Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 06/21/22 Page 1 of 25
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`
`JESS KNOLL, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`FARM SHOW PUBLISHING, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Case No. ______________
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff Jess Knoll (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others
`
`similarly situated, by and through his attorneys, makes the following allegations
`
`pursuant to the investigation of his counsel and based upon information and belief,
`
`except as to allegations specifically pertaining to himself and his counsel, which are
`
`based on personal knowledge.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendant Farm Show Publishing, Inc. (“FSP”) rented, exchanged,
`
`1.
`
`and/or otherwise disclosed detailed information about Plaintiff’s Farm Show
`
`magazine subscription to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and
`
`list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed his information to aggressive
`
`advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies. As a result, Plaintiff
`
`has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. By renting, exchanging, and/or
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`
`JESS KNOLL, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`FARM SHOW PUBLISHING, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Case No. ______________
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff Jess Knoll (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others
`
`similarly situated, by and through his attorneys, makes the following allegations
`
`pursuant to the investigation of his counsel and based upon information and belief,
`
`except as to allegations specifically pertaining to himself and his counsel, which are
`
`based on personal knowledge.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendant Farm Show Publishing, Inc. (“FSP”) rented, exchanged,
`
`1.
`
`and/or otherwise disclosed detailed information about Plaintiff’s Farm Show
`
`magazine subscription to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and
`
`list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed his information to aggressive
`
`advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies. As a result, Plaintiff
`
`has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. By renting, exchanging, and/or
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 06/21/22 Page 2 of 25
`
`otherwise disclosing Plaintiff’s Private Reading Information (defined below) during
`
`the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period1, FSP violated Michigan’s Preservation
`
`of Personal Privacy Act, H.B. 5331, 84th Leg. Reg. Sess., P.A. No. 378, §§ 1-4
`
`(Mich. 1988), id. § 5, added by H.B. 4694, 85th Leg. Reg. Sess., P.A. No. 206, § 1
`
`(Mich. 1989) (the “PPPA”).2
`
`2.
`
`Documented evidence confirms these facts. For example, a list broker,
`
`NextMark, Inc. (“NextMark”), offers to provide renters access to the mailing list
`
`titled “Farm Show Magazine Mailing List”, which contains the Private Reading
`
`Information of 129,472 of FSP’s active U.S. subscribers at a base price of
`
`“$105.00/M [per thousand],” (i.e., 10.5 cents apiece), as shown in the screenshot
`
`below:
`
`
`
`
`The statutory period for this action is six years. See M.C.L. § 600.5813.
`
`1
`
` 2
`
`In May 2016, the Michigan legislature amended the PPPA. See S.B. 490, 98th
`
`Leg., Reg. Sess., P.A. No. 92 (Mich. 2016) (codified at M.C.L. § 445.1711, et seq.).
`The May 2016 amendment to the PPPA, which became effective on July 31, 2016,
`does not apply retroactively to claims that accrued prior to its July 31, 2016 effective
`date. See Boelter v. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc., 192 F. Supp. 3d 427, 439-41 (S.D.N.Y.
`2016) (holding that “the amendment to the [PP]PA does not apply to Plaintiffs’
`claims, and the Court will assess the sufficiency of those claims under the law as it
`was when Plaintiffs’ claims accrued.”) (citing Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S.
`224, 286 (1994)). Because the claims alleged herein accrued, and thus vested, prior
`to the July 31, 2016 effective date of the amended version of the PPPA, the pre-
`amendment version of the PPPA applies in this case. See Horton v. GameStop,
`Corp., 380 F. Supp. 3d 679, 683 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2018).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 06/21/22 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Exhibit A hereto.
`
`3.
`
`By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing the Private Reading
`
`Information of its Michigan-based subscribers during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016
`
`time period, FSP violated the PPPA. Subsection 2 of the PPPA provides:
`
`[A] person, or an employee or agent of the person,
`engaged in the business of selling at retail, renting, or
`lending books or other written materials ... shall not
`disclose to any person, other than the customer, a record
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 06/21/22 Page 4 of 25
`
`or information concerning the purchase ... of those
`materials by a customer that indicates the identity of the
`customer.
