`
`BRIAN M. BOYNTON
`Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
`Civil Division
`
`LESLEY FARBY
`Assistant Branch Director
`Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
`
`LESLIE COOPER VIGEN
`Trial Attorney (DC Bar No. 1019782)
`Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
`United States Department of Justice
`1100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 305-0727
`Email: leslie.vigen@usdoj.gov
`
`Counsel for United States
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`Brayden STARK, Judd
`OOSTYEN, Kevin BLACK, and
`Maryann OWENS, individually
`and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`PATREON, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`OF THE CONSTITUTIONALTY
`OF THE VIDEO PRIVACY
`PROTECTION ACT
`
`Hon. Joseph C. Spero
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`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 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 2 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2
`I.
`Legal Background ......................................................................................... 2
`II.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims ........................................................................................... 5
`III. Procedural History ........................................................................................ 6
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 8
`I.
`The Overbreadth Doctrine Has Limited Application and Does Not
`Apply to Commercial Speech. ....................................................................... 8
`The VPPA Regulates Commercial Speech. ................................................ 10
`II.
`III. The VPPA Withstands Intermediate Scrutiny. ......................................... 14
`IV. Defendant’s Hypothesized Non-Commercial Applications of the
`VPPA Do Not Render the Statute Substantially Overbroad. .................... 17
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 21
`
`i
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`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 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 3 of 27
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Amazon.com v. Lay,
`758 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (W.D. Wash. 2010) .............................................................. 16
`Ariix, LLC v. NutriSearch Corp.,
`985 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2021) ...........................................................................12, 13
`Ashwander v. TVA,
`297 U.S. 288 (1936) .................................................................................................. 8
`Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Political Consultants, Inc.,
`140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020) .............................................................................................. 9
`Bartnicki v. Vopper,
`532 U.S. 514 (2001) .................................................................................................. 9
`Bd. of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox,
`492 U.S. 469 (1989) ...........................................................................................10, 16
`Boelter v. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. (Advance Magazine),
`210 F. Supp. 3d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ............................................................ ..passim
`
`Boelter v. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc. (Hearst I),
`192 F. Supp. 3d 427 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) .............................................................. passim
`Boelter v. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc. (Hearst II),
`269 F. Supp. 3d 172 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) .................................................................. 4, 5
`Bolger v. Youngs Drugs Prod. Corp.,
`463 U.S. 60 (1983) .................................................................................................. 12
`Broadrick v. Oklahoma,
`413 U.S. 601 (1973) .................................................................................................. 9
`Burson v. Freeman,
`504 U.S. 191 (1992) ................................................................................................ 17
`Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y.,
`447 U.S. 557 (1980) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Conn. Bar Ass’n v. United States,
`620 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 4, 13
`
`ii
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`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 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 4 of 27
`
`Czarnionka v. The Epoch Times Ass’n, Inc.,
`2022 WL 17069810 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2022) ..................................................11, 15
`Edenfield v. Fane,
`507 U.S. 761 (1993) ................................................................................................ 15
`Eichenberger v. ESPN,
`876 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................... 3, 11, 14, 20
`Ellis v. Cartoon Network,
`803 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 17
`First Resort, Inc v. Hererra,
`860 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) ...........................................................................12, 13
`Fla. Bar v. Went For It, Inc.,
`515 U.S. 618 (1995) ................................................................................................ 15
`French v. Jones,
`876 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................ 16
`Holt v. Facebook, Inc.,
`240 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................. 16
`Hunt v. City of Los Angeles,
`638 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................. 12
`IMDb.com Inc. v. Becerra,
`962 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2020) ...........................................................................13, 14
`In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litig.,
`402 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...............................................................11, 20
`In re Hulu Privacy Litig.,
`86 F. Supp. 3d 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................... 11
`In re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litig.,
`827 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2016) ................................................................................. 2, 3
`In re Vizio, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litig.,
`238 F. Supp. 3d 1204 (C.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................. 15
`Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc.,
`743 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................. 12
`L.A. Police Dep’t v. United Reporting Pub. Corp.,
`528 U.S. 32 (1999) .............................................................................................. 9, 12
