Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 22
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Insider, Inc. Pixel-VPPA Litigation
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-06529-AT
`
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Darmel Roby, Jennifer Juenke, Jamie Spritzer, Timothy Stokes and Sanchez
`
`Johnson (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`bring this class action lawsuit against Insider, Inc. (“Insider” or “Defendant”) for violations of
`
`the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710 (“VPPA”). Plaintiffs’ claims arise from
`
`Defendant’s practice of knowingly disclosing its digital subscribers’ personally identifiable
`
`information and viewed video media (collectively, “Personal Viewing Information”) to a third
`
`party, Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”). Plaintiffs’ allegations are based on personal knowledge as
`
`to themselves and their own acts and upon information and belief, including further investigation
`
`by Plaintiffs’ attorneys as to all other matters.
`
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
`
`1.
`
`This is a consumer digital privacy class action brought on behalf of all persons
`
`with Facebook1 accounts who have digital subscriptions to Insider and have requested or
`
`watched videos on www.insider.com,2 a multimedia website owned and operated by Defendant.
`
`2.
`
`The VPPA prohibits “video tape service providers,” such as Insider, from
`
`
`1 Facebook is owned by Meta Platforms Inc. (“Meta”).
`2As used in this complaint, insider.com or www.insider.com also refer to affiliated websites that
`require the same login, such as businessinsider.com or www.businessinsider.com.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 22
`
`knowingly disclosing consumers’ personally
`
`identifiable
`
`information (“PII”),
`
`including
`
`“information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials
`
`or services from a video tape provider,” without the person having expressly given consent in a
`
`standalone consent form.
`
`3.
`
`Insider knowingly discloses its subscribers PII—including the title of every video
`
`they view—to Meta without first obtaining their express consent in a stand-alone consent form
`
`that complies with the VPPA’s statutory requirements.
`
`4.
`
`Insider uses the Meta Pixel to purposely track, record, and transmit its digital
`
`subscribers’ interactions with www.insider.com to Meta.3
`
`5.
`
`The Meta Pixel is a snippet of programming code that tracks web visitors as they
`
`navigate through a website, including searches, button-clicks, and which links have been clicked
`
`on or viewed. The Meta Pixel is installed by Insider, and Insider has full control over which
`
`information is tracked and recorded. Resultingly, the Meta Pixel transmits a data packet
`
`containing PII, such as the website subscribers’ IP address, name, email, or phone number.
`
`6.
`
`The information that Insider shares with Meta includes, at a minimum, it’s
`
`subscribers’ Facebook ID (“FID”) and the titles of the prerecorded video content that the user
`
`requested.
`
`7.
`
`A user’s FID is linked to their Facebook profile, which generally contains a wide
`
`range of demographic and other information about the user, including their name, photos,
`
`personal interests, work history, relationship status, and other details.
`
`
`3 Insider also uses other tools for this purpose, such as first-party and third-party cookies,
`software development kits (“SDK”), and Facebook’s Business Tools, including Advanced
`Matching and Conversion API.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 3 of 22
`
`8.
`
`Insider discloses the user’s FID and viewing content to Meta together in a single,
`
`unencrypted transmission, in violation of the VPPA. Because the user’s FID uniquely identifies
`
`an individual’s Facebook account, which in turn identifies them, Meta—or any other ordinary
`
`person—can use the Facebook ID to quickly and easily locate, access, and view the user’s
`
`corresponding Facebook profile. In the simplest terms, Insider’s use of the Meta Pixel allows
`
`Meta to know what video content its users viewed on its website.
`
`9.
`
`Insider users do not consent to such sharing through a standalone consent form, as
`
`required by the VPPA. As a result, Insider violates the VPPA by disclosing this information to
`
`Meta.
`
`10.
`
`On behalf of a Class of similarly situated Insider users, Plaintiffs seek relief
`
`through this action. Based on the facts set forth in this Complaint, Insider violated the VPPA and
`
`is liable for unjust enrichment.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Darmel Roby is a citizen and resident of Flint, Michigan.
`
`Plaintiff Jennifer Juenke is a citizen and resident of Summerfield, Florida.
`
`Plaintiff Jamie Spritzer is a citizen and resident of Roslyn Heights, New York.
`
`Plaintiff Timothy Stokes is a citizen and resident of Ovett, Mississippi.
