Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.1 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
`
`(Additional counsel appear below signature line)
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOSE MEDINA CAMACHO and
`RHONDA COTTA, on behalf of
`themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware
`corporation; INTELIUS LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company; and THE
`CONTROL GROUP MEDIA
`COMPANY, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`'22
`
`CV209
`
`JLB
`
`BAS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.2 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`Plaintiffs Jose Medina Camacho and Rhonda Cotta (“Plaintiffs”) bring this
`Class Action Complaint against Defendants PeopleConnect, Inc. (“PeopleConnect”),
`Intelius LLC (“Intelius”), and The Control Group Media Company, LLC (“TCG”) to
`put an end to Defendants’ unlawful practice of using the names and identities of
`Alabama and California residents without their consent in order to promote
`Defendants’ services. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`situated, allege as follows upon personal knowledge as to their own acts and
`experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief, including
`investigation conducted by their own attorneys.
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`Defendants operate or operated two websites—Intelius.com and
`USSearch.com—that purport to sell access to databases containing proprietary
`“detailed reports” about people to anybody willing to pay for a monthly subscription.
`2.
`To market their services, Defendants encourage consumers to perform a
`free “people search” on their websites. When consumers perform a free search for an
`individual—by typing the individual’s first and last name into the search bar—
`Defendants display webpages featuring the searched individual’s full name alongside
`certain uniquely identifying information, including age, location, and names of
`relatives. The purpose of these pages is twofold: first, they show potential customers
`that Defendants’ database contains detailed reports for the specific individual they
`searched for and represent that the detailed report contains much more information
`about the individual than the “free” report; and second, they offer to sell them a paid
`subscription to their services, where they can access detailed reports about anybody
`in their database. In other words, Defendants do not offer to sell detailed reports
`about the individuals searched on their websites, but rather, use their identities to sell
`subscriptions to Defendants’ paid services.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.3 Page 3 of 20
`
`Unsurprisingly, the people appearing in these advertisements never
`3.
`provided Defendants with their consent (written or otherwise) to use their identities
`for any reason, let alone for Defendants’ own marketing and commercial purposes.
`4.
`Defendants knowingly search for and obtain identifying information on
`Alabama and California residents. Indeed, this lawsuit revolves around Defendants’
`business practice of acquiring identifying information about Alabama and California
`residents with the specific intent of selling access to that information to its
`customers.
`Defendants compile and generate the content they advertise and sell on
`5.
`their websites.
`6.
`By knowingly using Plaintiffs’ identities in their advertisements without
`consent and for their own commercial gain, Defendants violated the right of publicity
`laws in Alabama and California. Ala. Code § 6-5-770, et seq.; Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff Jose Medina Camacho is a natural person and a resident of the
`7.
`State of Alabama.
`8.
`Plaintiff Rhonda Cotta is a natural person and a resident of the State of
`California.
`Defendant PeopleConnect, Inc. is a corporation existing under the laws
`9.
`of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located at 1501 4th
`Avenue, Suite 400, Seattle, Washington 98101.
`10. Defendant Intelius LLC is a limited liability company existing under the
`laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located at One
`Sansome Street, 37th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104.
`11. Defendant The Control Group Media Company LLC (“TCG”) is a
`limited liability company existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.4 Page 4 of 20
`
`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
`
`principal place of business located at 600 B Street, Suite 900, San Diego, California
`92101. TCG operates under a fictitious business name of “PeopleConnect.”
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under the Class
`12.
`Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The amount in controversy
`exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and there are more than 100
`members of the Class, defined below, many of which are citizens of a different state
`than Defendants. Defendants Intelius and TCG are citizens of California, where they
`maintain their principal place of business.
`13.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Intelius
`and TCG maintain their principal place of business in California, and all Defendants
`conduct substantial business in this State related to the claims described herein.
`14. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because TCG is
`headquartered and resides in this District, its senior officers are located in this
`District, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims arose in
`this District.
`
`COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`The Alabama Right of Publicity Act
`15.
`In 2015, the Alabama Legislature recognized that every person has the
`“right of publicity in any indicia of identity,” Ala. Code § 6-5-771(3), and as a result,
`passed the Alabama Right of Publicity Act (“ARPA”) to protect individual property
`rights and prevent the exploitation of individuals’ identities for another’s commercial
`gain.
`
`The ARPA protects individuals from the unauthorized use of any of
`16.
`their attributes, including but not limited to, their names, signatures, photographs,
`images, likenesses, voices, or a substantially similar imitation of one or more of
`those attributes in the sale or advertisement of products, goods, merchandise, and
`services.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.5 Page 5 of 20
`
`In fact, the ARPA states that, “any person or entity who uses or causes
`17.
