Collins v. Pearson Education, Inc.

Background

John Collins brought a proposed class action against Pearson Education, Inc. under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2710. Collins alleged that Pearson installed Meta’s tracking tool, called the Meta Pixel, on its website. According to the complaint, the Pixel sent Facebook users’ Facebook identification numbers together with the titles and URLs of videos the users requested or obtained. Collins alleged that he was a Pearson subscriber and Facebook user, that Pearson disclosed this information about him to Facebook, and that he never consented to the disclosure.

Collins sought to represent Pearson subscribers who requested or obtained video materials on Pearson’s website and used Facebook during the relevant period. The proposed class period ran from March 15, 2021, through March 15, 2023.

Pearson’s Motions

Pearson moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that Collins had not alleged an injury sufficient for standing under Article III of the Constitution. Pearson also moved under Rule 8(a) for failure to provide fair notice and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. In the alternative, Pearson moved under Rule 12(f) to strike the class allegations because the proposed class might include Pearson+ subscribers who agreed to arbitration and waived class actions.

Standing

The court denied Pearson’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion. It held that the complaint adequately alleged a concrete and particularized injury: the disclosure of Collins’s video-viewing history and identifying information to Facebook. The court found that the complaint did not need to identify the exact video titles, dates, URLs, or Facebook identification number at the pleading stage because it alleged an across-the-board practice of transmitting that information through the Meta Pixel.

The court also rejected Pearson’s arguments based on the declaration of David Youssef. Although materials outside the complaint may be considered for some factual challenges to jurisdiction, the court held that the declaration did not defeat standing because the complaint plausibly alleged that Pearson’s installation of the Pixel caused the transmission. Pearson’s arguments that the transmitted information was not personally identifiable information or did not identify specific video materials went to the merits of the VPPA claim, not to Collins’s standing to bring the case.

Pleading Requirements and VPPA Claim

The court denied Pearson’s Rule 8(a) motion. It held that the complaint gave Pearson fair notice by alleging that Collins requested or obtained video materials, that Pearson knowingly sent his Facebook identification number and the specific video title and URL to Facebook, and that Collins did not consent. The court found that more detail about the particular videos and dates was not required for Pearson to understand and defend against the claim.

The court also denied Pearson’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The VPPA prohibits a video service provider from knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information about a consumer. The court explained that the complaint plausibly alleged the three relevant components of that information: Collins’s identity, the identity of the specific video materials, and a connection between Collins and those materials.

The court held that the alleged disclosure of a Facebook identification number could identify a particular person under the approach used by courts in the district. It also found that the complaint adequately alleged that Pearson sent Facebook the specific video name and URL, rather than merely the name of a webpage. Finally, the court held that the allegation that Pearson transmitted Collins’s Facebook identification number alongside the video title and URL adequately alleged a connection between Collins and the specific video materials.

Class Allegations

The court denied Pearson’s Rule 12(f) motion to strike the class allegations, without prejudice to Pearson’s right to seek the same or similar relief later in the litigation. The court found the motion premature for two reasons. Pearson had not shown that the arbitration provision and class waiver clearly applied, had not moved to compel arbitration, and had not produced an arbitration agreement or class-action waiver signed by Collins. Also, even if some proposed class members were ineligible, the court stated that the likely remedy at this stage would be to remove those individuals rather than strike all class allegations.

Disposition

The court denied Pearson’s motions to dismiss and to strike. The court directed Pearson to answer the complaint by March 15, 2024, and stated that it would schedule an initial pretrial conference by separate order.