{"id":1167,"date":"2024-02-05T09:02:11","date_gmt":"2024-02-05T13:02:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1167"},"modified":"2024-02-05T09:02:11","modified_gmt":"2024-02-05T13:02:11","slug":"texas-federal-court-dismisses-video-privacy-protection-act-class-action-concerning-email-newsletter-from-university-of-texas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/02\/05\/texas-federal-court-dismisses-video-privacy-protection-act-class-action-concerning-email-newsletter-from-university-of-texas\/","title":{"rendered":"Texas Federal Court Dismisses Video Privacy Protection Act Class Action Concerning Email Newsletter From University Of Texas"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Emilee N. Crowther<\/b><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/i><\/b>: In Brown v. Learfield Communications, LLC, et al., No. 1:23-CV-00374, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15587 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2024), Judge David A. Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted<\/a> Defendants Learfield Communications, LLC and Sidearm Sports, LLC\u2019s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff\u2019s Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) class claim.\u00a0 The Court held that Plaintiff failed to plead facts to support his claim under the VPPA because he did not allege that he was a subscriber to audio-visual goods or services themselves, just a newsletter that contained links to publicly-available content on The University of Texas\u2019s website.\u00a0 Defendants in VPPA class actions can utilize this decision as a roadmap when preparing motions to dismiss. <\/i><\/p>\n

Case Background<\/b><\/p>\n

Defendants Learfield Communications, LLC and Sidearm Sports, LLC (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d) operated the University of Texas at Austin\u2019s (\u201cUT\u201d) website (the \u201cUT Website\u201d).\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 2.\u00a0 The UT Website contains software that enables Facebook to track the activity of UT Website users on other websites.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Defendants invite UT Website visitors to subscribe to emailed newsletters.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 3.\u00a0 The newsletters provide links to various videos, clips, and other content on the UT Website related to UT Athletics.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Plaintiff Adam Brown subscribes to UT\u2019s emailed newsletter.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

In April 2023, Plaintiff filed a class action against Defendants UT, UT Athletics, Learfield, and Sidearm alleging that they violated the VPPA by purportedly exposing the subscribers\u2019 personal identification information and gathering marketing data without consent.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 4.\u00a0 In June 2023, UT and UT Athletics filed a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 at 2.\u00a0 The motion was granted in July.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 In September, Defendants Learfield and Sidearm filed a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7).\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court denied Defendants\u2019 Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(7) motions to dismiss. It held that neither Learfield or Sidearm was entitled to immunity as an \u201carm of the state,\u201d and that neither UT or UT Athletics were indispensable parties to the lawsuit.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 7-10.<\/p>\n

The Court, however, granted Defendants\u2019 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff was not a \u201cconsumer\u201d under the VPPA because he failed to allege a factual nexus between the subscription and Defendants\u2019 allegedly actionable video content.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 2, 19, 26.<\/p>\n

To state a claim under the VPPA, the Court noted that a plaintiff must allege that a defendant \u201c(1) is a video tape service provider; (2) who knowingly disclosed to any person; (3) personally identifiable information; (4) concerning any consumer.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 10-11; 18 U.S.C. 2710(b)(1).\u00a0 Under the VPPA, a \u201cconsumer\u201d is \u201cany renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.\u201d\u00a0 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2710(a)(1).<\/p>\n

The Court reasoned that the VPPA \u201conly applies to consumers (including subscribers) of audio video services\u201d because, when reading the term \u201cconsumer\u201d in the full context of the VPPA, \u201ca reasonable reader would understand the definition of \u2018consumer\u2019 to apply to a renter, purchaser or subscriber of audio-visual goods or services<\/i>, and not goods or services writ large.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at * 19 (emphasis original) (quoting Carter v. Scripps Networks, LLC<\/i>, 2023 WL 3061858, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2023)).<\/p>\n

The Court concluded that Plaintiff was not a \u201cconsumer\u201d under the VPPA because (i) the newsletter did not contain videos, just links to videos on the UT Website; and (ii) the linked videos were available for any member of the public to see on the UT Website, not just those who subscribed to the newsletter.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 26-28.\u00a0 Accordingly, the Court ruled that Plaintiff was not a subscriber to audio-visual goods or services<\/i>, just a newsletter.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 28-29.\u00a0 Ultimately, because Plaintiff failed to allege facts to support a claim under the VPPA, the Court granted Defendants 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 29.<\/p>\n

Implications For Companies<\/b><\/p>\n

The decision in Brown v. Learfield<\/i> serves as a roadmap for defendants in VPPA class actions to utilize when preparing motions to dismiss. This case is also important as it adds the Western District of Texas to a growing number of federal courts that strictly construe the VPPA to audio-visual materials, not links to publically-available videos in newsletters.\u00a0 See, e.g., Carter v. Scripps Networks, LLC<\/i>, No. 22-CV-2031, 2023 WL 3061858, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2023); Jefferson v. Healthline Media, Inc.<\/i>, No. 3:22-CV-05059, 2023 WL 3668522, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2023); Gardener v. MeTV<\/i>, No. 22-CV-5963, 2023 WL 4365901, at *4 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2023).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Emilee N. Crowther Duane Morris Takeaways: In Brown v. Learfield Communications, LLC, et al., No. 1:23-CV-00374, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15587 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2024), Judge David A. Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted Defendants Learfield Communications, LLC … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Texas Federal Court Dismisses Video Privacy Protection Act Class Action Concerning Email Newsletter From University Of Texas”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-privacy-class-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1167","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1167"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}