IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Benjamin
Kirk, individually and
on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
Fandango Media, LLC
.,
Defendant
.
Civil
Action No.
CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY
TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff Benjamin Kirk (“Plaintiff”) brings this action on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated against Fandango Media, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff makes the following
allegations pursuant to the investigation of his counsel and based upon information and belief,
except as to the allegations specifically pertaining to himself, which are based on his personal
knowledge.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Defendant Fandango Media, LLC. dba (“Vudu”) is one of the largest pre-recorded
video content providers in the United States. Defendant owns and operates its online and mobile
streaming applications (“apps”), including www.vudu.com (the “Website”). Unbeknownst to
Plaintiff and the Class Members, Defendant knowingly and intentionally discloses its users’
personally identifiable information—including a record of every video viewed by the user—to
unauthorized third parties without first complying with the Video Privacy Protection Act
(“VPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2710.
2. Defendant’s Website and apps use first-party and third-party cookies, software
development kits (“SDK”), pixels, Facebook’s Business Tools, including Advanced Matching
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 21
2
and Conversion API, Google Analytics, and related tracking tools to purposely track, record, and
transmit its digital subscribers’ interactions on Defendant’s Website.
3. Defendant knowingly installed and used these tools, and it controlled which data
was transmitted to unrelated third parties. In conjunction with this, Defendant purposefully and
specifically chose to: (1) track and record consumers’ rental, purchase and streaming of its video
offerings, (2) disclose that information to Facebook
1
alongside its digital subscribers’ individual
Facebook ID (“FID”) and other persistent identifiers, and (3) did this without its users’
knowledge or consent via surreptitious technology.
4. Importantly, when Defendant transmitted Plaintiff’s and other consumers’
Personal Viewing Information—i.e., their persistent FID and consumption of video content—
that information was combined and sent to Facebook as one data point, thereby revealing the
identity of the individual who requested or viewed a specific video.
5. Because a FID is used to identify a specific individual and their corresponding
Facebook account, Facebook and any ordinary person can use it to locate, access, and view a
particular digital subscriber’s Facebook profile, thereby revealing their identity. Put simply, the
information that Defendant shares with Facebook reveals each and every video a particular
digital subscriber has requested or viewed.
6. Plaintiff and consumers were harmed by Defendant’s unlawful conduct, which
deprives them of their right to privacy in their own homes, and the disclosures at issue reveal
highly personal details regarding their unique video requests and viewing habits.
1
Notably, the Facebook Pixel works in conjunction with its Conversion API tool and, as a result,
Defendant transmits one copy of its digital subscribers’ viewing information directly from its
web server to Meta’s web servers. Additional copies of this information are also communicated
through the use of cookies.
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 21
3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on Plaintiff’s
claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710, et seq. This Court also has
subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §
1332(d)(2) because this is a proposed class action in which: (1) there are at least 100 Class
Members; (2) the combined claims of Class Members exceed $5,000,000, exclusive of interest,
attorneys’ fees, and costs; and (3) Defendant and at least one Class member are domiciled in
different states.
8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and this Court is the proper
venue for this action, because Defendant’s Website’s Terms of Use
2
require all actions to be
brought exclusively in this District.
PARTIES
9. Plaintiff Benjamin Kirk is a citizen of California, who resides in Pomona,
California. Plaintiff Kirk has had an account with Vudu which he has used to purchase and rent
movies from his computer on a regular basis within the last two years since the filing of this
Complaint. Throughout the duration of his interactions with Defendant’s Website, Plaintiff Kirk
has maintained and used his Facebook and Gmail accounts from the same browser (Chrome) that
he used to request and view Vudu video content on the Website. Pursuant to the systematic
process described herein, Plaintiff Kirk’s Personal Viewing Information was sent to unauthorized
third parties—including Facebook and Google—without his knowledge or consent each time he
purchased, rented and viewed Vudu’s video content through the Website. Plaintiff Kirk never
gave Defendant express written consent to disclose his Personal Viewing Information to
2
https://www.fandango.com/policies/terms-of-use (last accessed February 6, 2024).
