Ballard v. Insomniac Holdings, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Insomniac Holdings, LLC’s motion to dismiss a proposed class action asserting a claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act. The court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that Insomniac was a video tape service provider, that he was a qualifying consumer based on his newsletter subscription, and that Insomniac knowingly disclosed personally identifiable information through Facebook and TikTok tracking pixels. The court did not reach the plaintiff’s alternative argument that event-ticket purchases made him a VPPA consumer.

Holdings

1. The complaint plausibly alleged that Insomniac was engaged in the business of delivering prerecorded audiovisual material because it allegedly offered a substantial library of prerecorded videos and Ballard regularly viewed that content. Whether the videos were more than peripheral to Insomniac's business presented a factual dispute that was premature on a motion to dismiss.
2. The complaint plausibly alleged that Ballard was a consumer under the VPPA because his newsletter subscription was a subscription to goods or services from Insomniac, a video tape service provider. The VPPA does not require that the subscribed goods or services themselves be audiovisual or that the subscription be directly connected to the video content viewed.
3. The complaint plausibly alleged a knowing disclosure of personally identifiable information because it alleged that Insomniac intentionally installed Facebook and TikTok tracking pixels, controlled the data tracked and transmitted, and transmitted personal viewing information together with unique identifiers capable of identifying users.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that Insomniac was a video tape service provider under the VPPA.
2. Whether Ballard plausibly alleged that he was a consumer or subscriber under the VPPA despite subscribing to Insomniac's newsletter rather than directly to audiovisual content.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that Insomniac knowingly disclosed personally identifiable information within the meaning of the VPPA.

Disposition

other