Wilson v. Veritas Consulting Group Inc.

Background

Glynn Wilson sued Veritas Consulting Group Inc., Heather Joy Koch, Robert Koch, Rob McIntyre, and Steven Goldberg. Wilson alleged that Veritas’s website displayed his name, photograph, and biography as though he were a Veritas team member and advisor. He alleged that he never gave written permission for that use, had never been involved with or compensated by Veritas, and declined Robert Koch’s request that he become an advisor.

Wilson asserted a claim under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, which prohibit using a living person’s name, portrait, picture, or voice for advertising or trade without written consent. He also asserted unjust enrichment. The defendants moved to dismiss both claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Court’s analysis

The court dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim because Wilson conceded, and the court agreed, that New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 preempt common-law claims based on the unauthorized use of a person’s name, image, or personality.

The court also dismissed the claims against Heather Joy Koch, Rob McIntyre, and Steven Goldberg. Wilson’s allegations against those three defendants mainly described their roles at Veritas and stated, on information and belief, that they participated in using his name, photograph, and credentials. The court held that Wilson did not provide specific supporting facts making those allegations plausible rather than speculative.

The court dismissed Wilson’s request for exemplary damages. It found that the complaint did not allege facts showing actual injury, spite, malice, fraud, an evil motive, or the willful and wanton conduct required for such damages. The court also found that Wilson’s statement that the defendants’ conduct was “egregious” and should “shock the conscience” merely repeated the legal standard without supplying supporting facts.

The defendants argued that Wilson’s New York privacy claim was filed too late. The court explained that such a claim generally must be brought within one year of the first publication of the allegedly offending material. Wilson alleged when he learned about the webpage, but not when it was first published. The defendants submitted affidavits and archived website materials that they said showed publication in 2019. The court declined to consider those materials at the dismissal stage because the complaint did not refer to them or rely on them in preparing the lawsuit.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Count II, the unjust-enrichment claim; dismissed the claims against Heather Joy Koch, Rob McIntyre, and Steven Goldberg; and dismissed Wilson’s claim for exemplary damages. It denied the motion insofar as it sought dismissal of Count I, the New York Civil Rights Law § 51 claim, as time-barred. The court stated that it would entertain targeted summary-judgment briefing on the apparent statute-of-limitations issue. Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the clerk to close the motion and terminate the three dismissed individual defendants as parties.