`
`iii
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`
`
`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 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 5 of 27
`
`Lebakken v. WebMD, LLC,
`2022 WL 16716151 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 4, 2022) .............................................. 11, 15, 17
`Marquez-Reyes v. Garland,
`36 F.4th 1195 (9th Cir. 2022) .................................................................................. 9
`Members of City Council of L.A. v. Taxpayers for Vincent,
`466 U.S. 789 (1984) .................................................................................................. 9
`Mollett v. Netflix, Inc.,
`795 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................. 2
`New York v. Ferber,
`458 U.S. 747 (1982) .................................................................................................. 9
`Retail Digital Network, LLC v. Prieto,
`861 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................. 14
`Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co.,
`514 U.S. 476 (1995) ................................................................................................ 15
`Sabri v. United States,
`541 U.S. 600 (2004) .................................................................................................. 8
`Trans Union Corp. v. FTC,
`245 F.3d 809 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................ 15
`United Reporting Publ’g Corp. v. Cal. Highway Patrol,
`146 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1998) ...........................................................................12, 13
`United States v. Sineneng-Smith,
`140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020) .............................................................................................. 9
`United States v. Williams,
`553 U.S. 285 (2008) ......................................................................................... 5, 9, 10
`Va. State Bd. of Pharm. v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,
`425 U.S. 748 (1976) ................................................................................................ 12
`Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp.,
`847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................ 20
`Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,
`455 U.S. 489 (1982) ................................................................................................ 10
`Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party,
`552 U.S. 442 (2008) .............................................................................................. 8, 9
`
`iv
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`
`
`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 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 6 of 27
`
`Williams-Yulee v. Fla. Bar,
`575 U.S. 443 (2015) ................................................................................................ 16
`Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.,
`820 F.3d 482 (1st Cir. 2016) .................................................................................. 15
`Statutes
`18 U.S.C. § 2710 .............................................................................................. passim
`Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 445.1711–15 ................................................................ 4
`Federal Rules
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 ........................................................................ 6
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ................................................................. 6
`Other Authorities
`S. Rep. 100-599 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4342–1 .......................... 2
`
`Am. Library Ass’n., State Privacy Laws Regarding Library Records,
`https://perma.cc/YXA6-6LB6 ................................................................................ 17
`Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures, State Laws Related to Digital Privacy,
`https://perma.cc/XS76-4DNT ................................................................................ 17
`
`
`
`v
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`
`
`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 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 7 of 27
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Since 1988, the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) has prohibited a “video
`
`service provider” from knowingly disclosing “personally identifiable information”
`that demonstrates which video materials a consumer has requested or obtained—
`except in certain limited circumstances, such as disclosure to the consumer herself;
`to law enforcement in response to a warrant, subpoena, or court order; or with prior
`knowing, written consent in a separate form. 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b). Congress
`enacted the law to protect personal privacy with respect to consumers’ video
`viewing habits and advance important values like the right to intellectual freedom.
`The constitutionality of the statute has not been challenged in the nearly 35 years
`since its passage, and the only two federal courts to have considered First
`Amendment challenges to analogous state statutes have rejected those challenges.
`There is no basis for this Court to become the first (and only) court to find the VPPA
`unconstitutional.
`
`Defendant asserts that the VPPA is facially overbroad because certain of
`its hypothetical applications could violate the First Amendment. In doing so, it
`has chosen a difficult path. The Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that
`facial challenges are disfavored, and it has been particularly careful to rule
`narrowly in cases that address the intersection of privacy and the First
`Amendment. The VPPA is properly characterized as a regulation of commercial
`speech to which overbreadth analysis does not typically apply. The statute
`withstands the intermediate scrutiny analysis applicable to regulations of
`commercial speech. Although it may be possible to imagine limited scenarios in
`which the VPPA could prohibit non-commercial disclosures, any such application
`is not substantial in comparison to the statute’s legitimate sweep. And in any
`event, courts can consider those issues in a concrete context should they arise in
`future cases. The Court should reject Defendant’s facial challenge to the VPPA.
`
`
`
`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
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 8 of 27
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Legal Background
`I.
`Congress enacted the VPPA in 1988 in response to the Washington City
`
`Paper’s publication of then-Supreme-Court-nominee Robert Bork’s video rental
`history, obtained without his knowledge or consent. In re Nickelodeon Consumer
`Privacy Litig., 827 F.3d 262, 278 (3d Cir. 2016). “Members of the Judiciary
`Committee ‘denounced the disclosure,’” and Congress passed the VPPA soon after.