`the use of the indicia of identity of a person . . . for purposes of advertising or selling,
`or soliciting purchases of, products, goods, merchandise, or services . . . without
`consent shall be liable under this article to that person, or to a holder of that person’s
`rights.” Ala. Code § 6-5-772(a).
`18. Notably, the ARPA provides a right of publicity “in any indicia of
`identity . . . whether or not famous,” Ala. Code § 6-5-771(3), as well as liability for
`persons or entities who wrongfully use another person’s indicia of identity “whether
`the use is for profit or not for profit.” Ala. Code § 6-5-772(b).
`The California Right of Publicity Statute
`19.
`Similarly, the California legislature enacted a right of publicity statute
`in 1971 to protect individual property rights and prevent the exploitation of
`individuals’ identities for another’s commercial gain.
`20.
`The statute protects individuals from the unauthorized use of any of
`their attributes, including but not limited to, their names, signatures, photographs,
`images, likenesses, voices, or a substantially similar limitation of one or more of
`those attributes in the sale or advertisement of products, goods, merchandise, and
`services.
`In fact, the statute states that, “[a]ny person who knowingly uses
`21.
`another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in
`products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or
`soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such
`person’s prior consent . . . shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or
`persons injured as a result thereof.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a).
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.6 Page 6 of 20
`
`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
`
`Defendants Use Individuals’ Identities to Promote Their Paid Subscription
`Service.
`22. TCG controls and operates four “people search” websites: TruthFinder,
`Intelius, Instant Checkmate, and US Search (the “People Search Websites”).
`23. TCG designed each of the People Search Websites to operate in a
`substantially similar way: to misappropriate consumers’ identities for its own
`commercial gain by using Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s identities in conjunction with an
`offer to purchase a paid subscription to access its database—entirely without their
`knowledge or consent.
`24. TCG created and controls the marketing and advertising of all the People
`Search Websites, including the nearly-identical Marketing Page solicitations at issue
`in this case. TCG also controls many other operational aspects of each of the People
`Search Websites. This includes, for example, the Websites’ use of virtually identical
`customer agreements and notices, the same graphical interface features and site
`layouts, and the same databases and other resources to respond to searches performed
`on the websites.
`25. Two People Search Websites are at issue in this case. The first is
`Intelius.com, a website that sells access to comprehensive background reports “on
`just about anyone.” The reports are compiled in part from databases and public
`record repositories.
`26. Subscriptions that let users access Intelius reports must be purchased
`from the Intelius.com website. Once a subscription is purchased, users may access
`individual reports that may include high value information including, inter alia, the
`individual’s address, birth date, marriage records, and criminal history.
`27. As shown in Figures 1 and 2 below, when a consumer visits Intelius.com
`and searches for an individual by using their first and last name, Intelius.com displays
`a list of the individuals found within its records that have the same name, alongside
`certain uniquely identifying information such as each individual’s current age,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.7 Page 7 of 20
`
`location, and names of their immediate family members (the “Intelius Marketing
`Page”).
`
`(Figure 1.)
`
`(Figure 2.)
`28. Once a consumer selects an individual (by clicking “Open Report”)
`from the Intelius Marketing Page, Intelius displays a checkout page with two offers
`to purchase a subscription to the website: (i) a “MOST POPULAR” tier costing
`$24.86 per month with access to one month of unlimited reports and (ii) the “Power
`User” tier costing $42.25, with access to two months of unlimited reports. See Figure
`3.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.8 Page 8 of 20
`
`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
`
`(Figure 3.)
`29. The second People Search Website at issue here is USSearch.com, a
`website that also sells access to comprehensive background reports “on just about
`anyone.” The reports are compiled in part from databases and public record
`repositories.
`30. The information available on and through US Search is accessed in the
`same way as that available on and through Intelius. Subscriptions that let users access
`US Search reports must be purchased from the US Search website and may include
`high value information including, inter alia, the individual’s address, birth date,
`marriage records, and criminal history.
`31.
`As shown in Figures 4 and 5 below, when a consumer visits
`USSearch.com and searches for an individual by using their first and last name,
`USSearch.com displays a list of the individuals found within its records that have
`the same name, alongside certain uniquely identifying information such as each
`individual’s current age, location, and names of their immediate family members
`(the “US Search Marketing Page”).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.9 Page 9 of 20
`
`(Figure 4.)
`
`(Figure 5.)
`32. Once a consumer selects an individual (by clicking “Get Your Report”)
`from the US Search Marketing Page, the US Search website displays a checkout page
`with an offer to purchase subscriptions: a 5-day trial costing $1.99 with access to
`unlimited reports, with a monthly subscription costing $19.86 per month thereafter.
`See Figure 6.
`
`(Figure 6.)
`33. While a consumer may visit either Intelius.com or USSearch.com hoping
`to search for information on one specific individual, both People Search Websites
`ultimately offer for sale an entirely different product. Neither Intelius.com nor
`USSearch.com offers for sale only a report on the searched individual. Instead, the
`8
`
`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-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.10 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`websites offer for sale a monthly subscription service that grants the purchaser
`unlimited access to background reports on anybody in the websites’ database. The
`searched for individual’s report is a small part of a large database with reports on
`millions of people. On information and belief, the database that users can access
`through Intelius.com and USSearch.com is identical.
`34.
`In this way, Defendants misappropriated people’s identities (individuals’
`names and other identifying information such as their age, location, and known
`relatives) for their own commercial benefit (i.e., to market and promote a monthly
`subscription to access unlimited reports on individuals in the Intelius.com and
`USSearch.com database).
`35. Most importantly, Defendants never obtained written consent from
`Plaintiffs and Class members to use their names for any reason, let alone for
`commercial purposes. Defendants never notified Plaintiffs and Class members that
`their names would appear on the Intelius or US Search Marketing Pages in conjunction
`with an offer to purchase subscription access to Defendants’ database of reports.
`Moreover, Plaintiffs and the Class members have no relationship with PeopleConnect
`or Intelius whatsoever.
`36. PeopleConnect, Inc., together with TCG and Intelius, operated and
`controlled Intelius.com and USSearch.com until July 2021. On or after July 2021,
`Intelius.com and USSearch.com were solely controlled and operated by TCG and
`Intelius. But during both time periods, the Intelius.com and USSearch.com Websites
`operated as described herein.
`37. Accordingly, Plaintiff Camacho, on behalf of himself and other
`similarly situated Alabama residents, brings this action against Defendants for their
`violations of the ARPA, and seeks (1) injunctive relief requiring Defendants Intelius
`and TCG to cease using Alabama residents’ identities for commercial purposes,
`including on any Marketing Pages, (2) the greater of an award of actual damages,
`including profits derived from the unauthorized use of individuals’ names, or
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`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-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.11 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`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
`
`statutory damages, (3) an award of punitive damages, and (4) an award of costs and
`reasonable attorneys’ fees.
`38. Plaintiff Cotta, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
`California residents, brings this action against Defendants for their violations of the
`California Right of Publicity Statute, and seeks (1) injunctive relief requiring
`Defendants Intelius and TCG to cease using California residents’ names and any
`attributes of their identities to advertise their products and services, (2) the greater of
`an award of actual damages (including profits derived from the unauthorized use of
`Plaintiff Cotta’s and California Class members names and identities) or statutory
`damages of $750 per violation to the members of the California Class, (3) an award
`of punitive damages, and (4) an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees under
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a).
`
`FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFFS
`39. Plaintiffs Jose Medina Camacho and Rhonda Cotta discovered that
`Defendants were using their identities to solicit the purchase of paid subscriptions to
`Intelius.com and USSearch.com.
`40. Beginning in at least May 2021 and continuing into and after July 2021,
`Defendants specifically identified Plaintiffs by their full name, age, location, and
`names of immediate family members on the Intelius and US Search Marketing
`Pages. See Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5.
`41. Plaintiffs never provided Defendants with their written consent (or
`consent of any kind) to use any attribute of their identities for commercial purposes,
`and certainly never authorized Defendants to use their identities to promote any of
`their products or services.
`42. Defendants have never provided Plaintiffs with compensation of any
`kind for their use of Plaintiffs’ identities in connection with any advertising on
`Intelius, US Search, or any other website.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.12 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`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
`
`43. Plaintiffs are not and have never been customers of any of Defendants’
`websites. In fact, they have no relationship with PeopleConnect, Intelius, or TCG
`whatsoever.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`44. Class Definition: Plaintiff Jose Medina Camacho brings this action on
`behalf of himself and four Classes defined as follows:
`The PeopleConnect Intelius Alabama Class: All Alabama residents (1)
`whose identities were displayed on the Intelius Marketing Page prior to
`July 2021, and (2) who have never purchased any products or services on
`Intelius.com.
`The Intelius Alabama Class: All Alabama residents (1) whose identities
`were displayed on the Intelius Marketing Page in or after July 2021, and
`(2) who have never purchased any products or services on Intelius.com.
`The PeopleConnect US Search Alabama Class: All Alabama residents
`(1) whose identities were displayed on the US Search Marketing Page
`prior to July 2021, and (2) who have never purchased any products or
`services on USSearch.com.
`The US Search Alabama Class: All Alabama residents (1) whose
`identities were displayed on the US Search Marketing Page in or after
`July 2021, and (2) who have never purchased any products or services on
`USSearch.com.
`45. Class Definition: Plaintiff Rhonda Cotta brings this action on behalf of
`herself and four Classes defined as follows:
`The PeopleConnect Intelius California Class: All California residents
`(1) whose identities were displayed on the Intelius Marketing Page prior
`to July 2021, and (2) who have never purchased any products or services
`on Intelius.com.
`The Intelius California Class: All California residents (1) whose
`identities were displayed on the Intelius Marketing Page in or after July
`2021, and (2) who have never purchased any products or services on
`Intelius.com.
`The PeopleConnect US Search California Class: All California
`residents (1) whose identities were displayed on the US Search Marketing
`Page prior to July 2021, and (2) who have never purchased any products
`or services on USSearch.com.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.13 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`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
`
`The US Search California Class: All California residents (1) whose
`identities were displayed on the US Search Marketing Page in or after
`July 2021, and (2) who have never purchased any products or services on
`USSearch.com
`46. The Intelius Alabama Class and the Intelius California Class are
`hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Intelius Classes” while the US Search
`Alabama Class and the US Search California Class are hereinafter collectively
`referred to as the “US Search Classes.”
`47. The classes represented by Plaintiff Camacho are hereinafter
`collectively referred to as the “Alabama Classes,” the classes represented by Plaintiff
`Cotta are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “California Classes.”
`48. The Alabama Classes and the California Classes are hereinafter
`collectively referred to as the “Classes”
`49. Excluded from the Classes are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding
`over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendants, Defendants’
`subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the
`Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest and its current or former
`employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely
`request for exclusion from the Classes; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have
`been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiffs’ counsel
`and Defendants’ counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of
`any such excluded persons.
`50. Numerosity: The exact numbers of members of the Classes are
`unknown and not available to Plaintiffs at this time, but it is clear that individual
`joinder is impracticable. Members of the Classes can be identified through
`Defendants’ records.
`51. Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law
`and fact common to the claims of Plaintiffs and the putative Classes, and those
`questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual members of the
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.14 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`Classes. Common questions for the Classes include, but are not necessarily limited to
`the following:
`a. Whether Defendants used Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ names and
`identities for a commercial purpose;
`b. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members provided their written consent
`to Defendants to use their names and identities in advertisements;
`c. Whether the conduct described herein constitutes a violation of right
`of publicity laws in Alabama and California; and
`d. Whether Plaintiffs and the members of the Intelius Classes and the
`US Search Classes are entitled to injunctive relief;
`52. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of other members
`of their Classes, in that Plaintiffs and the Class members sustained damages arising
`out of Defendants’ uniform wrongful conduct.
`53. Adequate Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately
`represent and protect the interests of the Classes and have retained counsel
`competent and experienced in complex class actions. Plaintiffs have no interest
`antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendants have no defense unique to
`Plaintiffs.
`54. Policies Generally Applicable to the Classes: This class action is
`appropriate for certification because Defendants have acted or refused to act on
`grounds generally applicable to the Classes as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s
`imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the
`members of the Intelius and US Search Classes and making final injunctive relief
`appropriate with respect to the Intelius and US Search Classes as a whole.
`Defendants’ policies challenged herein apply and affect members of the Intelius and
`US Search Classes uniformly and Plaintiff’s challenge of these policies hinges on
`Defendants’ conduct with respect to the Intelius and US Search Classes as a whole,
`not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and the members of the
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`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-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.15 Page 15 of 20
`
`
`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
`
`Intelius and US Search Classes have suffered harm and damages as a result of
`Defendants’ unlawful and wrongful conduct.
`55. Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification because
`class proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient
`adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all parties is impracticable. The
`damages suffered by the individual members of the Classes will likely be relatively
`small, especially given the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the
`complex litigation necessitated by Defendants’ actions. Thus, it would be virtually
`impossible for the individual members of the Classes to obtain effective relief from
`Defendants’ misconduct. Even if members of the Classes could sustain such
`individual litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action, because
`individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the
`complex legal and factual controversies presented in this Complaint. By contrast, a
`class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of
`single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single
`Court. Economies of time, effort and expense will be fostered and uniformity of
`decisions ensured.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of the Alabama Right of Publicity Act
`Ala. Code § 6-5-770 et seq.
`(On behalf of Plaintiff Camacho and the Alabama Classes)
`56. Plaintiff Camacho incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set
`forth herein.
`57. The ARPA prohibits using a person’s name, image, or likeness for the
`purpose of advertising or promoting products, merchandise, goods or services
`without consent. See Ala. Code § 6-5-772.
`58. Defendants sold and/or sell subscription-based access to their databases
`containing detailed reports about people.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.16 Page 16 of 20
`
`
`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
`
`59. As described above, to promote those reports, Defendants used and/or
`use Plaintiff Camacho’s and the putative class members’ identities on their various
`Marketing Pages, which display the individuals found within their records that match
`the searched name, alongside uniquely identifying information such as each person’s
`current age, location, and names of their immediate family members. This
`information served and/or serves to identify the individual and demonstrate that there
`are detailed reports in their databases for the person they searched for.
`60. The Marketing Pages have a commercial purpose in that they promote
`the Defendants’ website and encourage potential customers to purchase paid
`subscriptions to access reports in their database.
`61. Plaintiff Camacho and the members of the Alabama Classes never
`provided Defendants with their consent to use their identities in advertisements for
`Defendants’ paid subscriptions.
`62. Defendants deprived Plaintiff Camacho and the members of the
`Alabama Classes of control over whether and how their names can be used for
`commercial purposes.
`63. Based upon Defendants’ violation of the ARPA, Plaintiff Camacho and
`the members of the Alabama Classes are entitled to (1) an injunction on behalf of the
`Intelius and US Search Classes requiring Defendants Intelius and TCG to cease
`using their names and any attributes of their identities to advertise their products and
`services, (2) the greater of an award of actual damages (including profits derived
`from the unauthorized use of Plaintiff Camacho’s and members of the Alabama
`Classes’ names and identities) or statutory damages of $5,000 per violation to the
`members of the Classes, (3) an award of punitive damages, and (4) an award of costs
`and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.17 Page 17 of 20
`
`
`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
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of the Violation of the California Right of Publicity Statute
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3344
`(On behalf of Plaintiff Cotta and the California Classes)
`64. Plaintiff Cotta incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
`herein.
`65. The California Right of Publicity Statute prohibits and provides
`damages for the knowing misappropriation of an individual’s name, voice, signature,
`photograph, or likeness in advertising or soliciting without the individual’s prior
`consent. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a).
`66. Defendants sold and/or sell subscription-based access to their databases
`containing detailed reports about people.
`67. As described above, to promote those reports, Defendants used and/or
`use Plaintiff Cotta’s and the members of the putative California Classes’ identities on
`their various Marketing Pages, which display the individuals found within their
`records that match the searched name, alongside uniquely identifying information
`such as each person’s current age, location, and names of their immediate family
`members. This information served and/or serves to identify the individual and
`demonstrate that there are detailed reports in their databases for the person they
`searched for.
`68. The Marketing Pages have a commercial purpose in that they promote
`the Defendants’ website and encourage potential customers to purchase paid
`subscriptions to access reports in their database.
`69. Plaintiff Cotta and members of the California Classes never provided
`Defendants with their consent to use their identities in advertisements for
`Defendants’ paid subscriptions. Defendants deprived Plaintiff Cotta and members of
`the California Classes control over whether and how their names can be used for
`commercial purposes.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-BAS-JLB Document 1 Filed 02/16/22 PageID.18 Page 18 of 20
`
`
`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
`
`70. By using their identities in advertisements to sell their services,
`Defendants derived economic value from Plaintiff Cotta and the members of the
`California Classes’ identities and, in turn, deprived Plaintiff Cotta and the members
`of the California Classes of such value. Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff
`Cotta and the members of the California Classes for their use of Plaintiff Cotta’s and
`the members of the California Classes’ identities. This conduct resulted in economic
`injury to Plaintiff Cotta and the members of the California Classes.
`71. Based upon Defendants’ violation of the California Right of Publicity
`Statute, Plaintiff Cotta and the members of the California Classes are entitled to (1)
`an injunction requiring Defendants to cease using their names and any attributes of
`their identities to advertise their products and services, (2) the greater of an award of
`actual damages (including profits derived from the unauthorized use of Plaintiff
`Cotta’s and the members of the California Classes’ names and identities) or statutory
`damages of $750 per violation to the members of the California Class, (3) an award
`of punitive damages, and (4) an award of costs and r