`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 19 Filed 01/19/21 Page 1 of 28
`
`Michael F. Ram (SBN 104805)
`mram@forthepeople.com
`Marie N. Appel (SBN 187483)
`mappel@forthepeople.com
`MORGAN & MORGAN
`COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
`711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`Telephone: (415) 358-6913
`Telephone: (415) 358-6293
`
`Benjamin R. Osborn (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
`102 Bergen St.
`Brooklyn, NY 11201
`Phone: (347) 645-0464
`Email: ben@benosbornlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`and the Proposed Class
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Case No.: 3:20-cv-8437-LB
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`AND MOTION TO STRIKE AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`Hearing Date: February 18, 2021
`Time: 9:30 A.M.
`Location: Courtroom B
`The Honorable Laurel Beeler
`
`
`MEREDITH CALLAHAN and LAWRENCE
`GEOFFREY ABRAHAM, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`20
`
`v.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a
`Virginia Corporation; ANCESTRY.COM, INC.,
`a Delaware Corporation; ANCESTRY.COM
`LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
`and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` NO. 3:20-CV-8437-LB
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 19 Filed 01/19/21 Page 2 of 28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................ 1
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS ............................................................... 2
`
`III. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Plaintiffs have properly alleged Article III standing........................................................... 3
`
`The Newsworthy exception does not apply because there is no legitimate public interest
`in Plaintiffs’ likenesses, and Ancestry is exploiting them for a commercial purpose. ....... 8
`
`Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not apply because Ancestry did
`not obtain yearbooks from authors, and Ancestry created the illegal content. ................. 11
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted by copyright because Ancestry does not own or
`license yearbook copyrights, and Plaintiffs’ likenesses are not copyrightable. ................ 13
`
`Plaintiffs have stated a claim for intrusion upon seclusion. .............................................. 15
`
`California recognizes a claim for unjust enrichment. ....................................................... 16
`
`Plaintiffs have properly alleged statutory damages. ......................................................... 16
`
`Plaintiffs’ restitution claim should not be struck because at this early stage we do not
`know if Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law. ......................................................... 19
`
`I.
`
`This Court should deny Ancestry’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike. ................................... 19
`
`IV. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
` NO. 3:20-CV-8437-LB
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 19 Filed 01/19/21 Page 3 of 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corporation,
`85 F.3d 407 (9th Cir. 1996) ....................................................................................................... 10
`
`Aldrin v. Topps Co., Inc.,
`2011 WL 4500013 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011) ...................................................................... 9, 10
`
`also Columbia Broadcasting v. Democratic Comm,
`412 U.S. 94, 201 (1973) ............................................................................................................ 10
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 17
`
`Badella v. Deniro Marketing LLC,
`No. C 10-03908 CRB, 2011 WL 227668 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2011) ........................................... 6
`
`Batzel v. Smith,
`333 F.3d 1018, 1031 n. 18 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................ 13
`
`Davis v. Facebook, Inc.,
`956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................... 3, 4
`
`Del Amo v. Baccash,
`2008 WL 4414514 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2008) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Deteresa v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.,
`121 F.3d 460, 465 (9th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................................. 16
`
`Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc.,
`15 Cal. App. 4th 536 (1993) ...................................................................................................... 21
`
`Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch,
`265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................... 8, 9, 14, 15
`
`ESG Capital Partners, LP v. Stratos,
`828 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`Fair v. Roommates,
`521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 12, 13
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
` NO. 3:20-CV-8437-LB
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 19 Filed 01/19/21 Page 4 of 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Fairfield v. American Photocopy Etc. Co.,
`138 Cal. App. 2d 82 (1955) ....................................................................................................... 17
`
`Fausto v. Credigy Services Corp.,
`598 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ........................................................................... 16
`
`Fleet v. CBS, Inc.,
`50 Cal. App. 4th 1911 (1996) .............................................................................................. 13, 14
`
`Fraley v. Facebook, Inc.,
`830 F. Supp. 2d 785, 796 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ....................................... 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 17, 18, 19
`
`Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc.,
`34 Cal. 4th 679 (2004) ............................................................................................................... 21
`
`Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Productions,
`25 Cal. 3d 860 (1979) ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`Hicks v. Richard,
`39 Cal. App. 5th 1167 (2019) .................................................................................................... 21
`
`Hilton v. Hallmark Cards,
`599 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................... 20, 21
`
`In re Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litig.,
`402 F. Supp. 3d 767, 797 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ......................................................................... 16, 17
`
`IntegrityMessageBoards.com v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-05286-PJH, 2020 WL 6544411 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) ....................................... 20
`
`Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc.,
`617 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`KNB Enterprises v. Matthews,
`78 Cal. App. 4th 362 (2000) ........................................................................ 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 15, 19
`
`Lectrodryer v. SeoulBank,
`77 Cal. App. 4th 723 (2000) ...................................................................................................... 17
`
`Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC,
`715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013) ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................. 14, 15
`
`Manzarek v. Marine,
`519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
` NO. 3:20-CV-8437-LB
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 19 Filed 01/19/21 Page 5 of 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Miller v. Collectors Univ,
`159 Cal. App. 4th 988 (2008) .............................................................................................. 17, 18
`
`Nayab v. Capital One Bank,
`942 F.3d 480 (9th Cir. 2019) ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Pub.,
`745 F. Supp. 1540 (C.D. Cal. 1990) ...................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Talisman Communications, Inc.,
`2000 WL 364813 (C.D. Cal. March 27, 2000) .................................................... 5, 11, 12, 15, 19
`
`Perkins v. Linkedin Corp.,
`53 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................. 17, 18
`
`Rivero v. Am. Fed’n of State, County, Mun. Emps.,
`105 Cal. App. 4th 913 (2003) .................................................................................................... 20
`
`Scott v. Metabolife Int'l Inc.,
`115 Cal. App. 4th 404 (2004) .................................................................................................... 21
`
`Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc.,
`18 Cal. 4th 200 (1998) ............................................................................................................. 8, 9
`
`Smith v. Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Inc.,
`723 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ..................................................................................... 22
`
`Solano v. Playgirl, Inc.,
`292 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2002). .................................................................................................... 7
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`Weinberg v. Feisel,
`110 Cal. App. 4th 1122 (2003) .................................................................................................. 20
`
`Statutes
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 ..................................................................................................................... 2
`
`17 U.S.C. §§ 103 ........................................................................................................................... 14
`
`17 U.S.C. §§ 102 ........................................................................................................................... 14
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230 ....................................................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 "UCL" ....................................................................................... 19
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 ..................................................................... 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
` NO. 3:20-CV-8437-LB
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 19 Filed 01/19/21 Page 6 of 28
`
`Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.17............................................................................................................ 22
`
`Cal. Code. Civ. P. § 425.17........................................................................................................... 22
`
`Other Authorities
`
`1 Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01[B][1][c] at 1-23 (1999) ............................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
` NO. 3:20-CV-8437-LB
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 19 Filed 01/19/21 Page 7 of 28
`
`I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`Ancestry’s motions to dismiss and to strike are based on two fundamental
`
`misunderstandings of Plaintiffs’ claims. First, Ancestry misunderstands the rights and the harm
`
`at issue. Plaintiffs assert a claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 3344, which prohibits the knowing use
`
`of a person’s “name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products,
`
`merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of,
`
`products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent.” Ancestry
`
`extracted Plaintiffs’ names, photographs as minors (aged 12 to 16), and biographical information
`
`from yearbooks, then used Plaintiffs’ likenesses to create advertisements for Ancestry.com and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`records that Ancestry users pay subscription fees to access. Ancestry stole and profited from
`
`11
`
`something that rightfully belongs to Plaintiffs: control of their likenesses.