`Mollett v. Netflix, Inc., 795 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting S. Rep. 100-
`599, at 5 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4342–1). The statute’s stated
`purpose was “[t]o preserve personal privacy with respect to the rental, purchase,
`or delivery of video tapes or similar audio visual materials.” Id. Among other
`things, the Senate Report cited the First Amendment right to intellectual freedom
`as one of the bases underlying the legislation. See S. Rep. 100-599, at 4–5.
`
`The statute prohibits a “video tape service provider” from “knowingly”
`disclosing “personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such
`provider” to “any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1). It provides several exceptions to
`this broad prohibition, permitting (1) disclosure to the consumer; (2) disclosure the
`consumer has authorized via “informed, written consent” provided “in a form
`distinct and separate from any form setting forth other legal or financial
`obligations”; (3) disclosure to a law enforcement agency pursuant to a warrant,
`subpoena, or court order; (4) disclosure that is “solely the names and addresses of
`consumers,” provided the consumer had the ability to opt out and the disclosure
`does not identify the subject matter of any material (unless the sole purpose is
`marketing directly to the consumer); (5) disclosure “incident to the ordinary course
`of business of the video tape service provider”1; and (6) disclosure pursuant to a
`
`
` 1 The VPPA defines “ordinary course of business” to include only “debt collection
`activities, order fulfillment, request processing, and the transfer of ownership.” 18
`U.S.C. § 2710(a)(2).
`2
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`
`
`
`
`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 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 9 of 27
`
`court order in a civil proceeding. Id. § 2710(b)(2). The statute creates a private
`right of action for any aggrieved person to bring a civil suit against any person who
`violates its terms. Id. § 2710(c). Upon a finding of liability, a court may award
`actual damages, but “not less than” $2,500 in liquidated damages; punitive
`damages; attorneys’ fees and costs; and other appropriate equitable relief. Id.
`§ 2701(c)(2)(A). The VPPA does not contemplate civil or criminal enforcement by
`the government.
`
`The statute defines several key terms. As relevant here, a “video tape
`service provider” is “any person, engaged in the business . . . of rental, sale, or
`delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.” Id.
`§ 2710(a)(4). “Personally identifiable information” means “information which
`identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or
`services from a video tape service provider.”2 Id. § 2710(a)(3). A “consumer” is
`defined as “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video
`tape service provider.” Id. § 2710(a)(3).
`
`The VPPA has not previously been subject to First Amendment challenge.
`An analogous state statute, however, has survived such challenges: two different
`judges in the Southern District of New York determined that a Michigan statute’s
`restrictions on disclosure did not violate the First Amendment. See Boelter v.
`Hearst Commc’ns, Inc., 192 F. Supp. 3d 427, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (Hearst I); Boelter
`v. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., 210 F. Supp. 3d 579, 585–86 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)
`
`
`
` 2 The Ninth Circuit interprets the term “personally identifiable information” as
`referring to “information that readily permit[s] an ordinary person to identify [a
`particular individual as having watched certain videos].” Eichenberger v. ESPN,
`876 F.3d 979, 985 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Nickelodeon, 827 F.3d at 290)
`(emphasis and alterations in original). This standard focuses on the “perspective
`of the disclosing party” and the “information a video service provider discloses,” not
`“what the recipient of that information decides to do with it.” Id.
`
`3
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`
`
`
`
`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 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 10 of 27
`
`(Advance Magazine); see also Boelter v. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc., 269 F. Supp. 3d 172,
`196–98 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Hearst II). Specifically, a magazine subscriber sued two
`publishing companies under the Michigan Video Rental Privacy Act (MVRPA)3—a
`statute with prohibitions similar to the VPPA, but which also prohibits disclosure
`of written materials and sound recordings consumers acquire—over the publishers’
`practice of selling customer information to data miners. The publishers defended
`the suits, in part, by arguing that the MVRPA was unconstitutional under the First
`Amendment on its face and as applied to them. Both courts rejected these
`arguments.
`
`The court in Hearst I, the first ruling upon a First Amendment challenge to
`the MVRPA, determined that the regulated speech—“disclosing the identity of
`individuals who purchase [certain] products”—was commercial in nature. 192 F.