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 3 of 21
4
Facebook, Google, or any other unauthorized third party.
10. Defendant Fandango Media, LLC is a Virginia corporation with its principal place
of business located in Universal City, California.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
History and Overview of the VPPA
11. The impetus for the VPPA began with President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of
Judge Robert Bork to the United States Supreme Court. During the confirmation process, a
movie rental store disclosed the nominee’s rental history to the Washington City Paper which
then published that record. Congress responded by passing the VPPA, with an eye toward the
digital future. As Senator Patrick Leahy, who introduced the Act, explained:
“It is nobody’s business what Oliver North or Pratik Bork or Griffin Bell or Pat
Leahy watch on television or read or think about when they are home. In an area of
interactive television cables, the growth of computer checking and check-out
counters, of security systems and telephones, all lodged together in computers, it
would be relatively easy at some point to give a profile of a person and tell what
they buy in a store, what kind of food they like, what sort of television programs
they watch, who are some of the people they telephone. I think that is wrong”.
S. Rep. 100-599, at 5-6 (internal ellipses and brackets omitted).
12. In 2012, Congress amended the VPPA, and in so doing, reiterated the Act’s
applicability to “so-called ‘on-demand’ cable services and Internet streaming services [that]
allow consumers to watch movies or TV shows on televisions, laptop computers, and cell
phones.” S. Rep. 112-258, at 2.
13. The VPPA prohibits “[a] video tape service provider who knowingly discloses, to
any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider.” 18
U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1). The VPPA defines personally identifiable information (“PII”) as
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 4 of 21
5
“information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials
or services from a video tape service provider.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(3). A video tape service
provider is “any person, engaged in the business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
of rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.”
18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(4).
Defendant is a Video Tape Service Provider
14. Defendant is an industry-leading digital video store whose primary business is the
rental, purchase, and streaming of on-demand prerecorded movies and TV shows which it offers
to millions of users through its www.vudo.com (the “Website”) and online and mobile streaming
applications (“apps”). In essence, Defendant is a digital version of the now obsolete Blockbuster
brick-and-mortar stores.
15. Defendant monetizes this content and its platforms by restricting access to its
video services, and only those who register with Defendant are granted access to it.
16. To subscribe to Defendant’s services, at a minimum, individuals must create an
online account and share their identifying information. Thereafter, subscribers can rent or
purchase Defendant’s movies and TV shows by using their preferred online payment methods.
Defendant permits its users to stream their video content directly on the Website and the apps.
Defendant Knowingly Discloses Consumers’ PII To Third Parties
17. When subscribers request or view videos on Defendant’s Website and apps, their
Personal Viewing Information is transmitted to Facebook, Google, and other unauthorized third
parties as a result of the tracking tools that Defendant purposely installed and implemented on its
Website and apps. Defendant controlled its Website, apps, and all of the tracking technologies
that it used to transmit its subscribers’ Personal Viewing Information to unauthorized parties.
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 5 of 21
6
Importantly, Facebook and Google would not have received Plaintiff’s or the Class Members’
Personal Viewing Information but for Defendant’s decision to install and use Facebook’s
Business Tools, including the Facebook Pixel and Conversions API, Google Analytics, and other
tracking technologies on its Website and apps.
18. Moreover, Defendant controlled which data was tracked, recorded, and
transmitted when its subscribers requested or viewed its video content.
19. Defendant’s knowledge as to its conduct is evidenced by the fact that: (1) it chose
to track its digital subscribers’ interactions with the Website and apps, including their rental and
purchase of videos; (2) it requested and installed lines of code that achieved this purpose; (3) it
obtained the lines of code from Facebook, Google and other third parties in order to achieve this
purpose; and (4) it controlled the information that was tracked, recorded, and transmitted via the
Website and the apps.
Defendant’s use of Facebook and Google’s Business Tools and Tracking Pixels
20. Facebook is a real identity platform, meaning that users are allowed only one
account and must share the name they go by in everyday life. To that end, when creating an
account, users must provide their first and last name, along with their birthday and gender.