`
`12
`
`California law imposes an obligation on corporations to solicit consent before they use a
`
`13
`
`person’s likeness. A person might refuse consent because they wish to control and cultivate a
`
`14
`
`professional reputation; because they do not wish to endorse a company they know nothing
`
`15
`
`about; because they feel it is wrong for others to profit from selling something that belongs to
`
`16
`
`them; or because they value their privacy. Ancestry denied Plaintiffs and the class the
`
`17
`
`opportunity to refuse consent, which lead to the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`18
`
`Ancestry argues Plaintiffs cannot allege harm because their yearbooks are not secret, and
`
`19
`
`because Plaintiffs did not lose dollars that were previously in their possession. But there is no
`
`20
`
`requirement in § 3344 that the victim’s likeness be entirely private (even if that were possible),
`
`21
`
`or that the victim sought to profit from their likeness in the past. Plaintiffs have the right to
`
`22
`
`choose which uses they consent to and which they do not. Plaintiffs consented as minors between
`
`23
`
`the ages of 12 and 16, at a time when the internet barely existed, to have their photographs taken
`
`24
`
`for yearbooks intended for use by their immediate family and classmates. Plaintiffs did not
`
`25
`
`consent to Ancestry using their likenesses decades later in advertisements and records Ancestry
`
`26
`
`created to sell subscriptions to a worldwide audience. Plaintiffs’ likenesses have value, as
`
`27
`
`evidenced by Ancestry using their likenesses to attract new subscribers. Plaintiffs have suffered
`
`28
`
`harm by the denial of their statutory rights, by Ancestry earning unjust profits from their
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
` NO. 3:20-CV-8437-LB
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 19 Filed 01/19/21 Page 8 of 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`likenesses, and by Ancestry’s failure to provide compensation for the use of their likenesses.
`
`Second, Ancestry misrepresents Plaintiffs’ allegations about how Ancestry uses their
`
`likenesses. Plaintiffs do not allege that Ancestry “hosted . . . third party content” submitted by its
`
`users. (ECF No. 13 at 16.) Ancestry extracts information from yearbooks – including names,
`
`photographs, cities of residence, and school activities – and uses that personal information as raw
`
`material to create advertisements and records promoting its subscription services. (See, e.g. ECF
`
`No. 1 at ¶¶ 45-57.) Far from “hosting” content created by authors, Ancestry does not even
`
`attempt to contact yearbook authors, much less gain their consent. (See ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 49-51.)
`
`The Complaint details three advertisements Ancestry created using Plaintiffs’ likenesses.
`
`10
`
`In one of these, Ancestry displays the Plaintiffs’ names and photographs along with text
`
`11
`
`promising “There’s more to see” about Plaintiffs – including higher-resolution versions of their
`
`12
`
`photographs, estimated ages, birth years, and other biographical details – if the visitor “Sign[s]
`
`13
`
`Up Now” for a paid subscription. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 30-31; 42-43; 55.) In addition to use in
`
`14
`
`advertising, Ancestry also uses Plaintiffs’ likenesses to create records about Plaintiffs, then sells
`
`15
`
`access to those records. (Id. at ¶¶ 25; 37; 52.) California law forbids such use of a likeness “on or
`
`16
`
`in” a commercial product without consent. Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a).
`
`17
`
`
`
`Most if not all of Ancestry’s arguments stem from their fundamental misunderstandings
`
`18
`
`of the rights protected by § 3344, and how Ancestry used Plaintiffs’ likenesses. For this reason,
`
`19
`
`and for the additional reasons below, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court deny Ancestry’s
`
`20
`
`motion to dismiss and motion to strike. In the alternative, Plaintiffs respectfully request that if
`
`21
`
`this Court grants Defendants’ motions in whole or in part, it should be with leave to amend.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`On a 12(b)(6) motion, courts “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and
`
`24
`
`construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. Marine,
`
`25
`
`519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). A claim survives if it is “plausible on its
`
`26
`
`face.” Nayab v. Capital One Bank, 942 F.3d 480 (9th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted).
`
`27
`
`\\\
`
`28
`
`\\\
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
` NO. 3:20-CV-8437-LB
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 19 Filed 01/19/21 Page 9 of 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs have properly alleged Article III standing.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`The Complaint alleges three forms of injury, each of which separately satisfies the
`
`requirements for standing. See Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785, 796 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2011) (standing exists where there is an “injury in fact” that is “concrete and particularized,”
`
`“actual or imminent,” “fairly traceable to the challenged action,” and it is “likely. . . that the
`
`injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”) (quotations omitted).
