Bohnak v. Trusted Media Brands, Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-07476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
Bohnak v. Trusted Media Brands, Judge Roman granted TMBI’s dismissal motion and terminated the action over subscriber-information sales.
The eleven named magazine subscribers and the proposed classes they sought to represent did not proceed on their state and Puerto Rico right-of-publicity claims; Trusted Media Brands, Inc. obtained dismissal of the First Amended Complaint, and the action was terminated.
What happened
In Bohnak v. Trusted Media Brands, Inc., eleven magazine subscribers sued Trusted Media Brands, Inc. They alleged that the company sold, rented, or disclosed their personal information without consent, violating right-of-publicity laws in several states and Puerto Rico.
The court said those laws protect the commercial value of a person’s name or identity, not every unauthorized sale of personal information. It concluded that selling subscriber information to data companies did not qualify as the required commercial use of the subscribers’ identities.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Trusted Media Brands’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and directed the Clerk to terminate the action.
The detailed version
- Bohnak v. Trusted Media Brands, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-07476
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 29, 2023
Background
Eleven named plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against Trusted Media Brands, Inc. (TMBI). The plaintiffs subscribed to TMBI magazines, including Reader’s Digest and Taste of Home. They alleged that TMBI sold, rented, or disclosed subscribers’ personal information—such as names, demographic information, and subscription preferences—to third parties for profit, without the subscribers’ knowledge or consent.
The First Amended Complaint asserted eight causes of action under right-of-publicity statutes in Alabama, Indiana, California, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, and Washington, and under a Puerto Rico statute. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, statutory damages, and punitive damages where available. TMBI moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally valid claim.
Issue and reasoning
The plaintiffs argued that TMBI’s sale of their personal information used their names “on or in” data-brokerage products within the meaning of the relevant statutes. The court analyzed the statutes together because the plaintiffs did not distinguish among them.
The court explained that right-of-publicity laws protect a person’s property interest in the commercial value of the person’s name or likeness. Relying on decisions addressing similar subscriber-list sales, the court concluded that these statutes were not intended to cover every unauthorized sale or rental of personal information. The court stated that the commercial-use requirement generally involves using a person’s identity to promote the sale of another product, and that selling the person’s identity as part of a mailing or data list was insufficient.
The court further concluded that the plaintiffs could not plausibly allege the required public commercial use of their names or identities. It declined to adopt what it described as an innovative interpretation of established state law that would use right-of-publicity statutes to protect privacy from the alleged data sales.
Disposition
The court granted TMBI’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at Electronic Case Filing No. 24 and terminate the action. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.