21. Businesses, such as Defendant, use Facebook’s Business Tools to monitor and
record their website and app visitors’ devices and specific activities for marketing purposes.
22. More specifically, the Facebook pixel that Defendant installed and used tracked,
recorded, and sent Facebook its subscribers’ granular Website and apps activity, including the
names of specific videos that subscribers requested and/or viewed each time through Defendant’s
Website and apps. The information is not merely metadata.
23. Defendant’s motivation for using the Facebook Pixel and related Facebook
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 6 of 21
7
Business Tools is simple—it financially benefits Defendant in the form of advertising and
information services that Defendant would otherwise have to pay for.
24. The information Facebook receives from Defendant identifies subscribers based
on their unique and persistent Facebook IDs (“FID”), which is sent to Facebook as one data point
alongside the title of the video content the specific subscriber requested or viewed.
25. Notably, these marketing tools are not required in order for Defendant’s Website
or apps to function properly. Even if it finds the tools helpful, it could have used them in a
manner that does not reveal its subscribers’ Personal Viewing Information.
26. Any ordinary person who comes into possession of a Facebook ID can easily use
that information to identify a particular individual and their corresponding Facebook profile,
which contains additional information such as the user’s name, gender, birthday, place of
residence, career, educational history, a multitude of photos, and the content of a Facebook
user’s posts. This information may reveal even more sensitive personal information—for
instance, posted photos may disclose the identity of family members, and written posts may
disclose religious preferences, political affiliations, personal interests, and more.
27. Defendant also uses Google’s Analytics and DoubleClick persistent cookies
“application programming interfaces” (“APIs”) on its Website and apps. Google is a company
that “gets its money by tracking its users and using the data it collects to sell targeted ads to
companies.”
3
Google’s DoubleClick software furthers that by “enable[ing] advertisers to more
effectively create, manage and grow high-impact digital marketing campaigns,”
4
including by
3
Matt Krantz, Ask Matt: Is Google a Tech or Ad Company?, USA TODAY (July 23, 2013),
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/krantz/2013/07/23/google-ad-company-
tech/2493109/; see generally SHOSHANA ZUBOFF, THE AGE OF SURVEILLANCE
CAPITALISM (2019).
4
https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/2727482?hl=en (last accessed February 7, 2024).
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 7 of 21
8
serving specific advertisements to specific users and tracking the number of views on those
advertisements.
28. At a minimum, both Google and Facebook received Plaintiff’s Personal Viewing
Information as a result of Defendant’s data-sharing practices and the tools it installed on its
platforms.
Defendant’s Use of Tracking Tools
29. When Defendant’s subscribers request or view a particular video, the specific title
of the video is transmitted to Facebook alongside the subscribers’ persistent and unique
Facebook ID, thereby revealing their Personal Viewing Information to Facebook.
30. However, subscribers are unaware of this because, amongst other things,
Defendant’s transmissions are completely invisible to ordinary subscribers’ viewing its
webpages. Figures 2, 3, and 4 are an attempt at lifting the curtain to show precisely what happens
behind the scenes when Plaintiff and the Class Members request or view video content on
Defendant’s Website.
31. While Figure 1 shows what ordinary subscribers see on their screens as they use
the Website, Figures 2-3 shows the invisible, behind-the-scenes transmissions taking place.
[Intentionally Left Black]
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 8 of 21
9
Figure 1. The image above is a screenshot of the title screen that shows what subscribers see
when they rent or purchase a movie via the Defendant’s Website. The page does not contain any
logos or indications that their interactions are recorded and sent to Facebook.
32. The lines of text embedded in Figure 2 plainly show that Defendant sends
Facebook the specific URL assigned to a video (which any person can copy and paste into a web
browser to identify the exact video being requested), the purchase price of the video, and the
subscriber’s FID (which any person can use to identify a Facebook user) when the user rents the
movie shown above via the Website.
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 9 of 21
10
Figure 2. The images above represent a screenshot of a network traffic report that was taken
when a subscriber rented video content via Defendant’s Website, at which time the personal
viewing information was transmitted to Facebook.