`
`First, Plaintiffs have suffered economic injury in the form of Ancestry’s unjust profits
`
`from the use of their likenesses. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 6, 52-56, 60, 86.) Ancestry has profited by
`
`using Plaintiffs’ likenesses in advertisements designed to convert non-paying users to paying
`
`subscribers (see ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 29-32, 41-44 & 54-57, describing Ancestry’s use of Plaintiffs
`
`likenesses in on-site messages encouraging users to “Sign Up Now” and in “Hints” emailed to
`
`non-paying users), and in records designed to attract new subscribers and retain existing
`
`subscribers (see ECT No. 1 at ¶¶ 26-28, 37-39, 52-54). In statements to its investors, Ancestry
`
`has recognized the value of the advertisements and records containing Plaintiffs’ likenesses in
`
`attracting subscribers, converting non-paying users to subscribers, and retaining subscribers.1
`
`In cases involving a violation of statutory rights, a defendant’s unjust enrichment alone is
`
`sufficient to confer standing. Davis v. Facebook, Inc., 956 F.3d 589, 599 (9th Cir. 2020)
`
`(“California law recognizes a right to disgorgement of profits resulting from unjust enrichment,
`
`even where an individual has not suffered a corresponding loss.”) See also Fraley, 830 F. Supp.
`
`785 at 799 (standing existed when plaintiffs alleged “that Facebook has been unlawfully
`
`profiting from the nonconsensual exploitation of Plaintiffs' statutory right of publicity” by using
`
`their likenesses in advertisements); KNB Enterprises v. Matthews, 78 Cal. App. 4th 362 (2000)
`
`
`
`1 See Form 10-Q filed June 30, 2016 by Ancestry.com LLC (“Our conversion marketing efforts
`are focused on converting registered users to paying subscribers through on-site messaging,
`email, targeted offers and compelling product features like record hinting.”); see also id. (“Our
`inability to offer certain vital records or other valuable content as part of our family history
`research databases. . . could have a material adverse impact on our number of subscribers.”).
`Available at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575319/000157531916000041/
`acom2016063010-q.htm#s77FC53301E940CD0A1BDD6FC46C1ABAC.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
` NO. 3:20-CV-8437-LB
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 19 Filed 01/19/21 Page 10 of 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`(reversing summary judgment on § 3344 claims brought by non-celebrities when a website
`
`profited by placing their photos in a database accessible to paying subscribers).
`
`Second, Plaintiffs have lost potential earnings from the commercial use of their
`
`likenesses. As in Fraley, Plaintiffs suffered economic injury when Ancestry appropriated their
`
`likenesses and used them without compensating Plaintiffs. See Fraley, 830 F. Supp. 2d at 799
`
`(standing existed when “Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured by Facebook's failure to
`
`compensate them for the use of their personal endorsements”).
`
`Third, Plaintiffs have suffered injury by the denial of their statutory right to control the
`
`distribution and use of their likenesses. The denial of a statutory right is a concrete injury for
`
`10
`
`which Article III standing exists. Davis v. Facebook, Inc., 956 F.3d at 598 (plaintiffs had
`
`11
`
`standing to assert claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the federal Wiretap Act,
`
`12
`
`and the federal Stored Communications Act on grounds that statutes intended to protect
`
`13
`
`historical privacy rights “codify a substantive right to privacy, the violation of which gives rise to
`
`14
`
`a concrete injury sufficient to confer standing.”). See also Fraley, at 785 (“[plaintiffs] have
`
`15
`
`alleged a violation of their individual statutory rights under California Civil Code § 3344, and
`
`16
`
`therefore, an invasion of a legally protected interest for Article III purposes.”).
`
`17
`
`Ancestry makes four arguments against standing, all of which fail. First, Ancestry argues
`
`18
`
`the yearbooks from which Ancestry obtained the names and likenesses it used to generate
`
`19
`
`advertisements and records are “not private” and therefore their “disclosure cannot cause harm.”
`
`20
`
`(ECF No. 13 at 6, 8).2 Ancestry misunderstands the rights at issue and the harm caused by its
`
`21
`
`exploitation. The injury to Plaintiffs exists regardless of whether Plaintiffs’ yearbooks were
`
`22
`
`previously published. California law grants Plaintiffs the right to control how their likenesses are
`
`23
`
`used, including the right to deny consent to others who would use their likenesses for profit.
