Finlay v. MyLife.com Inc.
| Citation | 525 F.Supp.3d 969 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-1105 (SRN/DTS) |
| Parties | Brion FINLAY, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MYLIFE.COM INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
David J.S. Madgett, Madgett & Klein, PLLC, 1161 E Wayzata Blvd, Suite 314, Wayzata, MN 55391, for Plaintiff.
Robert R. Hopper and Jason Scott Juran, Robert R. Hopper & Associates, 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2450, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Plaintiff.
Eric M. Roberts and Raj N. Shah, DLA Piper LLP (US), 444 West Lake Street, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60606, for Defendant.
Richard R. Voelbel and Brandon J. Wheeler, Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, PA, 220 South 6th Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant MyLife.com Inc.’s ("MyLife") Motion to Dismiss the Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss") [Doc. No. 19] under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Based on a review of the files, submissions, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons below, the Court DENIES the motion.
Plaintiff Brion Finlay is a resident of Minnesota and is currently searching for a new job. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 40.) He alleges that it is common for prospective employers to search a prospective employee's name through Google's search engine. (Id. ¶¶ 1-2.) When one searches the name "Brion Finlay," Google generates a search result for "www.mylife.com," stating the following: "Brion Finlay (C), 42 - Minneapolis, MN Has Court or Arrest Records ...." (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) Upon clicking this link, the user arrives at a webpage stating that "Brion DOES have Arrest or Criminal Records " in bolded red text. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5 (emphasis in original).) This webpage then states: (Id. ¶ 5 (emphasis in original).) This webpage also provides a link to "View Brion's Court, Arrest or Criminal Records." (Id. ) When a user attempts to view Finlay's "Court, Arrest or Criminal Records" on his MyLife profile, MyLife states that Finlay's profile may contain "graphic content and sensitive details" and suggests that Finlay is a sex offender—which he is not. (Id. ¶ 8.)
MyLife also provides a "Reputation Score" on Finlay's profile. To calculate his "Reputation Score," MyLife allegedly collects and analyzes a variety of information, including certain public records and "user reviews" (i.e. , "personal reviews written by others"). (Id. ¶¶ 6, 44.) According to Finlay, MyLife claims on its website that the "Reputation Score" it calculates is "more important than a credit score" and that its "Reputation Scores" may assist in selecting among, inter alia , job applicants, service providers, business opportunities, and dating prospects. (Id. ¶ 11.) Indeed, Finlay alleges that MyLife's markets its "Reputation Score" to employers. (Id. ¶ 49.) In addition, MyLife's advertisements acknowledge that employers may use its "Reputation Scores" and that failing to have a good "Reputation Score" may cause consumers to lose out on employment opportunities. (Id. ¶ 50.) For example, in one advertisement, MyLife stated: (1) "Did you ever send out your resume and never hear back?"; and (2) "A bad reputation can hurt you personally and professionally." (Id. ¶ 12.) According to Finlay, MyLife assigned a "Reputation Score" of 2.32 to 3.51 to him, and MyLife has stated elsewhere that a "Reputation Score" of 2.32 constitutes a poor "Reputation Score." (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.)
According to Finlay, MyLife searches public records databases, among other sources, collects "user reviews," and generates his MyLife profile using all of the information it aggregates. (Id. ¶¶ 20, 44.) Further, rather than simply including the aggregated information in the form that third-parties supply it, MyLife instead "interprets" and "editorializes" the aggregated information and often does so incorrectly. (Id. ¶¶ 22-24.) For example, according to Finlay, MyLife incorrectly interprets petty misdemeanors in Minnesota as "criminal records" and falsely states that people, such as Finlay, who have received petty misdemeanors in the form of traffic tickets, have "criminal or arrest records." (Id. ¶ 24; see also Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 4a ().) In addition, Finlay alleges that MyLife evaluates the information it aggregates to calculate its "Reputation Scores," as described above.
