Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`Adam E. Polk (SBN 273000)
`Simon Grille (SBN 294914)
`Kimberly Macey (SBN 342019)
`GIRARD SHARP LLP
`601 California Street, Suite 1400
`San Francisco, CA 94108
`Telephone: (415) 981-4800
`apolk@girardsharp.com
`sgrille@girardsharp.com
`kmacey@girardsharp.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
`VIOLATIONS OF:
`1. Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.
`§ 2710;
`2. Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. and
`Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.;
`3. Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal.
`Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.;
`4. Unjust Enrichment.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`BRAYDEN STARK, JUDD OOSTYEN,
`KEVIN BLACK, and MARYANN OWENS,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`PATREON, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated allege as follows based on
`personal knowledge and on information and belief based on investigations of counsel.
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`This is a consumer privacy class action against Patreon, Inc. (“Patreon”) for violating the
`Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA” or “the Act”) and state law by disclosing its digital subscribers’
`identities and video-viewing preferences to Facebook without proper consent.
`2.
`The VPPA prohibits “video tape service providers,” such as Patreon, from knowingly
`disclosing consumers’ personally identifiable information (“PII”), including “information which
`identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape
`provider,” without the person having expressly given consent in a standalone consent form.
`3.
`Patreon collects and shares users’ personal information with Facebook using a “Facebook
`Pixel” or “Pixel”—a snippet of programming code that, once installed on a webpage, sends information
`to Facebook. In this case, the information shared with Facebook includes the user’s Facebook ID
`(“FID”) and a title of a video that the user watched. A user’s FID is linked to their Facebook profile,
`which generally contains a wide range of demographic and other information about the user, including
`pictures, personal interests, work history, relationship status, and other details.
`4.
` Importantly, Patreon discloses the user’s FID and viewing content to Facebook together
`in a single transmission. Because the user’s FID uniquely identifies an individual’s Facebook account,
`Facebook—or any other person—can use the FID to quickly and easily locate, access, and view the
`user’s corresponding Facebook profile. In simplest terms, the Pixel allows Facebook to know what video
`content one of its users viewed on Patreon’s website.
`5.
`At no point are Patreon users informed about Patreon’s dissemination of their viewing
`content to a third party. Nor do Patreon users consent to such sharing, through a standalone consent form
`or otherwise. As a result, Patreon violates the VPPA by disclosing this information to Facebook.
`6.
`On behalf of a Class of similarly situated Patreon users, Plaintiffs seek appropriate relief
`through this action. Plaintiffs also assert causes of action arising out of the same practice under
`California law. Based on the facts set forth in this Complaint, Patreon violates the Unfair Competition
`Law (“UCL”) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), and is liable for unjust enrichment.
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`7.
`Each Plaintiff used his or her Internet-connected device and Web-browsing software
`(“browser”) installed on that device to visit and watch video content on Defendant’s website,
`http://www.Patreon.com, during the Class Period as defined herein.
`8.
`Plaintiff Brayden Stark is a citizen and resident of Van Nuys, California.
`9.
`Plaintiff Judd Oostyen is a citizen and resident of San Diego, California.
`10.
`Plaintiff Kevin Black is a citizen and resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
`11.
`Plaintiff Maryann Owens is a citizen and resident of Los Angeles, California.
`12.
`Defendant Patreon, Inc. (“Patreon”) is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 600
`Townsend Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, California 94103.
`DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT
`13.
`Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-5(b), assignment to the San Francisco Division is appropriate
`under Civil L.R. 3-2(c) because Patreon is headquartered in San Francisco and a substantial part of the
`conduct at issue in this case occurred in San Francisco County.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`14.
`This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on Plaintiffs’ claims
`under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
`Plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`15.
`This Court also has 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.
`
`16.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Patreon because its principal place of business
`is within this District and it has sufficient minimum contacts in California to render the exercise of
`jurisdiction by this Court proper and necessary.
`17.
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of
`the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.
`
`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
`
`
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF-SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS
`Brayden Stark
`Plaintiff Stark is a Patreon member and a Facebook user. He has been a Patreon member
`
`18.
`since 2019.
`19. Mr. Stark has consistently paid Patreon approximately $15.00 per month in subscription
`
`fees.
`
`20. When he initially subscribed to Patreon, Mr. Stark watched video content on patreon.com
`daily. He continues to watch video content on the Patreon website, but not as frequently.
`Judd Oostyen
`21.
`Plaintiff Oostyen is a Patreon member and a Facebook user. He has been a Patreon
`member since 2021.
`22. Mr. Oostyen has consistently paid Patreon approximately $5.00 per month in subscription
`
`fees.