`
`24
`
`Fraley, 830 F. Supp. 2d at 806 (“The right of publicity has therefore ‘become a tool to control
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Ancestry attempts to introduce evidence into the record by asserting that copies of their
`yearbooks are available at Plaintiffs’ “hometown libraries.” (ECF No. 13, at 7.) The introduction
`of evidence by the defendant is improper in a 12(b)(6) motion. Plaintiffs reserve the right to
`contest these claims. In any event, the availability of one’s photograph in a hometown library
`does not imply consent to have that photograph exploited commercially worldwide.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
` NO. 3:20-CV-8437-LB
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 19 Filed 01/19/21 Page 11 of 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`the commercial use and, thus, protect the economic value of one’s name, voice, signature,
`
`photograph, or likeness’”) (quoting KNB Enterprises, 78 Cal. App. 4th at 366).
`
`
`
`Agreeing to publication for a limited purpose is not agreement to widespread commercial
`
`exploitation. As minor children (aged 12 to 17), Plaintiffs consented decades ago to have their
`
`photographs taken for a high school yearbook, which they believed would be distributed in print
`
`form primarily amongst the other students in their high school. This does not affect Plaintiffs’
`
`right to refuse consent to a website exploiting their likenesses for profit on a worldwide scale by
`
`selling access to their likenesses and using them in advertisements distributed across the Internet.
`
`
`
`To the extent Ancestry is asserting that, by consenting as children to have their
`
`10
`
`photographs taken for a yearbook, Plaintiffs consented to unlimited future commercial
`
`11
`
`exploitation, that reasoning has been rejected by California courts evaluating right to publicity
`
`12
`
`claims. See KNB Enterprises; Perfect 10, Inc. v. Talisman Communications, Inc., 2000 WL
`
`13
`
`364813 (C.D. Cal. March 27, 2000). In both KNB Enterprises and Perfect 10, the court
`
`14
`
`recognized the rights of non-celebrity models to control where and how their likenesses were
`
`15
`
`used. Although the models agreed to have their photographs published and sold on one website,
`
`16
`
`the models were harmed when a rival website copied the photographs without permission and
`
`17
`
`began selling access in exchange for subscriptions. Here, Plaintiffs never consented to any
`
`18
`
`commercial use, much less worldwide use decades later by a company they do not know.
`
`19
`
`
`
`The cases Ancestry cites are inapposite. Tellingly, none involves a claim based on
`
`20
`
`economic injury, and none involves a right to publicity claim stemming from the commercial use
`
`21
`
`of a likeness. (See ECF No 13, cases cited on pages 7 & 8.) Unlike the plaintiffs in those cases,
`
`22
`
`Plaintiffs are not alleging harm stemming from the mere disclosure of personal information.
`
`23
`
`Plaintiffs allege Ancestry commercially exploited their personal information for its own financial
`
`24
`
`gain without consent. It is the way Ancestry used Plaintiffs’ personal information, not the mere
`
`25
`
`fact of its disclosure, that created the harm and cause of action in this case.
`
`26
`
`
`
`Second, Ancestry argues Plaintiffs cannot allege actual injury because Plaintiffs “do not
`
`27
`
`allege Ancestry . . . used their names to promote its service.” (ECF No. 13 at 9.) Ancestry
`
`28
`
`mischaracterizes the Complaint. Plaintiffs allege three separate advertising techniques of which
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
` NO. 3:20-CV-8437-LB
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 19 Filed 01/19/21 Page 12 of 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`they are aware in which Ancestry used Plaintiffs’ names, photographs, images, and likenesses to
`
`promote its services and products. The Complaint describes these techniques in detail, including
`
`screenshots showing how Ancestry incorporates the names and likenesses of named Plaintiffs
`
`Callahan and Abraham in promotional messages:
`
`
`
`(a). “Sign Up Now” messages show Plaintiffs’ names and photographs, and promise
`
`“There’s more to see” about Plaintiffs. Ancestry displays these advertising messages to website
`
`visitors to entice them to buy subscriptions. (ECF No. 1, at ¶¶ 30-31; 42-43.)
`
`
`
`(b). Records show the Plaintiffs’ names, photographs, ages, cities of residence, schools,
`
`grades, and other personal information, and encourage the viewer to “Upgrade” their
`
`10
`
`subscription. Ancestry displays these records to users of its 14-day promotional “Free Trial” to
`
`11
`
`demonstrate the breadth of personal information available on its the service and persuade users to
`
`12
`
`buy subscriptions. (ECF No. 1, at ¶¶ 25-27; 37-39.) See Badella v. Deniro Marketing LLC, No.