In Finlay's view, MyLife includes all of this information in its profiles to cause reputational harm and incentivize consumers to pay MyLife to remove such information from their profiles. (Id. ¶ 26.) Indeed, Finlay alleges that MyLife offers the subjects of its profiles the option to remove information on their MyLife profile for a fee. (Id. ¶ 13.) MyLife requests these payments by asking individuals to "claim" their profile and "repair" their reputations. (Id. ¶ 14.)
In addition to targeting the individual subjects of its profiles, Finlay alleges that MyLife markets and sells information on its profiles to third-parties. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10, 13.) According to Finlay, MyLife markets its profiles to third-parties for employment and other purposes. (Id. ¶¶ 44, 47.) He alleges that MyLife expects and understands that its profiles may be used for employment purposes, and third-parties purchase and use MyLife's profiles for this purpose. (Id. ) In fact, Finlay alleges that individuals seeking to employ him, among others, have consulted his MyLife profile. (Id. ¶¶ 54-56.) Further, Finlay alleges that MyLife takes no steps to assure the accuracy of the information in its profiles. (Id. ¶¶ 51-52, 60.)1
On May 7, 2020, Finlay filed his initial complaint in this action. (See Compl. [Doc. No. 1].) On August 7, 2020, Finlay filed an amended complaint, which is the operative complaint, alleging three Counts. (See Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 17].) Under Count 1, Finlay alleges that MyLife willfully failed to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by: (1) failing to assure that users of its reports have a permissible purpose for accessing them, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b ; (2) failing to limit obsolete consumer information contained in its reports, in violation of § 1681c(a); (3) failing to institute and follow reasonable procedures to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the permissible purposes under § 1681b, in violation of § 1681e(a); and (4) failing to institute and follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in reports concerning Finlay, in violation of § 1681e(b). (Id. ¶¶ 98-101.) Under Count 2, Finlay alleges that MyLife negligently failed to comply with the FCRA on the same four grounds upon which it alleges willful noncompliance. (Id. ¶¶ 102-05.) Under Count 3, Finlay alleges that MyLife engaged in common law defamation by stating "Brion DOES have arrest or criminal records" and "Brion's report may contain graphic content and sensitive details." (Id. ¶¶ 106-14.)
MyLife moves the Court to dismiss the Complaint on three general grounds: (1) Finlay fails to adequately allege standing under Rule 12(b)(1) ; (2) Finlay fails to state a claim under the FCRA under Rule 12(b)(6) ; and (3) Finlay fails to state a claim for common law defamation under Rule 12(b)(6).
Where the defendant argues that the facts alleged in the complaint fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) —as MyLife does here—the plaintiff is afforded similar safeguards as in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Osborn v. United States , 918 F.2d 724, 729 n.6 (8th Cir. 1990). Namely, the Court must "accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, giving no effect to conclusory allegations of law," and determine whether the plaintiff's alleged facts "affirmatively and plausibly suggest" that jurisdiction exists. Stalley v. Catholic Health Initiatives , 509 F.3d 517, 521 (8th Cir. 2007). The Court's review is limited to the face of the pleadings. Branson Label, Inc. v. City of Branson , 793 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2015).
When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and views those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hager v. Arkansas Dep't of Health , 735 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2013). However, the Court need not accept as true wholly conclusory allegations or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Id. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although a complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations," it must contain facts with enough specificity "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955.
Article III of the Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to "cases or controversies." Auer v. Trans Union, Ltd. Liab. Co. , 902 F.3d 873, 877 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters , 645 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir. 2011) ). If a plaintiff lacks Article III standing, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id. To establish standing under Article III, a plaintiff must have: (1) "suffered an injury in fact," (2) "that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant," and (3) "that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Id. (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins , 578 U.S. 330, 136 S. Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Achievement Corp. v. Jostens, Inc.
...not fraud.10 In support, Balfour cites Finlay v. MyLife.com Inc., which concerned common-law defamation under Minnesota law. 525 F. Supp. 3d 969 (D. Minn. 2021). As Finlay explains, "Minnesota law requires that a claim for defamation must be pled with a certain degree of specificity . . . .......