33. The string of numbers contained in the first line of text within Figure 2 (“id=
1887975078185939”) corresponds to Defendant’s own Facebook identifiers, thereby
demonstrating it has indeed installed the Facebook Pixel on its Website. The video viewer’s FID
was also transmitted to Facebook via the Website, and it is contained in the unredacted
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 10 of 21
11
“c_user=” cookie in the second image of Figure 2.
34. Notably, the URL sent to Facebook also indicates that (1) a user has rented or
purchased the video (“3Drent%26content”); (2) the exact ID of the video (“2869948”); and (3)
the exact dollar amount of the transaction (“19.99”). The video Id contained in the URL, when
pasted on any browser will retrieve the exact same video, as depicted in Figure 3:
Figure 3. Google results using the title number sent by Defendant to Facebook.
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 11 of 21
12
35. Additionally, Figure 4 below demonstrates that Facebook received Plaintiff’s and
Class Members’ Personal Viewing Information via vudu.com and that the data was attributed to
specific subscribers’ unique Facebook accounts each time they requested video content.
Figure 4. Screenshot taken from the user’s personal Facebook account.
36. The image in Figure 4, which is a screenshot taken from a subscriber’s personal
Facebook account, plainly states: “vudo.com has shared this activity with us using Meta
Business Tools.”
37. In addition to the Facebook Pixel transmission shown in Figures 1-4 above,
Defendant also transmits its subscribers’ Personal Viewing Information to Facebook via
Conversions API and SDKs, and it sends the information to additional unauthorized third parties
via Google Analytics and other tracking technologies installed on its Website and apps.
38. Figure 5 below demonstrates that Defendant sends its subscribers’ Personal
Viewing Information to Google via its Google Analytics tools, Google Tag Manager, and
DoubleClick Ads (which is owned by Google and used solely for advertising).
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 12 of 21
13
Figure 5. The image above represent a screenshot of a network traffic report that was taken
when a subscriber rented video content via Defendant’s Website, at which time the personal
viewing information was transmitted to Google.
39. The column to the left shows what the user sees after renting or purchasing a
video via Defendant’s Website, and the column to the right depicts the network traffic report,
which demonstrates that Defendant sent the user’s Personal Viewing Information to
“doubleclick.net” (including the full URL containing the title of the video). See supra, ¶ 34.
40. Figure 6 below contains unique identifiers that Google collected to identify a
specific user on Defendant’s Website.
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 13 of 21
14
Figure 6. The image above is a screenshot of the cookies and other identifiers used by Google to
identify subscribrers when viewing videos on the Website.
Index of Relevant Cookies
Field
Value and Explanation
_Secure-
3PSID
Value:
Unique User Identifier linked to a Google account
Explanation: Upon information and belief,
this field
, including similar permutations,
equal
s a unique alphanumeric value, which is logged when a Google user
is signed
into
their Google account (such a Gmail) and is associated with
the information from
that account.
X
-
Client
Value:
Unique User Identifier Linked to Chrome
The x-client-data header is an identifier that when combined with IP address and
user
-agent, uniquely identifies every individual download version of the Chrome
browser.
The x-client-data identifier is sent from the Chrome browser
to Google every
time users
exchange an Internet communication, including when users log-
in to their
specific Google accounts, use Google services such as Google search or Google maps,
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 14 of 21
15
and when Chrome users are neither signed-in to their Google accounts nor using any
Google service.
IDE &
SID
Value: Unique User Identifier
The SID cookie is associated with a Google Display Ad (e.g., www.DoubleClick.net),
and contains a value that can identify a
user’s Google Account (if they have one).
The
IDE cookie is also associated with a Google Display Ad (e.g. www.DoubleClick.net),
and it contains a value that can identify the
user’s device – the specific browser
instance.
Thus, the SID and IDE cookies can be used to uniquely identify and track
individuals as they navigate the Internet, including as they communicate with
Defendant’s Website
. Similar to Google Ads, Google associates the SID and IDE
cookies for specific
users
and their devices to each other by acquiring them at the same
time when a person is logged
-in to their Google Account. Thereafter, Google’s
acquisition of either cookie by itself is sufficient for Google to associate any event
acquired with the other cookie.
41. As explained above, whenever a user is logged into their Gmail account or is
using a Chrome browser, Google causes Defendant to send persistent cookies—such as the IDE,
and SID cookies—along with personally identifiable information of users logged into their
Google accounts (i.e., the “Secure-3” cookies) and/or Chrome accounts (i.e., the “X-Client-
Data”). These cookies, along with all the other cookies that Google combines from third-party
sources enable Google to obtain a clear profile of an individual user as well as the specific videos
requested from Defendant’s Website. Any employee of Google, or potential data breach, could
easily obtain Plaintiff’s and the Class Member Personal Viewing Information.
42. In summary, Defendant discloses information to third parties, like Facebook and
Google, that would make it reasonably and foreseeably likely that Facebook and Google could
identify which specific user requested or obtained any specific video from Defendant’s Website
and apps.
43. The personal information that Defendant obtained from Plaintiff and the Class
Members is valuable data in the digital advertising-related market for consumer information.
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 15 of 21
16
44. At no point did Plaintiff or the Class Members consent to Defendant’s disclosure
of their video viewing history to third parties. As such, Defendant deprived Plaintiff and the
Class Members of their privacy rights and control over their personal information.
45. The harms described above are aggravated by Defendant’s continued retention
and commercial use of Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ personal information, including their
private video viewing histories.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
46. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
persons pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1), and (b)(3). Specifically, the
Class is defined as:
All persons in the United States who, during the maximum period of time permitted by
law, logged in to Defendant’s Website or applications and viewed prerecorded content
using their mobile or computer browsers.
47. The Class does not include (1) Defendant, its officers, and/or its directors; or (2)
the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s staff.
48. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the above class definition and add additional
classes and subclasses as appropriate based on investigation, discovery, and the specific theories
of liability.
49. Community of Interest: There is a well-defined community of interest among
members of the Class, and the disposition of the claims of these members of the Class in a single
action will provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court.
50. Numerosity: While the exact number of members of the Class is unknown to
Plaintiff at this time and can only be determined by appropriate discovery, upon information and
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 16 of 21
17
belief, members of the Class number in the millions. Members of the Class may also be notified
of the pendency of this action by mail and/or publication through the distribution records of
Defendant and third-party retailers and vendors.
51. Existence and predominance of common questions of law and fact: Common
questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and predominate over any
questions affecting only individuals of the Class. These common legal and factual questions
include, but are not limited to:
(a) Whether Defendant collected Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ PII;
(b) Whether Defendant unlawfully disclosed and continues to disclose its users’ PII,
including their video viewing records, in violation of the VPPA;
(c) Whether Defendant’s disclosures were committed knowingly; and
(d) Whether Defendant disclosed Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ PII without
consent.
52. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Classes because Plaintiff,
like all members of the Classes, purchased and watched videos on Defendant’s Website and had
his PII collected and disclosed by Defendant to third parties.
53. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests
of the Class as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a)(4). Plaintiff is an
adequate representative of the Class because he has no interests which are adverse to the interests
of the members of the Class. Plaintiff is committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and,
to that end, Plaintiff has retained skilled and experienced counsel.
54. Moreover, the proposed Classes can be maintained because they satisfy both Rule
23(a) and 23(b)(3) because questions of law or fact common to the Classes predominate over any
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 17 of 21
18
questions affecting only individual members and a Class Action is superior to all other available
methods of the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims asserted in this action under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) because:
(a) The expense and burden of individual litigation makes it economically unfeasible
for members of the Classes to seek to redress their claims other than through the procedure of a
class action;
(b) If separate actions were brought by individual members of the Class, the resulting
duplicity of lawsuits would cause members of the Class to seek to redress their claims other than
through the procedure of a class action; and
(c) Absent a class action, Defendant likely will retain the benefits of its wrongdoing,
and there would be a failure of justice.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act
18 U.S.C. § 2710, et seq.
55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in the
foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
56. The VPPA prohibits a “video tape service provider” from knowingly disclosing
“personally-identifiable information” concerning any “consumer” to a third-party without the
“informed, written consent (including through an electronic means using the Internet) of the
consumer.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710.