`
`13
`
`C 10-03908 CRB, 2011 WL 227668, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2011) (messages displayed on a
`
`14
`
`website as part of a free trial were designed to “induc[e] the individual to purchase a fee-paying
`
`15
`
`membership”).
`
`16
`
`
`
`(c). “Hint” emails show Plaintiffs’ names, suggest Plaintiffs may be relatives of the
`
`17
`
`recipients, and urge recipients to “See your hint” and learn more about Plaintiffs by visiting
`
`18
`
`Ancestry.com. Plaintiffs’ names are displayed as hyperlinks, so that clicking on the name brings
`
`19
`
`the recipient to Ancestry.com. Ancestry sends these advertising emails to non-subscribers for the
`
`20
`
`purpose of bringing traffic to its website and selling subscriptions.3
`
`21
`
`
`
`In addition to use in advertisements, Plaintiffs also allege that Ancestry’s use of
`
`22
`
`Plaintiffs’ images in records that subscribers must pay money to access is a separate and
`
`23
`
`additional harm. (¶¶ 25; 37.) See Cal. Civ. Code § 3444(a) (liability for use “on or in” products
`
`24
`
`and services); Solano v. Playgirl, Inc., 292 F.3d 1078, 1089 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2002).
`
`25
`
`
`
`Third, Ancestry argues Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate “actual injury” because they fail to
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Plaintiffs do not yet have a screenshot of an Ancestry “Hint” email populated with Ms.
`Callahan’s and Mr. Abraham’s images, but do allege such emails were sent and expect to verify
`this in discovery. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 32, 44.)
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
` NO. 3:20-CV-8437-LB
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 19 Filed 01/19/21 Page 13 of 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`allege “someone sought out their yearbook records and paid to access them.” (ECF No. 13 at 9.)
`
`As Ancestry would have it, Plaintiffs must point to a specific person who would not otherwise
`
`have paid for Ancestry services, but chose to do so because they saw an advertisement with
`
`Plaintiffs’ likenesses, or they sought access to the specific records with Plaintiffs’ likenesses.
`
`
`
`There is no such requirement in § 3444. Plaintiffs have the right not to sell their
`
`likenesses to anyone. The injury recognized by § 3344 occurred when Ancestry created the
`
`records containing Plaintiffs’ likenesses and placed them in its database. From that moment,
`
`Plaintiffs names and likenesses became part of the scheme Ancestry uses to promote its website
`
`subscriptions for profit. By Ancestry’s own admission, its techniques for attracting new
`
`10
`
`subscribers are effective only if it has a vast database of names and likenesses available to
`
`11
`
`populate its “Sign Up Now” messages, “Free Trial records, and “Hint” emails.4 Proof of actual
`
`12
`
`access by a subscriber is not required. See KNB Enterprises, 78 Cal. App. 4th at 365-66 (claim
`
`13
`
`arose under §3344 when defendant website placed 417 photographs depicting 452 models on its
`
`14
`
`website, without discussion of whether paying subscribers viewed specific photographs).
`
`15
`
`In any case, Plaintiffs do allege their specific records were viewed by paying customers of
`
`16
`
`Ancestry, and that Ancestry generated and displayed “Sign Up Now” messages, “Free Trial”
`
`17
`
`records, and “Hint” emails that it populated with Plaintiffs’ likenesses. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶25-55.)
`
`18
`
`
`
`Fourth, Ancestry asserts that any injury cannot be redressed because the yearbooks
`
`19
`
`containing Plaintiff’s photographs are “available through a variety of forums.” (ECF No. 13 at
`
`20
`
`10.) Again, this misunderstands the nature of Plaintiffs claims. Plaintiffs are not seeking that all
`
`21
`
`copies of their yearbooks be removed from bookshelves. They seek that Ancestry cease
`
`22
`
`exploiting their likenesses for its own commercial gain without their permission.
`
`23
`
`\\\
`
`24
`
`\\\
`
`25
`
`\\\
`
`
`
`4 Form 10-Q filed Ju