`
`
`PPPA § 2.
`
`4.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint against FSP
`
`for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of its customers’ Private Reading
`
`Information in violation of the PPPA.
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`5.
`
`To supplement its revenues, FSP rents, exchanges, or otherwise
`
`discloses its customers’ information—including their full names, titles of
`
`publications subscribed to, and home addresses (collectively “Private Reading
`
`Information”), as well as myriad other categories of individualized data and
`
`demographic information such as gender—to data aggregators, data appenders, data
`
`cooperatives, and other third parties without the written consent of its customers.
`
`6.
`
`By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing – rather than selling –
`
`its customers’ Private Reading Information, FSP is able to disclose the information
`
`time and time again to countless third parties.
`
`7.
`
`FSP’s disclosure of Private Reading Information and other
`
`individualized information is not only unlawful, but also dangerous because it allows
`
`for the targeting of particularly vulnerable members of society.
`
`8.
`
`While FSP profits handsomely from the unauthorized rental,
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 06/21/22 Page 5 of 25
`
`exchange, and/or disclosure of its customers’ Private Reading Information and other
`
`individualized information, it does so at the expense of its customers’ statutory
`
`privacy rights (afforded by the PPPA) because FSP does not obtain its customers’
`
`written consent prior to disclosing their Private Reading Information.
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff Jess Knoll is a natural person and citizen of the State of
`
`9.
`
`Michigan and resides in Saginaw, Michigan. Plaintiff was a subscriber to Farm
`
`Show magazine, including during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period. Farm
`
`Show magazine is published by FSP. While residing in, a citizen of, and present in
`
`Michigan, Plaintiff purchased his subscription to Farm Show magazine directly from
`
`FSP. Prior to and at the time Plaintiff subscribed to Farm Show, FSP did not notify
`
`Plaintiff that it discloses the Private Reading Information of its customers, and
`
`Plaintiff has never authorized FSP to do so. Furthermore, Plaintiff was never
`
`provided any written notice that FSP rents, exchanges, or otherwise discloses its
`
`customers’ Private Reading Information, or any means of opting out. Since
`
`subscribing to Farm Show, and during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period,
`
`FSP disclosed, without the requisite consent or prior notice, Plaintiff’s Private
`
`Reading Information to data aggregators, data appenders, and/or data cooperatives,
`
`who then supplement that information with data from their own files. Moreover,
`
`during that same period, FSP rented or exchanged mailing lists containing Plaintiff’s
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 06/21/22 Page 6 of 25
`
`Private Reading Information to third parties seeking to contact FSP subscribers,
`
`without first obtaining the requisite written consent from Plaintiff or even giving him
`
`prior notice of the rentals, exchanges, and/or other disclosures.
`
`10. Defendant Farm Show Publishing, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation
`
`with its headquarters and principal place of business in Lakeville, Minnesota. FSP
`
`does business throughout Michigan and the entire United States. FSP is the publisher
`
`of Farm Show.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil action
`
`11.
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because there are more than 100 class members and
`
`the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest, fees,
`
`and costs, and at least one Class member is a citizen of a state different from
`
`Defendant.
`
`12.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over FSP because Plaintiff’s
`
`claims arose in substantial part from actions and omissions in Michigan, including
`
`from Plaintiff’s purchase of a Farm Show subscription in Michigan, FSP’s direction
`
`of such Farm Show subscription into Michigan, and FSP’s failure to obtain
`
`Plaintiff’s written consent in Michigan prior to disclosing his Private Reading
`
`Information, including his residential address in Michigan, to another person, the
`
`effects of which were felt from within Michigan by a citizen and resident of
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 06/21/22 Page 7 of 25
`
`Michigan. Personal jurisdiction also exists over FSP in Michigan because FSP
`
`conducts substantial business within Michigan, such that FSP has significant,
`
`continuous, and pervasive contacts with the State of Michigan.
`
`13.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because
`
`Plaintiff resides in this judicial District, FSP does substantial business in this judicial
`
`District, FSP is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial District, and a
`
`substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims took place within this
`
`judicial District.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Michigan’s Preservation of Personal Privacy Act
`In 1988, members of the United States Senate warned that records of
`
`14.
`
`consumers’ purchases and rentals of audiovisual and publication materials offer “a
`
`window into our loves, likes, and dislikes,” and that “the trail of information
`
`generated by every transaction that is now recorded and stored in sophisticated
`
`record-keeping systems is a new, more subtle and pervasive form of surveillance.”
`
`S. Rep. No. 100-599 at 7–8 (1988) (statements of Sens. Simon and Leahy,
`
`respectively).
`
`15.
`
`Recognizing the need to further protect its citizens’ privacy rights,
`
`Michigan’s legislature enacted the PPPA to protect “privacy with respect to the
`
`purchase, rental, or borrowing of certain materials,” by prohibiting companies from
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 06/21/22 Page 8 of 25
`
`disclosing certain types of sensitive consumer information. H.B. No. 5331, 1988
`
`Mich. Legis. Serv. 378 (West).
`
`16.
`
`Subsection 2 of the PPPA states:
`
`
`
`[A] person, or an employee or agent of the person,
`engaged in the business of selling at retail, renting, or
`lending books or other written materials . . . shall not
`disclose to any person, other than the customer, a record
`or information concerning the purchase . . . of those
`materials by a customer that indicates the identity of the
`customer.
`
`
`PPPA § 2 (emphasis added).
`
`
`17. Michigan’s protection of reading information reflects the “gut feeling
`
`that people ought to be able to read books and watch films without the whole world
`
`knowing,” and recognizes that “[b]ooks and films are the intellectual vitamins that
`
`fuel the growth of individual thought. The whole process of intellectual growth is
`
`one of privacy—of quiet, and reflection. This intimate process should be protected
`
`from the disruptive intrusion of a roving eye.” S. Rep. No. 100–599, at 6 (Statement
`
`of Rep. McCandless).
`
`18.
`
`As Senator Patrick Leahy recognized in proposing the Video and
`
`Library Privacy Protection Act (later codified as the Video Privacy Protection Act,
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2710), “[i]n practical terms our right to privacy protects the choice of
`
`movies that we watch with our family in our own homes. And it protects the
`
`selection of books that we choose to read.” 134 Cong. Rec. S5399 (May 10, 1988).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 06/21/22 Page 9 of 25
`
`19.
`
`Senator Leahy also explained why choices in movies and reading
`
`materials are so private: “These activities . . . reveal our likes and dislikes, our
`
`interests and our whims. They say a great deal about our dreams and ambitions, our
`
`fears and our hopes. They reflect our individuality, and they describe us as people.”
`
`Id.
`
`20. Michigan’s passage of the PPPA also established as a matter of law
`
`“that a person’s choice in reading, music, and video entertainment is a private matter,
`
`and not a fit subject for consideration by gossipy publications, employers, clubs, or
`
`anyone else for that matter.” Privacy: Sales, Rentals of Videos, etc., House
`
`Legislative Analysis Section, H.B. No. 5331, Jan. 20, 1989 (attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit B).
`
`21.
`
`Despite the fact that thousands of Michigan residents subscribe to
`
`FSP’s publications, FSP disregarded its legal responsibility by systematically
`
`violating the PPPA.
`
`The Private Information Market:
`Consumers’ Private Information Has Real Value
`
`In 2001, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Commissioner Orson
`
`22.
`
`Swindle remarked that “the digital revolution . . . has given an enormous capacity
`
`to the acts of collecting and transmitting and flowing of information, unlike anything
`
`we’ve ever seen in our lifetimes . . . [and] individuals are concerned about being
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 06/21/22 Page 10 of 25
`
`defined by the existing data on themselves.”3
`
`23. More than a decade later, Commissioner Swindle’s comments ring
`
`truer than ever, as consumer data feeds an information marketplace that supports a
`
`$26 billion dollar per year online advertising industry in the United States.4
`
`24.
`
`The FTC has also recognized that consumer data possesses inherent
`
`monetary value within the new information marketplace and publicly stated that:
`
`Most consumers cannot begin to comprehend the types
`and amount of information collected by businesses, or why
`their information may be commercially valuable. Data is
`currency. The larger the data set, the greater potential for
`analysis—and profit.5
`
`25.
`
`In fact, an entire industry exists while companies known as data
`
`
`
`aggregators purchase, trade, and collect massive databases of information about
`
`consumers. Data aggregators then profit by selling this “extraordinarily intrusive”
`
`
`Exhibit C, The Information Marketplace: Merging and Exchanging
`3
`Consumer Data
`(Mar.
`13,
`2001),
`at
`8:15-11:16,
`available
`at
`https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_events/information-
`marketplace-merging-and-exchanging-consumer-data/transcript.pdf
`(last visited
`July 30, 2021).
`See Exhibit D, Web’s Hot New Commodity: Privacy, WSJ (Feb. 28, 2011),
`4
`http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160764037920274
`.html (last visited July 30, 2021).
`
`Exhibit E, Statement of FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour (Dec. 7,
`
`at
`2,
`2009),
`available
`at
`https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/remarks-ftc-
`exploring-privacy-roundtable/091207privacyroundtable.pdf (last visited July 30,
`2021) (emphasis added).
`
` 5
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 06/21/22 Page 11 of 25
`
`information in an open and largely unregulated market.6
`
`26.
`
`The scope of data aggregators’ knowledge about consumers is
`
`immense: “If you are an American adult, the odds are that [they] know[] things like
`
`your age, race, sex, weight, height, marital status, education level, politics, buying
`
`habits, household health worries, vacation dreams—and on and on.”7
`
`27.
`
`Further, “[a]s use of the Internet has grown, the data broker industry
`
`has already evolved to take advantage of the increasingly specific pieces of
`
`information about consumers that are now available.”8
`
`28.
`
`Recognizing the serious threat the data mining industry poses to
`
`consumers’ privacy, on July 25, 2012, the co-Chairmen of the Congressional Bi-
`
`Partisan Privacy Caucus sent a letter to nine major data brokerage companies
`
`seeking information on how those companies collect, store, and sell their massive
`
`
`See Exhibit F, Martha C. White, Big Data Knows What You’re Doing Right
`6
`Now, TIME.com (July 31, 2012), http://moneyland.time.com/2012/07/31/big-data-
`knows-what-youre-doing-right-now/ (last visited July 30, 2021).
`Exhibit G, Natasha Singer, You for Sale: Mapping, and Sharing, the
`7
`Consumer Genome, N.Y. Times
`(June
`16,
`2012),
`available
`at
`https://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/GENPRESS/N12061
`6S.pdf (last visited July 30, 2021).
`Exhibit H, Letter from Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Chairman, Senate
`8
`Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to Scott E. Howe, Chief
`Executive
`Officer,
`Acxiom
`(Oct.
`9,
`2012)
`available
`at
`http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=3bb94703-5ac8-
`4157-a97b-a658c3c3061c (last visited July 30, 2021).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 06/21/22 Page 12 of 25
`
`collections of consumer data.9
`
`29.
`
`In their letter, the co-Chairmen recognized that “[b]y combining data
`
`from numerous offline and online sources, data brokers have developed hidden
`
`dossiers on every U.S. consumer,” which “raises a number of serious privacy
`
`concerns.”10
`
`30.
`
`Data aggregation
`
`is especially
`
`troublesome when consumer
`
`information is sold to direct-mail advertisers. In addition to causing waste and
`
`inconvenience, direct-mail advertisers often use consumer information to lure
`
`unsuspecting consumers into various scams,11 including fraudulent sweepstakes,
`
`charities, and buying clubs. Thus, when companies like FSP share information with
`
`data aggregators, data cooperatives, and direct-mail advertisers, they contribute to
`
`the “[v]ast databases” of consumer data that are often “sold to thieves by large
`
`publicly traded companies,” which “put[s] almost anyone within the reach of
`
`
`See Exhibit I, Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Query Data Brokers About
`9
`Practices Involving Consumers’ Personal Information, Website of Senator Ed
`Markey
`(July
`24,
`2012),
`http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-
`releases/bipartisan-group-of-lawmakers-query-data-brokers-about-practices-
`involving-consumers-personal-information (last visited July 30, 2021).
`10
`Id.
`
`J,
`See Exhibit
`Trade Commission,
`Federal
`Scams,
`11
`Prize
`http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0199-prize-scams (last visited July 30, 2021).
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 06/21/22 Page 13 of 25
`
`fraudulent telemarketers” and other criminals.12
`
`31.
`
`Information disclosures like those made by FSP are particularly
`
`dangerous to the elderly. “Older Americans are perfect telemarketing customers,
`
`analysts say, because they are often at home, rely on delivery services, and are lonely
`
`for the companionship that telephone callers provide.”13 The FTC notes that “[t]he
`
`elderly often are the deliberate targets of fraudulent telemarketers who take
`
`advantage of the fact that many older people have cash reserves or other assets to
`
`spend on seemingly attractive offers.”14 Indeed, an entire black market exists where
`
`the private information of vulnerable elderly Americans is exchanged.
`
`32.
`
`Thus, information disclosures like FSP’s are particularly troublesome
`
`because of their cascading nature: “Once marked as receptive to [a specific] type of
`
`spam, a consumer is often bombarded with similar fraudulent offers from a host of
`
`
`Exhibit K, Charles Duhigg, Bilking the Elderly, With a Corporate Assist,
`12
`Times,
`May
`20,
`2007,
`at
`N.Y.
`available
`http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/business/20tele.html (last visited July 30,
`2021).
`
`13
`
`Exhibit L, Fraud Against Seniors: Hearing before the Senate Special
`14
`Committee on Aging (August 10, 2000) (prepared statement of the FTC), available
`https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/prepared-
`at
`statement-federal-trade-commission-fraud-against-seniors/agingtestimony.pdf (last
`visited July 30, 2021).
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 06/21/22 Page 14 of 25
`
`scam artists.”15
`
`33.
`
`FSP is not alone in jeopardizing its subscribers’ privacy and well-
`
`being in exchange for increased revenue: disclosing subscriber information to data
`
`aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, direct marketers, and other third
`
`parties is a widespread practice in the publishing industry.
`
`34.
`
`Thus, as consumer data has become an ever-more valuable
`
`commodity, the data mining industry has experienced rapid and massive growth.
`
`Unfortunately for consumers, this growth has come at the expense of their most
`
`basic privacy rights.
`
`Consumers Place Monetary Value on their Privacy and
`Consider Privacy Practices When Making Purchases
`
`As the data aggregation and cooperative industry has grown, so too
`
`35.
`
`have consumer concerns regarding the privacy of their information.
`
`36.
`
`A recent survey conducted by Harris Interactive on behalf of
`
`TRUSTe, Inc. showed that 89 percent of consumers polled avoid doing business
`
`with companies who they believe do not protect their privacy online.16 As a result,
`
`
`
`See id.
`
`15
`
`See Exhibit M, 2014 TRUSTe US Consumer Confidence Privacy Report,
`16
`TRUSTe,
`http://www.theagitator.net/wp-
`content/uploads/012714_ConsumerConfidenceReport_US1.pdf (last visited July
`30, 2021).
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 06/21/22 Page 15 of 25
`
`81 percent of smartphone users polled said that they avoid using smartphone apps
`
`that they don’t believe protect their privacy online.17
`
`37.
`
`Thus, as consumer privacy concerns grow, consumers are increasingly
`
`incorporating privacy concerns and values into their purchasing decisions and
`
`companies viewed as having weaker privacy protections are forced to offer greater
`
`value elsewhere (through better quality and/or lower prices) than their privacy-
`
`protective competitors.
`
`38.
`
`In fact, consumers’ private information has become such a valuable
`
`commodity that companies are beginning to offer individuals the opportunity to sell
`
`their information themselves.18
`
`39.
`
`These companies’ business models capitalize on a fundamental tenet
`
`underlying the consumer information marketplace: consumers recognize the
`
`economic value of their private data. Research shows that consumers are willing to
`
`pay a premium to purchase services from companies that adhere to more stringent
`
`policies of protecting their data.19
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`17
`
`See Exhibit N, Joshua Brustein, Start-Ups Seek to Help Users Put a Price on
`18
`Their Personal Data, N.Y. Times
`(Feb. 12, 2012), available at
`http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/technology/start-ups-aim-to-help-users-put-a-
`price-on-their-personal-data.html (last visited July 30, 2021).
`
`See Exhibit O, Tsai, Cranor, Acquisti, and Egelman, The Effect of Online
`19
`Privacy Information on Purchasing Behavior, 22(2) Information Systems Research
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 06/21/22 Page 16 of 25
`
`40.
`
`Thus, in today’s economy, individuals and businesses alike place a
`
`real, quantifiable value on consumer data and corresponding privacy rights.20
`
`FSP Unlawfully Rents, Exchanges, And Discloses Its Customers’ Private
`Reading Information
`FSP maintains a vast digital database comprised of its customers’
`
`41.
`
`Private Reading Information. FSP discloses its customers’ Private Reading
`
`Information to data aggregators and appenders, who then supplement that
`
`information with additional sensitive private information about each FSP customer,
`
`including his or her gender. (See, e.g., Exhibit A).
`
`42.
`
`FSP then rents and/or exchanges its mailing lists—which include
`
`subscribers’ Private Reading Information identifying which individuals purchased
`
`subscriptions to particular magazines, and can include the sensitive information
`
`obtained from data aggregators and appenders—to other data aggregators and
`
`appenders, other consumer-facing businesses, non-profit organizations seeking to
`
`raise awareness and solicit donations, and to political organizations soliciting
`
`
`254, 254 (2011); see also European Network and Information Security Agency,
`(Feb.
`27,
`2012),
`Study
`on monetising
`privacy
`available
`at
`https://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/identity-and-
`trust/library/deliverables/monetising-privacy (last visited July 30, 2021).
`
`See Exhibit P, Hann, et al., The Value of Online Information Privacy: An
`20
`(Oct.
`2003)
`at
`2,
`Empirical
`Investigation
`available
`at
`http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.321.6125&rep=rep1&ty
`pe=pdf (last visited July 30, 2021) (“The real policy issue is not whether consumers
`value online privacy. It is obvious that people value online privacy.”).
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 06/21/22 Page 17 of 25
`
`donations, votes, and volunteer efforts. (See Exhibit A).
`
`43.
`
`FSP also discloses its customers’ Private Reading Information to data
`
`cooperatives, who in turn give FSP access to their own mailing list databases.
`
`44.
`
`As a result of FSP’s data compiling and sharing practices, companies
`
`can purchase and/or obtain mailing lists from FSP that identify FSP’s customers by
`
`their most intimate details such as their gender. FSP’s disclosures of such sensitive
`
`and private information puts consumers, especially the more vulnerable members of
`
`society, at risk of serious harm from scammers.
`
`45.
`
`FSP does not seek its customers’ prior consent, written or otherwise,
`
`to any of these disclosures and its customers remain unaware that their Private
`
`Reading Information and other sensitive information is being rented and exchanged
`
`on the open market.
`
`46.
`
`Consumers can sign up for subscriptions to FSP’s publications
`
`through numerous media outlets, including the Internet, telephone, or traditional
`
`mail. Regardless of how the consumer subscribes, FSP never required the individual
`
`to read or affirmatively agree to any terms of service, privacy policy, or information-
`
`sharing policy during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period. Consequently,
`
`during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, FSP uniformly failed to obtain
`
`any form of consent from – or even provide effective notice to – its customers before
`
`disclosing their Private Reading Information.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.18 Filed 06/21/22 Page 18 of 25
`
`47.
`
`As a result, FSP disclosed its customers’ Private Reading Information
`
`– including their reading habits and preferences that can “reveal intimate facts about
`
`our lives, from our political and religious beliefs to our health concerns”21 – to
`
`anybody willing to pay for it.
`
`48.
`
`By and through these actions, FSP has intentionally disclosed to third
`
`parties its Michigan customers’ Private Reading Information without consent, in
`
`direct violation of the PPPA.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`49. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all Michigan residents
`
`who, at any point during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, had their Private
`
`Reading Information disclosed to third parties by FSP without consent (the “Class”).
`
`Excluded from the Class is any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest,
`
`and officers or directors of Defendant.
`
`50. Members of the Class are so numerous that their individual joinder
`
`herein is impracticable. On information and belief, members of the Class number in
`
`the thousands. The precise number of Class members and their identities are
`
`unknown to Plaintiff at this time but may be determined through discovery. Class
`
`members may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail and/or publication
`
`
`Exhibit Q, California’s Reader Privacy Act Signed into Law, Electronic
`21
`Frontier Foundation (Oct. 3, 2011), https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/10/03
`(last visited July 30, 2021).
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.19 Filed 06/21/22 Page 19 of 25
`
`through the distribution records of Defendant.
`
`51. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and
`
`predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members. Common
`
`legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to: (a) whether FSP is a
`
`“retailer or distributor” of publications (i.e., magazines); (b) whether FSP obtained
`
`consent before disclosing to third parties Plaintiff’s and the Class’s Private Reading
`
`Information; and (c) whether FSP’s disclosure of Plaintiff’s and the Class’s Private
`
`Reading Information violated the PPPA.
`
`52. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class
`
`in that the named Plaintiff and the Class suffered invasions of their statutorily
`
`protected right to privacy (as afforded by the PPPA) as a result of Defendant’s
`
`uniform wrongful conduct, based upon Defendant’s disclosure of Plaintiff’s and the
`
`Class’s Private Reading Information.
`
`53. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because his interests
`
`do not conflict with the interests of the Class members he seeks to represent, he has
`
`retained competent counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and he intends
`
`to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of Class members will be fairly
`
`and adequately protected by Plaintiff and his counsel.
`
`54. The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair
`
`and efficient adjudication of the claims of Class members. Each individual Class
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.20 Filed 06/21/22 Page 20 of 25
`
`member may lack the resources to undergo the burden and expense of individual
`
`prosecution of the complex and extensive litigation necessary to establish
`
`Defendant’s liability. Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to
`
`all parties and multiplies the burden on the judicial system presented by the complex
`
`legal and factual issues of this case. Individualized litigation also presents a potential
`
`for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. In contrast, the class action device
`
`presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single
`
`adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court on
`
`the issue of Defendant’s liability. Class treatment of the liability issues will ensure
`
`that all claims and claimants are before this Court for consistent adjudication of the
`
`liability issues.
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of Michigan’s Preservation of Personal Privacy Act
`(PPPA § 2)
`55. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`56. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of members of the
`
`Class against Defendant FSP.
`
`57. As a magazine publisher that sells subscriptions to consumers, FSP is
`
`engaged in the business of selling written materials at retail. See PPPA § 2.
`
`58. By purchasing a subscription to Farm Show magazine, Plaintiff
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.21 Filed 06/21/22 Page 21 of 25
`
`purchased written materials directly from FSP. See PPPA § 2.
`
`59. Because Plaintiff purchased written materials directly from FSP, he is
`
`a “customer” within the meaning of the PPPA. See PPPA § 1.
`
`60. At various times during the pre-July 31, 2016 time period, FSP
`
`disclosed Plaintiff’s Private Reading Information, which identified him as a Farm
`
`Show customer, in at least three ways.
`
`61. First, FSP disclosed mailing lists containing Plaintiff’s Private Reading
`
`Information to data aggregators and data appenders, who then supplemented the
`
`mailing lists with additional sensitive information from their own databases, before
`
`sending the mailing lists back to FSP.
`
`62. Second, FSP disclosed mailing lists containing Plaintiff’s Private
`
`Reading Information to data cooperatives, who in turn gave FSP access to their own
`
`mailing list databases.
`
`63. Third, FSP rented and/or exchanged its mailing lists containing
`
`Plaintiff’s Private Reading Information—enhanced with additional information
`
`from data aggregators and appenders—to third parties, including other consumer-
`
`facing companies, direct-mail advertisers, and organizations soliciting monetary
`
`contributions, volunteer work, and votes.
`
`64. Because the mailing lists included the additional information from the
`
`data aggregators and appenders, the lists were more valuable, and FSP was able to
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-11379-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.22 Filed 06/21/22 Page 22 of 25
`
`increase its profits gained from the mailing list rentals and/or exchanges.
`
`65. By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing its customer lists,
`
`during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, FSP disclosed to persons other
`
`than P
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