`
`23. When he initially subscribed to Patreon, Mr. Oostyen watched video content on
`patreon.com daily. He continues to watch video content on the Patreon website, but not as frequently.
`Kevin Black
`Plaintiff Black is a Patreon member and a Facebook user. He has been a Patreon member
`
`24.
`since 2019.
`25. Mr. Black has consistently paid Patreon approximately $10.00 per month in subscription
`
`fees.
`
`26. Mr. Black consistently views videos on the Patreon website.
`Maryann Owens
`27.
`Plaintiff Owens was a Patreon member and is a Facebook user. She subscribed to Patreon
`for approximately two months beginning around August 2021.
`28. Ms. Owens paid Patreon approximately $35.00 per month in subscription fees.
`29. When she was a subscriber, Ms. Owens consistently viewed videos on the Patreon
`website.
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`30.
`Although Ms. Owens would like to watch videos on Patreon in the future, she will not do
`so unless Patreon takes sufficient steps to protect the privacy of her personal information and ensure the
`accuracy of its privacy commitments and representations.
`* * *
`Plaintiffs value their privacy while web-browsing.
`Plaintiffs’ viewing preferences involve personal information of a private and confidential
`
`31.
`32.
`
`nature.
`
`33.
`Plaintiffs believe information regarding their online viewing preferences is an asset to
`which no third party has a presumptive right of access.
`COMMON ALLEGATIONS
`Patreon Disclosed Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ Private Viewing Information to
`Facebook.
`
`A.
`
`34.
`Patreon’s members (“Users”) can access a variety of content on Patreon’s website,
`including music, podcasts, and video content posted by content creators.
`35. While Plaintiffs and Class members were viewing video content on Patreon’s website,
`Patreon transmitted their viewing choices to Facebook, the social networking website and app.
`36.
`Patreon also transmitted Users’ personal information to other third parties.
`37.
`Patreon’s transmission of viewing information to Facebook included the specific names
`of video content viewed by Users, as well as the User’s Facebook ID (“FID”), a string of numbers
`unique to each Facebook profile that personally identified the User.
`38.
`Anyone who possesses an FID may use this number to quickly and easily locate, access,
`and view the corresponding Facebook profile, which may contain a vast amount of personal information.
`39.
`Facebook profiles may contain a Facebook 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`40.
`As relevant here, Patreon transmitted the video title and FID information in a single
`transmission, through an invisible tracking tool called a “Facebook Pixel.” A Facebook Pixel is a snippet
`of a programming code that, once installed on a webpage, sends information to Facebook. This
`transmission occurred when a User viewed a video on Patreon’s website.
`41.
`The Pixel is an advertising tool that allows website owners to track visitor actions on
`their websites for purposes of sending the corresponding information to Facebook; websites use the
`Pixel in hopes of better targeting their products and services on Facebook to interested consumers. Thus,
`the Pixel is installed within the code of a website, such as Patreon, to increase the business’s profits.
`42.
`Facebook offers these Pixels to websites across the internet. As of January 2022, more
`than 30 percent of popular websites have an embedded Facebook Pixel.
`43.
`Facebook benefits from websites like Patreon installing its Pixel. When the Pixel is
`installed on a business’s website, the business has a greater incentive to advertise through Facebook or
`other Meta-owned platforms, like Instagram. In addition, even if the business does not advertise with
`Facebook, the Pixel assists Facebook in building more fulsome profiles of its own users, which in turn
`allows Facebook to profit from providing more targeted ads. The Pixel is installed on websites all over
`the internet and, accordingly, provides Facebook with information about its users’ preferences, other
`distinguishing traits, and web-browsing activities outside of Meta-owned platforms.
`44.
`Using the Facebook Pixel likewise benefits Patreon by improving its ability to promote
`its content and services to its Users.
`45.
`Through use of the Facebook Pixel, Patreon discloses to Facebook the full name of each
`video a User watched, together with the User’s FID, thus linking Users’ viewing content choices and
`preferences to their Facebook profiles. In other words, this single transmission connects a User’s
`viewing content with their FID.
`46.
`Patreon violates and invades the privacy rights of Users with its practice of sending their
`FIDs, together with their viewing content, to Facebook and other third parties. Plaintiffs and Class
`members neither knew of, nor authorized, nor otherwise consented to Patreon’s disclosure of their video
`and/or video services requests and their identities to Facebook and other third parties.
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Patreon’s Terms of Use, Privacy Policies, and Data Practices Do Not Disclose
`Patreon’s Use of the Facebook Pixel.
`47.
`Patreon’s website includes its Terms of Use, a Privacy Policy, Data Practices, and a
`Cookie Policy. None of these informs Users of Patreon’s use of the Facebook Pixel or its practice of
`sharing Users’ personal information and video content choices with Facebook and other third parties.
`48. Moreover, the VPPA requires that consent be obtained in a form “distinct and separate
`from any form setting forth other legal or financial obligations of the consumer.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710.
`Users are not given a standalone or any consent form disclosing Patreon’s practices at issue and
`requesting User consent. Hence, no User knew of or consented to Patreon’s offending practice of
`sharing video preferences with third parties.
`C.
`Plaintiffs and the Class Suffered Harm as a Result of Patreon’s Privacy Invasions.
`49.
`Patreon shared with Facebook and other third parties the personal information of
`Plaintiffs and Class members, including their video viewing histories and associated FIDs, which they
`reasonably expected would be kept private.
`50.
`The personal information Patreon obtained from Plaintiffs and Class members constitutes
`valuable data in the digital advertising-related market for consumer information. Patreon’s wrongful
`acquisition and use of their personal, private information deprived Plaintiffs and Class members of
`control over that information, and prevented them from realizing its full value for themselves.
`51.
`Patreon’s conduct has resulted in economic harm to Plaintiffs and Class members who
`were Patreon subscribers during the Class Period in that they have paid subscription fees to Patreon for
`services that they did not expect would subject them to the practices described herein, thereby
`diminishing the value of services for which they paid Defendant, and constituting loss.
`52.
`Plaintiffs and Class members paid for access to Patreon’s website, and not another
`competitor’s website, because they trusted that Patreon’s privacy practices comported with their privacy
`preferences.
`53.
`Plaintiffs and Class members’ experiences and injuries are consistent with and borne out
`by research showing that consumers prefer to transact with online retailers that better protect their
`privacy, and are willing to pay a premium to purchase goods and services from websites that afford
`greater privacy protection. See J. Tsai, S. Egelman, L. Cranor & A. Acquisiti [Carnegie Mellon Univ.],
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`“The Effect of Online Privacy Information on Purchasing Behavior: An Experimental Study” (June
`2007), Information Systems Research, Vol. 22 at 254–268, available at:
`https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220079706_The_Effect_of_Online_Privacy_Information_on_
`Purchasing_Behavior_An_Experimental_Study.
`54.
`The harms described above are aggravated by Patreon’s continued retention and
`commercial use of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ personal information, including their private video
`viewing histories.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`55.
`Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2),
`and (b)(3), and/or (c)(4) as representatives of the following Class and constituent Subclass:
`
`Nationwide Class: All persons in the United States who subscribed to
`Patreon.com, viewed video content on Patreon.com, and used Facebook
`during the time Facebook’s Pixel was active on Patreon.com.
`
`California Subclass: All persons in California who subscribed to
`Patreon.com, viewed video content on Patreon.com, and used Facebook
`during the time Facebook’s Pixel was active on Patreon.com.
`
`56.
`The “Class Period” is from January 1, 2013 to the present.
`57.
`Excluded from the Class are Defendant, its employees, agents and assigns, and any
`members of the judiciary to whom this case is assigned, their respective court staff, the members of their
`immediate families, and Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify, change, or expand the
`Class definition based upon discovery and further investigation.
`Numerosity: The Class consists of at least hundreds of thousands of individuals, making
`58.
`joinder impractical.
`Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist with regard
`59.
`to each of the claims and predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members.
`Questions common to the Class include:
`a.
`Whether Patreon’s use of Facebook Pixels was without User consent or
`
`authorization;
`
`
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`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 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`b.
`Whether Patreon obtained and shared or caused to be obtained and shared
`Plaintiffs and Class members’ personal information through tracking using Facebook Pixel, which
`Patreon installed on their webpages;
`c.
`Whether other third parties obtained Plaintiffs and Class members’ personal
`information as a result of Patreon’s conduct described herein;
`d.
`Whether Patreon’s conduct violates the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.
`§ 2710, et seq.;
`e.
`Whether Patreon’s conduct violates California consumer protection law;
`f.
`Whether Patreon’s acquisition and transmission of Plaintiffs and Class members’
`personal information resulted in harm; and
`g.
`Whether Patreon should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the future.
`Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class members in that
`60.
`Plaintiffs, like all Class members, have been injured by Patreon’s misconduct—disclosing Users’ PII
`and viewing content to Facebook without consent.
`Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect
`61.
`the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting
`complex litigation and class actions, including privacy protection cases. Plaintiffs do not have any
`interests antagonistic to those of the Class.
`Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
`62.
`efficient adjudication of this controversy. Class-wide damages are essential to induce Patreon to comply
`with federal law. Moreover, because the amount of each individual Class member’s claim is small
`relative to the complexity of the litigation, and because of Patreon’s financial resources, Class members
`are unlikely to pursue legal redress individually for the violations detailed in this complaint. A class
`action will allow these claims to be heard where they would otherwise go unheard because of the
`expense of bringing individual lawsuits, and provides the benefits of adjudication, economies of scale,
`and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Video Privacy Protection Act),
`18 U.S.C. § 2710, et seq.
`(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class)
`
`63.
`Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege the above factual allegations by reference.
`64.
`The VPPA prohibits a “video tape service provider” from knowingly disclosing
`“personally-identifying 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.
`65.
`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.” Patreon is a “video tape service provider” as
`defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(4) because it engaged in the business of delivering audiovisual materials
`that are similar to prerecorded video cassette tapes and those sales affect interstate or foreign commerce.
`66.
`As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(3), “personally identifiable information” is defined to
`include “information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials
`or services from a video tape service provider.”
`67.
`Patreon knowingly caused personal viewing information, including FIDs, concerning
`Plaintiffs and Class members to be disclosed to Facebook. This information constitutes personally
`identifiable information under 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(3) because it identified each Plaintiff and Class
`member to Facebook as an individual who viewed Patreon’s video content, including the specific video
`materials watched on Patreon’s website.
`68.
`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.” As alleged above, Plaintiffs are
`subscribers to Patreon’s services providing video content to Users on its website. Thus, Plaintiffs are
`“consumers” under this definition.
`69.
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`is given in advance for a set period of time not to exceed two years or until consent is withdrawn by the
`consumer, whichever is sooner. Patreon failed to obtain informed, written consent under this definition.
`70.
`Additionally, the VPPA creates an opt-out right for consumers in 18 U.S.C.
`§ 2710(2)(B)(iii). The Act requires video tape service providers to “provide[] an opportunity, in a clear
`and conspicuous manner, for the consumer to withdraw on a case-by-case basis or to withdraw from
`ongoing disclosures, at the consumer’s election.” Patreon failed to provide an opportunity to opt out as
`required by the Act.
`71.
`Patreon was aware that the disclosures to Facebook that were shared through the Pixel
`identified Plaintiffs and Class members. Patreon also knew that Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ personal
`viewing content was disclosed to Facebook because Patreon programmed the Facebook Pixel into its
`website code, knowing that Facebook would receive video titles and the subscriber’s FID when a user
`watched a video.
`72.
`By disclosing Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ personal viewing content, Patreon violated
`Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ statutorily protected right to privacy in their video-watching habits. See
`18 U.S.C. § 2710(c).
`73.
`As a result of the above violations, Patreon is liable to Plaintiffs and Class members for
`actual damages related to their loss of privacy in an amount to be determined at trial or, alternatively, for
`“liquidated damages not less than $2,500 per plaintiff.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c)(2)(A). Under the Act,
`Patreon also is liable for reasonable attorney’s fees, other litigation costs, injunctive and declaratory
`relief, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury and sufficient to prevent and deter
`the same or similar conduct by Patreon in the future.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”)
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
`(On Behalf of the California Subclass)
`
`74.
`California Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege the above factual allegations by reference.
`75.
`The UCL proscribes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal.
`Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`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 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`Unlawful
`76.
`A business practice is “unlawful” under the UCL if it violates any other law or regulation.
`77.
`Patreon’s business acts and practices are unlawful because they violate the Video Privacy
`Protection Act as set forth above. They also violate California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, for the
`reasons stated below. Patreon is therefore in violation of the “unlawful” prong of the UCL.
`Unfair
`78.
`Patreon’s conduct is unfair in violation of the UCL because it violates California’s and
`the nation’s legislatively declared public policy in favor of protection of consumer privacy. See S. Rep.
`No. 100-500 at 7-8 (1988) (finding that “the trail of information generated by every transaction that is
`now recorded and stored in sophisticated record-keeping systems . . . create[s] privacy interests that
`directly affect the ability of people to express their opinions, to join in association with others, and to
`enjoy the freedom and independence that the Constitution was established to safeguard.”); California
`Bill Analysis, A.B. 375 Assem. (June 27, 2017) (noting that “[t]he unregulated and unauthorized
`disclosure of personal information and the resulting loss of privacy can have devastating effects for
`individuals, ranging from financial fraud, identity theft, and unnecessary costs to personal time and
`finances, to the destruction of property, harassment, reputational damage, emotional stress, and even
`potential physical harm.”).
`79.
