLife was a consumer reporting agency. The complaint alleged that MyLife assembled or evaluated information about consumers, furnished that information to third parties, and charged fees for access to certain consumer information. The court accepted as true Finlay’s allegations that MyLife intended to furnish consumer reports, explaining that MyLife’s arguments about its intent were premature at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court further held that Finlay alleged enough facts to support a claim for willful FCRA violations. It therefore denied MyLife’s request to dismiss Finlay’s claims for statutory and punitive damages at that stage.

Defamation

Under Minnesota law, a defamation claim requires a defamatory statement, falsity, reference to the plaintiff, and publication to a third party. The court found that Finlay plausibly alleged publication because the complaint supported a reasonable inference that prospective employers and other third parties viewed his profile. It also found sufficient detail because Finlay identified the exact statements, MyLife as the speaker, the online profile as the forum, and prospective employers and others as the audience.

The court found that Finlay plausibly alleged falsity, particularly because he alleged that the traffic tickets MyLife treated as “arrest or criminal records” were petty misdemeanors that did not constitute crimes under Minnesota law. The court noted that whether a statement is substantially true is generally a question for a jury.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that MyLife.com Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss was DENIED. Because this was a motion-to-dismiss ruling, the court determined only that the pleaded claims could proceed; the opinion did not finally decide liability or the ultimate truth of the allegations.