`Supp. 3d at 445. This was primarily because the information at issue “relays an
`individual’s economic decisions, elucidates an individual’s economic preferences,
`and facilitates the proposal of new commercial transactions,” and that businesses
`“profit from the collection and sale of data.” Id. (quoting Conn. Bar Ass’n v. United
`States, 620 F.3d 81, 95 (2d Cir. 2010)) (cleaned up). Applying the test governing
`commercial speech, see Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of
`N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980), the court next found that the statute was
`constitutional as applied to the publisher’s practice of selling information about its
`consumers to data miners and other third parties. The court determined that
`although the speech at issue was not misleading or unlawful, consumer privacy
`was a substantial state interest, Hearst I, 192 F. Supp. 3d at 447–48; that the data
`disclosure restrictions in the MVRPA directly advanced this interest, id. at 449;
`
` 3 The statute’s formal title is the “Preservation of Personal Privacy Act.” See Mich.
`Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 445.1711–15. Courts have referred to it by both names.
`Compare Hearst I, 192 F. Supp. 3d at 435 with Advance Magazine, 210 F. Supp. 3d
`at 585.
`
`4
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`
`
`
`
`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 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 11 of 27
`
`and that the statute was sufficiently narrowly tailored because it “limits the
`dissemination of precisely the kind of information with which the state is
`concerned”—namely, information disclosing individuals’ reading, listening, and
`viewing preferences—and “targets those most likely to disseminate it,” id. The
`Hearst I court also rejected the contention that the MVRPA was facially overbroad,
`observing that facial challenges to statutes that regulate commercial speech are
`limited to any non-commercial speech the statute covers and finding that the “vast
`majority of [the statute’s] applications” raised “no constitutional problems
`whatsoever.” Id. at 451–52 (quoting United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 302–
`03 (2008)). The court in Advance Magazine reached the same conclusions a few
`months later. See Advance Magazine, 210 F. Supp. 3d at 596–603. And in
`Hearst II, the court reaffirmed its Hearst I holding that the MVPRA constituted a
`valid restriction on commercial speech that did not offend the First Amendment.
`See Hearst II, 269 F. Supp. 3d at 196–98.
`II.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims
`
`Plaintiffs Brayden Stark, Judd Oostyen, Kevin Black, and Maryann Owens
`bring this putative class action for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages
`against Defendant Patreon, Inc.—a website that allows consumers to pay
`subscription fees to online creators in exchange for exclusive or additional access
`to their content. See The Story of Patreon, https://www.patreon.com/about.
`Plaintiffs, who are all Patreon subscribers, allege that Patreon disclosed the titles
`of prerecorded videos they viewed on Patreon’s website and a series of numbers
`unique to their Facebook profiles, or “Facebook ID[s],” to Meta via a tracking tool
`called “Meta Pixel.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3–4, 46–50, 53, ECF No. 41. Sharing this
`information allegedly benefitted Patreon by “improving its ability to promote its
`content and services to its Users, thereby increasing its profits.” Id. ¶ 61; see also
`id. ¶¶ 54–55 (“websites use the Pixel in hopes of better targeting their products
`
`
`
`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
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 12 of 27
`
`and services on Facebook to interested consumers . . . in order to increase [their]
`profits”). And gathering this information allegedly benefitted Meta by providing
`Patreon “a greater incentive to advertise through Facebook or other Meta-owned
`platforms,” and allowing Meta to “build[] more fulsome profiles of its own users”
`and thereby “profit from providing more targeted ads.” Id. ¶ 60. Plaintiffs allege
`they were harmed by the disclosure of their video viewing history because they
`reasonably expected such information would remain private; because such
`information is “valuable data in the digital advertising-related market” that they
`could have profited from themselves; and because the disclosure diminished the
`value of the Patreon subscriptions that Plaintiffs purchased. Id. ¶¶ 66–70.
`
`Plaintiffs’ proposed class encompasses “[a]ll persons in the United States
`who subscribed to Patreon.com, viewed prerecorded video content on Patreon.com,
`and used Facebook during the time Meta’s Pixel was active on Patreon.com.” Id.
`¶ 74. They allege violations of the VPPA, violations of California state law, and
`unjust enrichment.4
`III.
`Procedural History
`
`Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in this matter on May 27, 2022. Compl.
`ECF No. 1. On August 5, 2022, Defendant moved to dismiss that complaint under
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), raising statutory and constitutional
`arguments. ECF No. 21. On August 6, 2021, Defendant filed a notice of
`constitutional challenge pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1,
`explaining that its motion to dismiss “draws into question the constitutionality of
`the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2710,” specifically “whether
`the VPPA, on its face and as Plaintiffs seek to apply it, is unconstitutional because
`
`
` 4 Because they bring claims under California law, Plaintiffs also propose a
`“California Subclass,” consisting of “[a]ll persons in California who subscribed to
`Patreon.com, viewed prerecorded video content on Patreon.com, and used Facebook
`during the time Meta’s Pixel was active on Patreon.com.” Compl. ¶ 74.