`Further, Patreon’s conduct is unfair because it is unethical, unscrupulous, offensive, and
`substantially injurious. The gravity of harm resulting from Patreon’s unfair conduct outweighs any
`potential utility therefrom. The disclosure of California Plaintiffs’ and Subclass members’ personal
`information without their express consent raises significant privacy concerns, and any potential utility
`from these disclosures (such as increased Patreon revenue due to more targeted advertising) is
`outweighed by their considerable harm to California Plaintiffs and the Subclass.
`80.
`Patreon’s unfair business practices include disclosing California Plaintiffs’ and Subclass
`members’ FID and viewing content to Facebook without authorization or consent, causing harm to
`California Plaintiffs and Subclass members.
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`81.
`Patreon actually and proximately caused harm to California Plaintiffs and Subclass
`members in that, among other things, they suffered economic injury by overpaying for their
`subscriptions.
`82.
`
`For these reasons, Patreon is in violation of the “unfair” prong of the UCL.
`Fraud by Omission
`83.
`Patreon’s conduct is fraudulent in violation of the UCL because its business acts were
`likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.
`84.
`Patreon knowingly concealed that it shares California Plaintiffs’ and Subclass members’
`FIDs and viewing content with Facebook.
`85.
`Patreon had ample means and opportunities to alert California Plaintiffs and Subclass
`members to the fact that it shares Users’ FID and viewing content with Facebook. For example, Patreon
`could have disclosed this information in its Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, Data Practices, or Cookie
`Policy.
`86.
`As the entity that collects and shares this information, Patreon had a duty to disclose that
`it shares this information to Facebook. Patreon also has a duty to disclose this information because it
`made partial representations about its data-sharing practices yet neglected to disclose that it shares
`Users’ personal information and viewing content to Facebook.
`87.
`California Plaintiffs and Subclass members suffered injury in fact, including lost money
`or property, as a result of Patreon’s deceptive and fraudulent acts and omissions.
`88.
`California Plaintiffs and Subclass members accordingly seek appropriate relief, including
`(1) restitution under the UCL; and (2) such orders or judgments as may be necessary to enjoin Patreon
`from continuing its unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent practices. There is no adequate remedy at law that
`would provide redress to California Plaintiffs and the Subclass or ensure that Patreon will not engage in
`the same data practices in the future. California Plaintiffs also seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
`under applicable law, including under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`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 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 14 of 16
`
`
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.
`(On Behalf of the California Subclass)
`
`89.
`California Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege the above factual allegations by reference.
`90.
`Patreon is a “person” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1761(c) and 1770, and
`provides “services” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1671(b) and 1770.
`91.
`California Plaintiffs and Subclass members are “consumers” as defined by Cal. Civ.
`Code §§ 1761(d) and 1770, and engaged in a “transaction,” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1761(e) and
`1770.
`
`92.
`Patreon’s acts and practices, as alleged in this complaint, violate the CLRA, Cal. Civ.
`Code §§ 1770(a)(5), (7), and (9), because its practice of sharing Users’ FIDs and viewing content with
`Facebook without their consent materially misled California consumers. In describing its services and
`privacy policies, Patreon misrepresented and/or omitted the true nature of its information-sharing
`practices.
`93.
`Patreon’s practices implicate significant privacy concerns and caused economic harm to
`California Plaintiffs and Subclass members as alleged above.
`94.
`Patreon’s misrepresentations and omissions were material. Had California Plaintiffs and
`Subclass members known that Patreon engages in these business practices, they would not have
`subscribed for Patreon’s services or would have paid less for the subscription.
`95.
`Patreon’s CLRA violations caused California Plaintiffs and Subclass members to sustain
`ascertainable losses, to be determined according to proof at trial.
`96.
`California Plaintiffs also seek an order enjoining Patreon from engaging in practices that
`violate the CLRA.
`97.
`Under California Civil Code section 1782(a), on their own behalf and on behalf of the
`Class, each California Plaintiff sent a CLRA notice on May 27, 2022 via certified mail, return receipt
`requested, to Patreon’s principal place of business, advising Patreon that it is in violation of the CLRA
`and must cease its practice of disclosing Users’ personal information to third parties without appropriate
`consent, and reimburse subscription fees. If Patreon does not provide the relief requested within 30 days
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 15 of 16
`
`
`
`of receiving California Plaintiffs’ CLRA notices, Plaintiffs will amend (or seek leave to amend) this
`complaint to add claims for monetary relief, including actual and restitutionary damages pursuant to the
`CLRA, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, declaratory relief, and punitive damages.
`98.
`Attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint is a declaration of venue and place of trial under
`California Civil Code section 1780(d).
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Unjust Enrichment
`(On