Wilson v. Triller, Inc.

Background

Tamara Wilson filed a proposed class action alleging that Triller collected and shared users’ information about their activity on Triller’s short-video application. The alleged disclosures included a user identification number, country, time zone, videos viewed or interacted with, profiles visited, and certain device information. Wilson alleged that Triller shared this information with Facebook and Appsflyer, which could combine it with other information to identify users.

Wilson asserted claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Triller moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

The court dismissed Wilson’s claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) with prejudice. The statute prohibits accessing a computer without authorization or obtaining information from areas of a computer that the accessor was not entitled to access. Applying the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “exceeds authorized access,” the court held that Wilson alleged only that Triller collected information about her interactions with Triller’s own servers and then misused or shared that information. She did not allege that Triller accessed parts of her device that she expected to be off-limits. The court therefore did not address whether she adequately alleged statutory damages.

Video Privacy Protection Act

The court dismissed Wilson’s claim concerning disclosure of personally identifiable information under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) without prejudice. The court discussed competing interpretations of what information can identify a person under the VPPA but did not need to choose between them. Even under the broader interpretation urged by Wilson, the complaint did not allege what information was actually on her profile or how the information Triller disclosed could be used to identify her. The court therefore found no sufficiently definite and foreseeable connection between the disclosed information and Wilson’s identity.

The court dismissed with prejudice Wilson’s separate claim that Triller violated the VPPA’s requirement to destroy information when it is no longer needed. It held that the VPPA provides a private civil claim for the disclosure prohibition in Section 2710(b), but not for violating the destruction requirement in Section 2710(e). The court also rejected Wilson’s argument that she could seek injunctions or declarations for the alleged destruction violation.

Unjust Enrichment

The court dismissed Wilson’s unjust-enrichment claim without prejudice. Under New York law, unjust enrichment generally cannot be used when an enforceable contract governs the subject of the dispute. The court held that Triller’s terms were presented clearly enough on the sign-up screen to put users on notice that using the application meant accepting the terms. The terms and incorporated privacy policy addressed the collection and disclosure of users’ information. The court therefore held that the alleged benefits Triller received were governed by a contract, precluding the unjust-enrichment claim. It allowed amendment because Wilson might be able to challenge the validity of that contract more effectively.

Illinois Consumer Fraud Act

The court dismissed Wilson’s Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim without prejudice. Wilson alleged that she lived in Illinois, but the complaint did not allege that she used the application in Illinois or identify other substantial connections between the dispute and that state. The court noted that Triller’s principal place of business was in New York and that the terms contained a New York choice-of-law provision. Because the complaint alleged insufficient connections to Illinois, the court found that the Illinois statute did not apply on the allegations then before it.

Disposition

Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted Triller’s motion to dismiss. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice as to the CFAA claim and the VPPA Section 2710(e) claim, and without prejudice as to the VPPA disclosure claim, unjust-enrichment claim, and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim. Wilson was granted leave to amend, with any amended complaint due by May 2, 2022.