`
`Plaintiff Sanchez Johnson is a citizen and resident of Phenix City, Alabama.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 4 of 22
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Insider is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 1 Liberty Plaza,
`
`8th Floor New York, NY 10006.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`17.
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on Plaintiffs’
`
`claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710.
`
`18.
`
`This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit under the Class
`
`Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because this is a proposed class action in which: (1)
`
`there are at least 100 Class members; (2) the combined claims of Class members exceed
`
`$5,000,000, exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs; and (3) Defendant and at least one
`
`Class member are domiciled in different states.
`
`19.
`
`This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Insider because it maintains its
`
`principal place of business in New York. Additionally, Insider is subject to specific personal
`
`jurisdiction in this State because it maintains sufficient minimum contacts with the State of New
`
`York and a substantial part of the events and conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in
`
`this state.
`
`20.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial
`
`part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.
`
`PLAINTIFF-SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS
`
`Darmel Roby
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff Roby paid for an Insider digital subscription. Plaintiff Roby registered
`
`for his account and Defendant’s services by providing his PII, including his name and email
`
`address.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 5 of 22
`
`22.
`
`During the class period, Plaintiff Roby accessed www.insider.com from his web
`
`browser and used his subscription to view prerecorded video content on multiple occasions.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff Roby has maintained a Facebook account for approximately 10 years and
`
`uses the account daily. Plaintiff Roby’s Facebook profile includes personal information about
`
`him, including his name and other personal details.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff Roby requests and watches prerecorded videos on Insider using the same
`
`device and browser that he uses to login to Facebook, including while he is logged in to
`
`Facebook.
`
`25.
`
`Insider sent to Meta Plaintiff Roby’s PII, including his FID, as well as the title of
`
`each prerecorded video he viewed without obtaining consent through a standalone consent form.
`
`Additionally, he has seen targeted advertisements on Facebook after watching related videos on
`
`www.insider.com.
`
`
`
`Jennifer Juenke
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff Juenke paid for an Insider digital subscription. Plaintiff Juenke registered
`
`for her account and Defendant’s services by providing her PII, including her name and email
`
`address.
`
`27.
`
`During the class period, Plaintiff Juenke accessed www.insider.com from her web
`
`browser and used her subscription to view prerecorded video content on multiple occasions.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Juenke has maintained a Facebook account for approximately 12 years
`
`and uses the account daily. Plaintiff Juenke’s Facebook profile includes personal information
`
`about her, including her name and other personal details.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 6 of 22
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Juenke requests and watches prerecorded videos on Insider using the
`
`same device and browser that she uses to login to Facebook, including while she is logged in to
`
`Facebook.
`
`30.
`
`Insider sent to Meta Plaintiff Juenke’s PII, including her FID, as well as the title
`
`of each prerecorded video she viewed without obtaining consent through a standalone consent
`
`form. Additionally, she has seen targeted advertisements on Facebook after watching related
`
`videos on www.insider.com.
`
`Jamie Spritzer
`
`Plaintiff Spritzer has an Insider digital subscription. Plaintiff Spritzer registered
`
`31.
`
`for her account and Defendant’s services by providing her PII, including her name and email
`
`address.
`
`32.
`
`During the class period, Plaintiff Spritzer accessed www.insider.com from her
`
`web browser and used the subscription to view prerecorded video content on multiple occasions.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff Spritzer has maintained a Facebook account for approximately 10 years
`
`and uses the account daily. Plaintiff Spritzer’s Facebook profile includes personal information
`
`about her, including her name and other personal details.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff Spritzer requests and watches prerecorded videos on Insider using the
`
`same device and browser that she uses to login to Facebook, including while she is logged in to
`
`Facebook.
`
`35.
`
`Insider sent to Meta Plaintiff Spritzer’s PII, including her FID, as well as the title
`
`of each prerecorded video she viewed without obtaining consent through a standalone consent
`
`form. Additionally, she has seen targeted advertisements on Facebook after watching related
`
`videos on www.insider.com.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 7 of 22
`
`Timothy Stokes
`
`Plaintiff Stokes registered for Insider’s newsletter. Plaintiff Stokes registered for
`
`36.
`
`the newsletter by providing his PII, including his name and email address.
`
`37.
`
`During the class period, Plaintiff Stokes viewed prerecorded video content on
`
`Defendant’s website on multiple occasions.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff Stokes has maintained a Facebook account for approximately 12 years
`
`and uses the account daily. Plaintiff Stokes’ Facebook profile includes personal information
`
`about him, including his name and other personal details.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff Stokes requests and watches prerecorded videos on Insider using the
`
`same device and browser that he uses to login to Facebook, including while he is logged in to
`
`Facebook.
`
`40.
`
`Insider sent to Meta Plaintiff Stokes’ PII, including his FID, as well as the title of
`
`each prerecorded video he viewed without obtaining consent through a standalone consent form.
`
`Additionally, he has seen targeted advertisements on Facebook after watching related videos on
`
`www.insider.com.
`
`
`
`Sanchez Johnson
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson registered for Insider’s newsletter. Plaintiff Johnson registered
`
`for the newsletter by providing her PII, including her name and email address.
`
`42.
`
`During the class period, Plaintiff Johnson viewed prerecorded video content on
`
`Defendant’s website on multiple occasions.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson has maintained a Facebook account since approximately 2007
`
`and uses the account daily. Plaintiff Johnson’s Facebook profile includes personal information
`
`about her, including her name and other personal details.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 8 of 22
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson requests and watches prerecorded videos on Insider using the
`
`same device and browser that she uses to login to Facebook, including while she is logged in to
`
`Facebook.
`
`45.
`
`Insider sent to Meta Plaintiff Johnson’s PII, including her FID, as well as the title
`
`of each prerecorded video she viewed without obtaining consent through a standalone consent
`
`form. Additionally, she has seen targeted advertisements on Facebook after watching related
`
`videos on www.insider.com.
`
`
`
`46.
`
`As a result of the systematic process described in this Complaint, each Plaintiff’s
`
`privacy rights, including under the VPPA, were violated.
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`47.
`
`COMMON ALLEGATIONS
`
`Background of the Video Privacy Protection Act
`
`The VPPA prohibits the knowing disclosure of a consumer’s video-watching
`
`preferences without the informed, written consent of the customer in a form “distinct and
`
`separate from any form setting forth other legal or financial obligations.” Under the statute, the
`
`Court may award actual damages (but not less than liquidated damages of $2,500.00 per person),
`
`punitive damages, equitable relief and attorney’s fees.
`
`48.
`
`The VPPA was initially passed in 1988 for the explicit purpose of protecting the
`
`privacy of individuals’ and their families’ video rental, purchase and viewing data. Leading up to
`
`its enactment, members of the United States Senate warned that “[e]very day Americans are
`
`forced to provide to businesses and others personal information without having any control over
`
`where that information goes.” S. Rep. No. 100-599 at 6-7 (1988).
`
`49.
`
`Senators at the time were particularly troubled by disclosures of records that
`
`reveal consumers’ purchases and rentals of videos and other audiovisual materials. As Senator
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 9 of 22
`
`Patrick Leahy and the late Senator Paul Simon recognized, records of this nature offer “a
`
`window into our loves, likes, and dislikes,” such 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 (1988) (statements of
`
`Sens. Simon and Leahy, respectively).
`
`50.
`
`In proposing the Video and Library Privacy Protection Act (later codified as the
`
`VPPA), Senator Leahy stated that “[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). Thus, the personal nature of
`
`such information, and the need to protect it from disclosure, is the inspiration of the statute:
`
`“[t]hese activities are at the core of any definition of personhood. They 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.
`
`51. While these statements rang true in 1988 when the VPPA was passed, the
`
`importance of legislation like the VPPA in the modern era of data mining from online activities
`
`is more pronounced than ever before. During a recent Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, “The
`
`Video Privacy Protection Act: Protecting Viewer Privacy in the 21st Century,” Senator Leahy
`
`emphasized the point by stating: “While it is true that technology has changed over the years, we
`
`must stay faithful to our fundamental right to privacy and freedom. Today, social networking,
`
`video streaming, the ‘cloud,’ mobile apps and other new technologies have revolutionized the
`
`availability of Americans’ information.”
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 10 of 22
`
`52.
`
`In this case, Insider violated Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ privacy rights by
`
`systematically disclosing their Personal Viewing Information to Meta without obtaining
`
`appropriate consent in a manner that complies with the VPPA’s statutory requirements.
`
`B.
`
`Insider is a “Video Tape Service Provider,” and its subscribers are
`“Consumers” under the VPPA.
`
`53.
`
`Insider is a multimedia organization that provides national and international news,
`
`entertainment, and social commentary, all of which is featured on its website and available to its
`
`digital subscribers. Just like “department store[s],” “golf shop[s],” and “continuity club[s],” 4
`
`which the VPPA’s legislative history identifies as potential video tape service providers, Insider
`
`is a video tape service provider because it creates, hosts, and disseminates thousands of videos
`
`on www.insider.com, and a section of its website is dedicated to video content.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant places advertisements alongside its pre-recorded video content and
`
`embeds commercials within its video playlists. Thus, Defendant uses these videos as a means of
`
`increasing its revenue through advertisements, and benefits from sharing users PII and viewing
`
`content in violation of the VPPA.
`
`C.
`
`55.
`
`Defendant Knowingly Disclosed Subscribers’ PII to Meta
`
`Defendant knowingly disclosed its subscribers’ PII to Meta through use of the
`
`Metal Pixel and Facebook business tools, including Advanced Matching and Conversion API.
`
`56.
`
`The Meta Pixel and related Facebook business tools are invisible to website users
`
`and consumers.
`
`57. Meta gives website operators, such as Defendant, control over the categories of
`
`information and data their website tracks, records, and sends to Meta. Defendant’s knowledge of
`
`its conduct is evidenced by the fact that it: (1) chose to track its digital subscribers’ interactions
`
`
`4 See S. Rep. 100-599, at 12-13.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 11 of 22
`
`with insider.com, including the prerecorded videos they viewed; (2) requested and obtained code
`
`from Meta in order to achieve this purpose; and (3) installed those lines of code on insider.com
`
`without adding a standalone consent form as required by the VPPA.
`
`D.
`
`58.
`
`Insider’s Digital Subscriptions
`
`To subscribe to Defendant’s newsletter and other services, at a minimum, users
`
`must create an online account and provide additional information, including their email address.
`
`Some users pay for their subscriptions in exchange for receiving additional content. On
`
`information and belief, all digital subscribers also provide their IP address, which informs
`
`Defendant as to the subscribers’ city, zip code, and physical location.
`
`59.
`
`Digital subscribers may also provide to Defendant the identifier on their mobile
`
`devices and/or cookies stored on their devices.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiffs and Class members neither knew of nor authorized, nor otherwise
`
`consented to Defendant sharing Personal Viewing Information with third parties, such as Meta.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant never obtained its digital subscribers’ written consent to collect their
`
`Personal Viewing Information “in a form distinct and separate from any form setting forth other
`
`legal or financial obligations of the consumer,” as the VPPA requires. Accordingly, none of
`
`Insider’s digital subscribers provided Insider with the level of consent required by the VPPA for
`
`disclosure of their viewing content and identities to Meta.
`
`E.
`
`62.
`
`Insider Uses the Meta Pixel
`
`Businesses, such as Insider, use Facebook’s business tools, including tracking
`
`pixels, to monitor and record their website visitors’ devices and activities on their website. As a
`
`result, website visitors’ browsing data and interactions with a particular website are sent to Meta,
`
`which uses the information for marketing purposes.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 12 of 22
`
`63.
`
`The Meta Pixel and related tools are invisible to ordinary consumers, and Meta’s
`
`advertising partners, including Insider, control which actions are recorded and reported to Meta.
`
`64.
`
`To obtain the code for the Pixel, the website advertiser tells Meta which website
`
`events it wants to track (e.g., video views and button clicks) and Meta provides corresponding
`
`Meta Pixel code for the advertiser to incorporate into its website.
`
`65. When an Insider digital subscriber enters the website and views video media, that
`
`information is automatically sent to Meta via the Meta Pixel Insider incorporated into its web
`
`code. The information that is transmitted identifies the visitor by their FID (“FID” or “c_user”)5
`
`and is sent with the name of the video content they viewed.
`
`66.
`
`Digital subscribers’ Personal Viewing Information is sent to Meta in one
`
`transmission—allowing Meta or any other ordinary person to make a direct connection between
`
`individuals and their viewed video content.
`
`67.
`
`The ability to easily identify any individual by using their unique FID is not
`
`limited to Facebook. Any ordinary person who comes into possession of an FID can easily use
`
`that information to identify a particular individual, and Meta admits as much on its website.
`
`68.
`
`Ordinary persons who come into possession of the FID can connect to any
`
`Facebook profile, which may contain information such as a Facebook user’s name, gender,
`
`birthday, place of residence, career, educational history, a multitude of photos, and the content of
`
`a Facebook user’s posts, by simply visiting www.facebook.com/[the user’s FID]. This
`
`information may reveal even more sensitive personal information—for instance, posted photos
`
`may disclose the identity of family members, and written posts may disclose religious
`
`5 The FID is a unique and persistent identifier, comprised of a string of numbers, that Facebook
`assigns to each user when they create their account. With it, any ordinary person can look up the
`user’s Facebook profile and name.
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 13 of 22
`
`preferences, political affiliations, personal interests and more. Simply put, with only an FID and
`
`the video content name and URL—all of which Defendant knowingly and readily provides to
`
`Meta—any ordinary person could learn the identity of a particular digital subscriber and the
`
`specific video or media content they requested on insider.com.
`
`69.
`
`In addition, the Personal Viewing Information Defendant disclosed to Meta
`
`allows Meta to build from scratch or cross-reference and add to the data it already has in its own
`
`detailed profiles for its own users, adding to its trove of personally identifiable data.
`
`70.
`
`Insider benefits from its use of the Meta Pixel because it provides Insider with
`
`analytical data about its website and digital subscribers, allowing Insider to improve the manner
`
`in which it promotes content and services. For instance, the data collected through the Meta Pixel
`
`is provided to Insider in Meta’s Events Manager, as well as tools and analytics to reach
`
`individual digital subscribers through Facebook ads. Insider can also use this information to
`
`create “custom audiences” through Meta to help it target specific digital subscribers and other
`
`Facebook users who match Insider’s custom audience criteria. Insider can sort through the data
`
`to find specific types of users including, for instance, women over a certain age, in a certain
`
`location, with certain interests. Insider also profits from selling parts of its website to display
`
`advertisers.
`
`71.
`
`Defendant knew it was collecting this data and sending it to Meta, and yet it failed
`
`to request or obtain its digital subscribers’ written consent, in a distinct and separate consent
`
`form, prior to these disclosures.
`
`72.
`
`The Meta Pixel is not necessary for Defendant to operate www.insider.com.
`
`Rather, its sole purpose and function is to enrich Defendant’s advertising and marketing efforts.
`
`Even if Insider finds it useful for other purposes, it could have used the Meta Pixel without
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 14 of 22
`
`violating the VPPA by simply adhering to the statute’s consent requirements. Moreover, even
`
`Meta forbids the disclosure of such information because it requires its advertising partners to
`
`comply with relevant federal and state laws, including the VPPA.
`
`F.
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members Were Harmed by Insider’s Privacy Violations
`
`Insider shared Plaintiffs’ sensitive data with Meta, including their prerecorded
`
`video viewing histories, which Plaintiffs reasonably expected would be kept private.
`
`74.
`
`The personal information Insider obtained from Plaintiffs and Class members
`
`constitutes valuable data in the digital advertising-related market for consumer information.
`
`Insider’s wrongful acquisition and use of their personal, private information deprived Plaintiffs
`
`and Class members of control over that information and prevented them from realizing its full
`
`value for themselves.
`
`75.
`
`Insider’s conduct has resulted in economic harm to Plaintiffs and Class members
`
`whose PII diminished in value when Insider made this information available to Meta.
`
`76.
`
`The harms described above are aggravated by Insider’s continued retention and
`
`commercial use of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ personal information, including their private
`
`video viewing histories.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1),
`
`(b)(2), and (b)(3), and/or (c)(4) as representatives of the following Class:
`
`the United States who
`Nationwide Class: All persons in
`subscribed
`to
`insider.com, viewed prerecorded content on
`insider.com, and used Facebook during the time Meta’s Pixel was
`active on insider.com
`
`
`
`78.
`
`The “Class Period” is from January 1, 2013 to the present.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 15 of 22
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify, change, or expand the Class definition based
`
`upon discovery and further investigation.
`
`80.
`
`Excluded from the Class are (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this
`
`action and any members of their immediate families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries,
`
`affiliates, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Insider or their parents have
`
`a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers, and directors; and
`
`(3) Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendant’s counsel.
`
`81.
`
`Numerosity: The Class consists of at least hundreds of thousands of individuals,
`
`making joinder impractical.
`
`82.
`
`Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist with
`
`regard to each of the claims and predominate over questions affecting only individual Class
`
`members. Questions common to the Class include, but are not limited to:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Whether Insider’s use of the Meta Pixel was without user consent or
`authorization;
`
`Whether Insider obtained and shared or caused to be obtained and shared
`Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ personal information through tracking using Meta
`Pixel, which Insider installed on its webpages;
`
`Whether other third parties obtained Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ personal
`information as a result of Insider’s conduct described herein;
`
`Whether Insider’s conduct violates the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.
`§ 2710, et seq.;
`
`Whether Insider was unjustly enriched as a result of sharing users’ information
`with Meta;
`
`Whether Insider’s acquisition and transmission of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’
`personal information resulted in harm; and
`
`Whether Insider should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the future.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 16 of 22
`
`83.
`
`Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of Class members in that
`
`Plaintiffs, like all Class members, have been injured by Insider’s misconduct—disclosing users’
`
`PII and viewing content to Meta without consent.
`
`84.
`
`Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and
`
`protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel with substantial experience in
`
`prosecuting complex litigation and class actions, including privacy protection cases. Plaintiffs do
`
`not have any interests antagonistic to those of the Class.
`
`85.
`
`Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
`
`efficient adjudication of this controversy. Class-wide damages are essential to induce Insider to
`
`comply with federal law. Moreover, because the amount of each individual Class member’s
`
`claim is small relative to the complexity of the litigation, and because of Insider’s financial
`
`resources, Class members are unlikely to pursue legal redress individually for the violations
`
`detailed in this complaint. A class action will allow these claims to be heard where they would
`
`otherwise go unheard because of the expense of bringing individual lawsuits, and provides the
`
`benefits of adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
`
`86.
`
`Injunctive relief: Insider has acted or refused to act on grounds generally
`
`applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding
`
`declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
`
`TOLLING OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
`
`87.
`
`All applicable statute(s) of limitations have been tolled by Insider’s knowing and
`
`active concealment and denial of the facts alleged herein.
`
`88.
`
`As alleged herein, Meta Pixel is a snippet of code not apparent to consumers from
`
`the Insider website. Plaintiffs were therefore unaware of Insider’s misconduct.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 17 of 22
`
`89.
`
`Plaintiffs and Class members could not have reasonably discovered Insider’s
`
`practices of sharing their personal viewing content and PII with Meta until shortly before this
`
`class action litigation commenced.
`
`90.
`
`Insider was and remains under a continuing duty to disclose to Plaintiffs and
`
`Class members its practice of sharing personal viewing content and PII to Meta. As a result of
`
`the active concealment by Insider, any and all applicable statutes of limitations otherwise
`
`applicable to the allegations herein have been tolled.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`VIOLATION OF THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT
`(VIDEO PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT)
`18 U.S.C. § 2710, et seq.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege the above factual allegations by reference.
`
`91.
`
`92.
`
`The VPPA prohibits a “video tape service provider” from knowingly disclosing
`
`“personally-identifying information” concerning any consumer to a third-party without the
`
`“informed, written consent (including through an electronic means using the Internet) of the
`
`consumer.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710.
`
`93.
`
`As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(4), a “video tape service provider” is “any
`
`person, engaged in the business, in or affecting interstate commerce, of rental, sale, or delivery of
`
`prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials.” Insider is a “video tape
`
`service provider” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(4) because it engaged in the business of
`
`delivering audiovisual materials—including the prerecorded videos that Plaintiffs viewed—that
`
`are similar to prerecorded video cassette tapes and those deliveries affect interstate or foreign
`
`commerce.
`
`94.
`
`As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(3), “personally identifiable information” is
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-06529-AT Document 27 Filed 12/08/22 Page 18 of 22
`
`defined to include “information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained
`
`specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider.”
`
`95.
`
`Insider knowingly caused Plaintiffs’ and Class member’ personal viewing
`
`information, including FIDs, to be disclosed to Meta. This information constitutes personally
`
`identifiable information under 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(3) because it identified each Plaintiff and
`
`Class member to Meta as an individual who viewed Insider’s content, including the specific
`
`prerecorded video materials watched on Insider’s website. This information allowed Meta to
`
`identify each Plaintiff’s and Class Member’s specific individual video-viewing preferences and
`
`habits.
`
`96.
`
`As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(1), a “consumer” means “any renter, purchaser,
`
`or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” Plaintiffs are digital
`
`subscribers of Insider’s services which provides video content to users on its website. Plaintiffs
`
`viewed prerecorded videos on www.insider.com. Thus, Plaintiffs are “consume