`6
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`
`
`
`
`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 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 13 of 27
`
`it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” ECF No. 24.
`On September 16, 2022, the United States filed an acknowledgement of the
`constitutional challenge and a stipulation to extend until November 4, 2022 its
`time to determine whether to intervene in this action in defense of the
`constitutionality of the VPPA. ECF No. 33. The Court entered the stipulation the
`same day. ECF No. 34.
`
`On October 13, 2022, prior to the United States’ deadline to decide whether
`to intervene, the Court entered an order partially granting Defendant’s motion to
`dismiss with leave to amend. Order at 1, ECF No. 40. The order dismissed
`Plaintiffs’ VPPA claim on statutory grounds; it expressly declined to reach the
`parties’ constitutional arguments. Id. at 10–11, 14. The Court gave Plaintiffs until
`October 27, 2022 to file an amended complaint and maintained the November 4,
`2022 deadline for the United States to determine whether to intervene. Id. at 19
`
`Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on October 27, 2022,
`reasserting their claims under the VPPA. ECF No. 41. The parties stipulated to
`extend the United States’ time to determine whether to intervene until seven days
`after the filing of any motion to dismiss challenging the constitutionality of the
`VPPA. ECF No. 42; see also ECF No. 43 (order entering stipulation). The parties
`further stipulated to extend the United States’ deadline until 10 days after the
`filing of any motion to dismiss challenging the constitutionality of the VPPA as
`part of a stipulation extending Defendant’s time to respond to the amended
`complaint. ECF No. 44; see also ECF No. 45 (order entering stipulation).
`
`On November 23, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended
`complaint. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 48 (Mot. to Dismiss). That motion
`challenges the constitutionality of the VPPA on its face under the First
`Amendment. Id. at 3–17. It does not reassert the argument, raised in the initial
`motion to dismiss, that the VPPA violates the First Amendment as applied to the
`
`
`
`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
`
`7
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 14 of 27
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`conduct alleged here. See ECF No. 21 at 13–20. It also does not contend that the
`amended complaint fails to state a claim under the VPPA.
`ARGUMENT
`The Court should reject Defendant’s argument that the VPPA, on its face,
`
`violates the First Amendment. Facial challenges to statutes are disfavored, and
`the overbreadth doctrine upon which Plaintiffs rely is only appropriate where a
`statute’s potentially unconstitutional applications far outweigh its legitimate
`sweep. The doctrine does not apply to commercial speech, and thus could
`invalidate the VPPA only if its application to non-commercial speech significantly
`outweighed its regulation of commercial speech. It does not. The plain language
`of the VPPA targets speech that is commercial in nature. The statute has been
`applied over the years overwhelmingly to regulate commercial speech (as Plaintiffs
`seek to do here). It withstands the intermediate scrutiny analysis that applies to
`regulations of commercial speech. And any hypothetical non-commercial
`application of the statute is trivial in comparison to the statute’s legitimate scope.
`Defendant’s facial challenge therefore fails.
`I.
`The Overbreadth Doctrine Has Limited Application and Does Not Apply to
`Commercial Speech.
`The Supreme Court has made clear that “[f]acial challenges are disfavored.”
`
`Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 450 (2008).
`There are a number of reasons for this. First, “[c]laims of facial invalidity often
`rest on speculation” and risk “premature interpretation of statutes on the basis of
`factually barebones records.” Id. (quoting Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 609
`(2004)). Second, such challenges “run contrary to the fundamental principle of
`judicial restraint” that courts should avoid deciding a constitutional issue unless
`necessary, and fashion constitutional rulings narrowly. Id. (citing Ashwander v.
`TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 346–47 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring)). Third, “facial
`challenges threaten to short circuit the democratic process by preventing laws
`8
`Brief in Support of Constitutionality Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 15 of 27
`
`embodying the will of the people from being implemented in a manner consistent
`with the Constitution.” Id. at 451.
`
`The First Amendment overbreadth doctrine represents “an exception to the
`traditional rule that ‘a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied
`may not challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied
`unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the Court.’” L.A. Police Dep’t
`v. United Reporting Pub. Corp., 528 U.S. 32, 39 (1999) (quoting New York v. Ferber,
`458 U.S. 747, 767 (1982)). Pursuant to this