throbber
Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 49-1 Filed 12/05/22 Page 1 of 27
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket