throbber
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

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