57. As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(4), a “video tape service provider” is “any
person, engaged in the business, in or affecting interstate commerce, of rental, sale, or delivery of
prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials.” Defendant is a “video tape
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 18 of 21
19
service provider” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(4) because it engaged in the business of
renting, selling, and delivering audiovisual materials—including the prerecorded videos that
Plaintiff and the Class Members purchased, rented, and viewed on the Website and apps—and
those deliveries affect interstate or foreign commerce.
58. As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(1), a “consumer” means “any renter, purchaser,
or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” Plaintiff and the Class
Members are “consumers” because they purchased, rented, and/or subscribed to Defendant’s
Website and apps, which provide video content to users. In so doing, Plaintiff and the Class
Members created an account to access Defendant’s Website and apps and provided Defendant, at a
minimum, their names, emails, addresses, credit card information, and other persistent cookies
containing their PII, including the title of the videos they purchased, rented, and/or viewed.
59. Defendant knowingly caused Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ Personal
Viewing Information, as well as the above-referenced unique identifiers, to be disclosed to third
parties, including Facebook and Google. This information constitutes “personally identifiable
information” under 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(3) because it identified each Plaintiff and Class member
to third parties as individuals who viewed Defendant’s video content, including the specific
prerecorded video materials purchased, rented, and watched on the Website and apps. This
information allowed third parties, such as Facebook and Google to identify each Plaintiff’s and
Class Member’s specific video viewing preferences and habits.
60. As set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(B), “informed, written consent” must be (1)
“in a form distinct and separate from any form setting forth other legal or financial obligations of
the consumer;” and (2) “at the election of the consumer…is either given at the time the
disclosure is sought or is given in advance for a set period of time not to exceed two years or
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 19 of 21
20
until consent is withdrawn by the consumer, whichever is sooner.” Defendant failed to obtain
informed, written consent from Plaintiff and the Class Members under this definition.
61. Defendant was aware that the disclosures to third parties that it shared through the
tracking software that it incorporated in its Website and apps identified Plaintiff and the Class
Members. Indeed, both Facebook and Google publicly tout their abilities to connect PII to
individual user profiles. Defendant also knew that Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ Personal
Viewing Information was disclosed to third parties because Defendant programmed the tracking
software into the Website’s and apps’ code so that third parties would receive the video titles and
subscriber’s unique third-party identifiers when a subscriber purchased, rented, or watched a
prerecorded video on the Website or apps. The purpose of those trackers was to obtain
identifiable analytics and intelligence for Defendant about its user base, while also benefiting
Facebook and Google, among other third parties, by providing them with additional data that
they can leverage for their advertising, analytics and/or other services.
62. Nor were Defendant’s disclosures made in the “ordinary course of business” as
the term is defined by the VPPA. In particular, the Website’s and app’s disclosures to Facebook
and Google were not necessary for “debt collection activities, order fulfillment, request
processing, [or] transfer of ownership.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(2).
63. On behalf of himself and the Class Members, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief,
statutory damages of $2,500 for each violation of the VPPA pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c), and
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks
judgment against Defendant, as follows:
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 20 of 21
21
(a) For an order certifying the Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; naming Plaintiff as representative of the Class; and naming Plaintiff’s
attorneys as Class Counsel to represent the Class;
(b) For an order declaring that Defendant’s conduct violates the statute referenced
herein;
(c) For an order finding in favor of Plaintiff and the Class on all counts asserted
herein;
(c) For compensatory, statutory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined
by the Court and/or jury;
(d) For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded;
(e) For an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief; and
(f) For an order awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable attorneys’ fees and
expenses and costs of suit.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of any
and all issues in this action so triable as of right.
Dated: February 7, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
By: /s/ Adrian Gucovschi
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Adrian Gucovschi
140 Broadway, Suite 4667
New York, NY 10005
Tel: (212) 884-4230
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class
Case 1:24-cv-00895 Document 1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 21 of 21
