827 F.3d 262 (3rd Cir. 2016), 15-1441, In re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litigation

Docket Nº:15-1441
Citation:827 F.3d 262
Opinion Judge:FUENTES, Circuit Judge :
Party Name:IN RE: NICKELODEON CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION; A.V.; C.A.F.; C.T.F.; M.P.; T.P.; K.T.; N.J.; T.M.; STEPHANIE FRYAR, Appellants
Attorney:For Appellants: Jason O. Barnes, Esq. [ARGUED], Barnes & Associates, Jefferson City, MO; Douglas A. Campbell, Esq., Frederick D. Rapone, Esq., Campbell & Levine, LLC, Pittsburgh, PA; Barry R. Eichen, Evan J. Rosenberg, Esq., Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy, LLP, Edison, NJ; James P. Frickleton,...
Judge Panel:Before: FUENTES, SHWARTZ, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:June 27, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
SUMMARY

The district court dismissed a consolidated class action in which plaintiffs, children younger than 13, alleged that Viacom and Google unlawfully collected personal information about them on the Internet, including what webpages they visited and what videos they watched on Viacom’s websites. The claims alleged invasion of privacy under New Jersey law and cited the 1988 Video Privacy Protection... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 262

827 F.3d 262 (3rd Cir. 2016)

IN RE: NICKELODEON CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION; A.V.; C.A.F.; C.T.F.; M.P.; T.P.; K.T.; N.J.; T.M.; STEPHANIE FRYAR, Appellants

No. 15-1441

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

June 27, 2016

Argued December 8, 2015.

Page 263

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 264

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 265

On Appeal from the District Court for the District of New Jersey. (Multidistrict Litigation No. 13-md-2443 District Court No. 2-12-cv-07829). District Judge: Honorable Stanley R. Chesler.

For Appellants: Jason O. Barnes, Esq. [ARGUED], Barnes & Associates, Jefferson City, MO; Douglas A. Campbell, Esq., Frederick D. Rapone, Esq., Campbell & Levine, LLC, Pittsburgh, PA; Barry R. Eichen, Evan J. Rosenberg, Esq., Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy, LLP, Edison, NJ; James P. Frickleton, Esq., Edward D. Robertson, III, Esq., Bartimus Frickleton Robertson, P.C., Leawood, KS; Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Esq., Mary D. Winter, Esq., Bartimus Frickleton Robertson, P.C., Jefferson City, MO; Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq., Thomas Rosenfeld, Esq., Goldenberg Heller Antognoli & Rowland, PC, Edwardsville, IL; Adam Q. Voyles, Esq., Lubel Voyles LLP, Houston, TX.

For Amicus Curiae, Electronic Privacy Information Center: Alan J. Butler, Esq. [ARGUED], Marc Rotenberg, Esq., Washington, DC.

For Appellee Viacom, Inc.: Jeremy Feigelson, Esq., Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY; David A. O'Neil, Esq. [ARGUED], Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Washington, DC; Seth J. Lapidow, Esq., Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, Princeton, NJ.

For Appellee Google, Inc.: Colleen Bal, Esq., Michael H. Rubin, Esq. [ARGUED], Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, San Francisco, CA; Tonia O. Klausner, Esq., Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC, New York, NY; Jeffrey J. Greenbaum, Esq., Joshua N. Howley, Esq., Sills, Cummis & Gross P.C., Newark, NJ.

For Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Amicus Curiae: Jeffrey B. Wall, Esq. [ARGUED], Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Washington, DC.

Before: FUENTES, SHWARTZ, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Page 266

FUENTES, Circuit Judge :

Table of Contents

I. Background
A. Internet Cookie Technology
B. Factual Allegations
C. Procedural History in the District Court
II. Arguments and Claims Foreclosed bye Our
Decision in Google
A. Article III Standing
B. The Federal Wiretap Act
C. The California Invasion of Privacy Act
D. The Federal Stored Communications Act
E. The New Jersey Computer Related
Offenses Act
III. Claims Raising Issues Beyond Those We
Addressed in Google
A. The Video Privacy Protection Act
1. Whether Google is an Appropriate
Defendant under the Act
2. Whether Viacom Disclosed " Personally
Identifiable Information"
B. Intrusion upon Seclusion
1. The Plaintiffs' Intrusion Claim Is Not
Preempted
2. The Plaintiffs Have Adequately Alleged
an Intrusion Claim
IV. Conclusion
Most of us understand that what we do on the Internet is not completely private. How could it be? We ask large companies to manage our email, we download directions from smartphones that can pinpoint our GPS coordinates, and we look for information online by typing our queries into search engines. We recognize, even if only intuitively, that our data has to be going somewhere. And indeed it does, feeding an entire system of trackers, cookies, and algorithms designed to capture and monetize the information we generate. Most of the time, we never think about this. We browse the Internet, and the data-collecting infrastructure of the digital world hums along quietly in the background. Page 267 Even so, not everything about our online behavior is necessarily public. Numerous federal and state laws prohibit certain kinds of disclosures, and private companies often promise to protect their customers' privacy in ways that may be enforceable in court. One of our decisions last year, In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation,1 addressed many of these issues. This case addresses still more. This is a multidistrict consolidated class action. The plaintiffs are children younger than 13 who allege that the defendants, Viacom and Google, unlawfully collected personal information about them on the Internet, including what webpages they visited and what videos they watched on Viacom's websites. Many of the plaintiffs' claims overlap substantially with those we addressed in Google, and indeed fail for similar reasons. Even so, two of the plaintiffs' claims--one for violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, and one for invasion of privacy under New Jersey law--raise questions of first impression in our Circuit. The Video Privacy Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1988, prohibits the disclosure of personally identifying information relating to viewers' consumption of video-related services. Interpreting the Act for the first time, we hold that the law permits plaintiffs to sue only a person who discloses such information, not a person who receives such information. We also hold that the Act's prohibition on the disclosure of personally identifiable information applies only to the kind of information that would readily permit an ordinary person to identify a specific individual's video-watching behavior. In our view, the kinds of disclosures at issue here, involving digital identifiers like IP addresses, fall outside the Act's protections. The plaintiffs also claim that Viacom and Google invaded their privacy by committing the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. That claim arises from allegations that Viacom explicitly promised not to collect any personal information about children who browsed its websites and then, despite its assurances, did exactly that. We faced a similar allegation of deceitful conduct in Google, where we vacated the dismissal of state-law claims for invasion of privacy and remanded them for further proceedings. We reach a similar result here, concluding that, at least as to Viacom, the plaintiffs have adequately alleged a claim for intrusion upon seclusion. In so doing, we hold that the 1998 Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, a federal statute that empowers the Federal Trade Commission to regulate websites that target children, does not preempt the plaintiffs' state-law privacy claim. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court's dismissal of most of the plaintiffs' claims, vacate its dismissal of the claim for intrusion upon seclusion against Viacom, and remand the case for further proceedings. I. Background We begin by summarizing the allegations in the plaintiffs' complaints.2 Page 268 A. Internet...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP