Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`JUSTIN GRAHAM, on behalf of himself and
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`BLOOMBERG L.P.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Justin Graham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, files this
`
`Complaint against Defendant Bloomberg L.P. (“Bloomberg” or “Defendant”) for violation of the
`
`federal Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710 (“VPPA”). Plaintiff’s claims arise from
`
`Defendant’s practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Facebook”),
`
`data containing its digital subscribers’ (i) personally identifiable information or Facebook ID
`
`(“FID”) and (ii) the computer file containing video and its corresponding URL viewed (“Video
`
`Media”) (collectively, “Personal Viewing Information”). Plaintiff’s allegations are made on
`
`personal knowledge as to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s own acts and upon information and belief as to
`
`all other matters.
`
`I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a consumer digital privacy class action complaint against Bloomberg, as the
`
`owner of Bloomberg.com, for violating the VPPA by disclosing its digital subscribers’ identities
`
`and Video Media to Facebook without the proper consent.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The VPPA prohibits “video tape service providers,” such as Bloomberg.com, from
`
`knowingly disclosing consumers’ personally identifiable information, including “information
`
`which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from
`
`a video tape provider,” without express consent in a stand-alone consent form.
`
`3.
`
`Like other businesses with an online presence, Defendant collects and shares the
`
`personal information of visitors to its website and mobile application (“App”) with third parties.
`
`Defendant does this through cookies, software development kits (“SDK”), and pixels. In other
`
`words, digital subscribers to Bloomberg.com have their personal information disclosed to
`
`Defendant’s third-party business partners.
`
`4.
`
`The Facebook pixel is a code Defendant installed on the Bloomberg.com website
`
`allowing it to collect users’ data. More specifically, it tracks when digital subscribers enter the
`
`Bloomberg.com website or App and view Video Media. The Bloomberg.com website tracks and
`
`discloses to Facebook the digital subscribers’ viewed Video Media, and most notably, the digital
`
`subscribers’ FID. This occurs even when the digital subscriber has not shared (nor consented to
`
`share) such information.
`
`5.
`
`Importantly, Bloomberg shares the Personal Viewing Information—i.e., digital
`
`subscribers’ unique FID and video content viewed—together as one data point to Facebook.
`
`Because the digital subscriber’s FID uniquely identifies an individual’s Facebook user account,
`
`Facebook—or any other ordinary person—can use it to quickly and easily locate, access, and view
`
`digital subscribers’ corresponding Facebook profile. Put simply, the pixel allows Facebook to
`
`know what Video Media one of its subscribers viewed on the Bloomberg.com site.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Thus, without telling its digital subscribers, Defendant profits handsomely from its
`
`unauthorized disclosure of its digital subscribers’ Personal Viewing Information to Facebook. It
`
`does so at the expense of its digital subscribers’ privacy and their statutory rights under the VPPA.
`
`7.
`
`Because Bloomberg.com digital subscribers are not informed about this
`
`dissemination of their Personal Viewing Information – indeed, it is automatic and invisible – they
`
`cannot exercise reasonable judgment to defend themselves against the highly personal ways
`
`Bloomberg.com has used and continues to use data it has about them to make money for itself.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant chose to disregard Plaintiff’s and hundreds of thousands of other
`
`Bloomberg.com digital subscribers’ statutorily protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive
`
`data to Facebook. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action for legal and equitable remedies
`
`to redress and put a stop to Defendant’s practices of intentionally disclosing its digital subscribers’
`
`Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in knowing violation of VPPA.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the claims
`
`that arise under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710.
`
`10.
`
`This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because this action is a
`
`class action in which the aggregate amount in controversy for the proposed Class (defined below)
`
`exceeds $5,000,000, and at least one member of the Class is a citizen of a state different from that
`
`of Defendant.
`
`11.
`
`Venue is appropriate in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because
`
`Defendant does business in and is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. Venue is also
`
`proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in or
`
`emanated from this District.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`III. THE PARTIES
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Justin Graham is a natural person and resident and citizen of the State of
`
`Florida residing in the City of Orlando. Plaintiff began his paid digital subscription to
`
`Bloomberg.com in approximately February of 2021 and maintained his subscription until
`
`approximately May 2021. Plaintiff has had a Facebook account from approximately July 2009 to
`
`the present. During the relevant time period, he has used his Bloomberg.com digital subscription
`
`to view Video Media through Bloomberg.com website and/or App while logged into his Facebook
`
`account. By doing so, Plaintiff’s Personal Viewing Information was disclosed to Facebook
`
`pursuant to the systematic process described herein. Plaintiff never gave Defendant express written
`
`consent to disclose his Personal Viewing Information.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant, Bloomberg, is a privately held financial, software, data, and media
`
`company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. Defendant has an estimated
`
`annual revenue of approximately $10 billion. Defendant owns and operates the media website
`
`Bloomberg.com, which provides a broad selection of video content. As detailed below, through
`
`Bloomberg.com website and App, Defendant delivers and, indeed, is in the business of delivering,
`
`countless hours of video content to its digital subscribers.
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A. Background of the Video Privacy Protection Act
`
`14.
`
`The VPPA generally prohibits the knowing disclosure of a customer’s video rental
`
`or sale records 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.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`15.
`
`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 7-8 (1988).
`
`16.
`
`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 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 7-8 (1988) (statements of Sens. Simon
`
`and Leahy, respectively).
`
`17.
`
`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.
`
`18. 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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`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.”1
`
`19.
`
`In this case, Defendant chose to deprive Plaintiff and the Class members of that
`
`right by systematically disclosing their Personal Viewing Information to Facebook, without
`
`providing notice to (let alone obtaining consent from) anyone, as explained herein.
`
`B.
`
`Bloomberg.com’s Digital Subscriptions
`
`20.
`
`To subscribe for Bloomberg.com, users can sign up for an online newsletter or a
`
`paid subscription. Bloomberg.com users provide their personal information, including but not
`
`limited to their name, email address, and zip code. Below is a screenshot of Bloomberg.com’s
`
`subscription page:
`
`
`1 The Video Privacy Protection Act: Protecting Viewer Privacy in the 21st Century, Senate Judiciary
`Committee Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, http://www.judiciary.
`senate.gov/meetings/the-video-privacy-protection-act-protecting-viewer-privacy-in-the21stcentury (last
`accessed June 6, 2022).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Defendant operates a website in the U.S. accessible from a desktop and mobile
`
`device at Bloomberg.com. It also offers an App available for download on Android and iPhone
`
`
`
`devices.
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief, all digital subscribers provide Defendant with their IP
`
`address, which is a unique number assigned to all information technology connected devices, that
`
`informs Defendant as to subscribers’ city, zip code and physical location.
`
`23.
`
`Digital subscribers may also provide to Defendant the identifier on their mobile
`
`devices and/or cookies stored on their devices.
`
`24. When opening an account, Defendant does not disclose to its digital subscribers
`
`that it will share their Personal Viewing Information with third parties, such as Facebook. Digital
`
`subscribers are also not asked to consent to such information sharing upon opening an account.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`25.
`
`After becoming a digital subscriber, viewers have access to a variety of
`
`Bloomberg.com Video Media on Defendant’s digital platform.
`
`26.
`
`Notably, once a digital subscriber signs in and watches Bloomberg.com Video
`
`Media, the digital subscriber is not provided with any notification that their Personal Viewing
`
`Information is being shared. Similarly, Defendant also fails to obtain 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.
`
`C.
`
`Defendant Admits It Collects and Discloses Certain Personal Information of Digital
`Subscribers to Third Parties But Fails to Advise It Discloses Personal Viewing
`Information, as Required Under the VPPA.
`
`27.
`
`The operative Privacy Policy for Bloomberg.com states that it collects “Personal
`
`Information” which includes the following types of personal information:
`
`•
`
` Name, email address, postal address, account names and passwords, or other contact
`
`information
`
`• Signature, online identifier, Internet Protocol address, or other similar identifiers
`
`• Professional, industry, employment-related, or education information
`
`•
`
`Internet or other electronic network activity information, including, but not limited to,
`
`browsing history, search history, preferences, and information regarding a user’s
`
`interaction (including reading habits) with an Internet website, application, advertisement
`
`• Demographic information
`
`• Billing information, credit card number or other financial information, which may include
`
`personal financial information if submitted by you in a survey on the Site
`
`• Geolocation
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Importantly, nowhere in Bloomberg.com’s Terms of Service or Privacy Policy is it
`
`disclosed that Defendant will share digital subscribers’ private and protected Personal Viewing
`
`Information with third parties, including Facebook.
`
`D.
`
`How Bloomberg.com Disseminates Digital Subscribers’ Personal Viewing
`Information
`
`1.
`
`Tracking Pixels
`
`29. Websites and apps use Facebook’s pixel and SDK to collect information about
`
`user’s devices and activities and send that to Facebook. Facebook then uses that information to
`
`show the user targeted ads.
`
`30.
`
`The Facebook tracking pixel, also known as a “tag” or “web beacon” among other
`
`names, is an invisible tool that tracks consumers’ actions on Facebook advertisers’ websites and
`
`reports them to Facebook. It is a version of the social plugin that gets “rendered” with code from
`
`Facebook. To obtain the code for the pixel, the website advertiser tells Facebook which website
`
`events it wants to track (e.g., Video Media) and Facebook returns corresponding Facebook pixel
`
`code for the advertiser to incorporate into its website.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant installed the Facebook tracking pixel, which enables it to disclose
`
`Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Personal Viewing Information to Facebook, because it benefits
`
`financially from the advertising and information services that stem from use of the pixel. When a
`
`Bloomberg.com digital subscriber enters the website and watches Video Media on the website, the
`
`website sends to Facebook certain information about the viewer, including, but not limited to, their
`
`identity and the media content the digital subscriber watched. Specifically, Bloomberg.com sends
`
`to Facebook the video content name, its URL, and, most notably, the viewers’ Facebook ID.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`2.
`
`32.
`
`Facebook ID (“FID”)
`
`An FID is a unique and persistent identifier that Facebook assigns to each user.
`
`With it, anyone ordinary person can look up the user’s Facebook profile and name. When a
`
`Facebook user with one or more personally identifiable FID cookies on his or her browser views
`
`Video Media from Bloomberg.com on the website or app, Bloomberg.com, through its website
`
`code, causes the digital subscriber’s identity and viewed Video Media to be transmitted to
`
`Facebook by the user’s browser. This transmission is not the digital subscriber’s decision, but
`
`results from Defendant’s purposeful use of its Facebook tracking pixel by incorporation of that
`
`pixel and code into Bloomberg.com’s website or App. Defendant could easily program the website
`
`and app so that this information is not automatically transmitted to Facebook when a subscriber
`
`views Video Media. However, it is not Defendant’s financial interest to do so because it benefits
`
`financially by providing this highly sought-after information.
`
`33.
`
`Notably, while Facebook can easily identify any individual on its Facebook
`
`platform with only their unique FID, so too can any ordinary person who comes into possession
`
`of an FID. Facebook admits as much on its website. Indeed, ordinary persons who come into
`
`possession of the FID can connect to any Facebook profile. Simply put, with only an FID and the
`
`video content name and URL—all of which Defendant knowingly and readily provides to
`
`Facebook without any consent from the digital subscribers—any ordinary person could learn the
`
`identity of the digital subscriber and the specific video or media content they requested on
`
`Bloomberg.com website.
`
`34.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant knew that the Facebook pixel disclosed Personal
`
`Viewing Information to Facebook. This was evidenced from, among other things, the functionality
`
`of the pixel, including that it enabled Bloomberg.com’s website and app to show targeted
`
`advertising to its digital subscriber’s based on the products those digital subscriber’s had
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`previously viewed on the website or app, including Video Media purchases, for which Defendant
`
`received financial remuneration.
`
`E.
`
`Bloomberg.com Unlawfully Discloses Its Digital Subscribers’ Personal Viewing
`Information to Facebook
`
`35.
`
`Defendant maintains a vast digital database comprised of its digital subscribers’
`
`Personal Viewing Information, including the names and e-mail addresses of each digital subscriber
`
`and information reflecting the Video Media that each of its digital subscribers viewed.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant is not sharing anonymized, non-personally identifiable data with
`
`Facebook. To the contrary, the data it discloses is tied to unique identifiers that track specific
`
`Facebook users. Importantly, the recipient of the Personal Viewing Information—Facebook—
`
`receives the Personal Viewing Information as one data point. Defendant has thus monetized its
`
`database by disclosing its digital subscribers’ Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in a
`
`manner allowing it to make a direct connection—without the consent of its digital subscribers and
`
`to the detriment of their legally protected privacy rights.
`
`37.
`
`Critically, the Personal Viewing Information Defendant discloses to Facebook
`
`allows Facebook to build from scratch or cross-reference and add to the data it already has in their
`
`own detailed profiles for its own users, adding to its trove of personally identifiable data.
`
`38.
`
`These factual allegations are corroborated by publicly available evidence. For
`
`instance, as shown in the screenshot below, a user visits Bloomberg.com website and clicks on an
`
`article titled “How I Got Here: Michael Phelps” and watches the video in the article.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As demonstrated below, once the user clicks on and watches the video in the article,
`
`39.
`
`Bloomberg.com sends the content name of the video the digital subscriber watched, the URL, and
`
`
`
`the digital subscriber’s FID to Facebook.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s data compiling and sharing practices, Defendant has
`
`knowingly disclosed to Facebook for its own personal profit the Personal Viewing Information of
`
`Defendant’s digital subscribers, together with additional sensitive personal information.
`
`41.
`
`Defendant does not seek its digital subscribers’ prior written consent to the
`
`disclosure of their Personal Viewing Information (in writing or otherwise) and its customers
`
`remain unaware that their Personal Viewing Information and other sensitive data is being disclosed
`
`to Facebook.
`
`42.
`
`By disclosing its digital subscribers Personal Viewing Information to Facebook—
`
`which undeniably reveals their identity and the specific video materials they requested from
`
`Defendant’s website —Defendant has intentionally and knowingly violated the VPPA.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
`F.
`
`Disclosing Personal Viewing Information is Not Necessary
`
`43.
`
`Tracking pixels are not necessary for Defendant to operate Bloomberg.com’s digital
`
`news publications and sign-up digital subscriptions. They are deployed on Defendant’s website
`
`for the sole purpose of enriching Defendant and Facebook.
`
`44.
`
`Even if an on-line news publication found it useful to integrate Facebook tracking
`
`pixels, Defendant is not required to disclose Personal Viewing Information to Facebook. In any
`
`event, if Defendant wanted to do so, it must first comply with the strict requirements of VPPA,
`
`which it failed to do. As noted above, even Facebook forbids the disclosure of such information
`
`without first complying specifically with the VPPA (and relevant state laws).
`
`G.
`
`Plaintiff’s Experience
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff was a paid digital subscriber of Bloomberg.com from approximately
`
`February of 2021 until approximately May 2021. Plaintiff became a paid digital subscriber of
`
`Bloomberg.com by providing, among other information, his name, address, email address, IP
`
`address (which informs Defendant as to the city and zip code he resides in as well as his physical
`
`location), payment card information and any cookies associated with his device. As part of his
`
`subscription, he received Video Media, emails and other news from Bloomberg.com.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff has had a Facebook account since approximately July 2009. From
`
`February 2021 until approximately May 2021, Plaintiff viewed Video Media via Bloomberg.com’s
`
`website and App.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff never consented, agreed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Defendant to
`
`disclose his Personal Viewing Information to Facebook. Plaintiff has never been provided any
`
`written notice that Defendant discloses its digital subscribers’ Personal Viewing Information, or
`
`any means of opting out of such disclosures of his Personal Viewing Information. Defendant
`
`nonetheless knowingly disclosed Plaintiff’s Personal Viewing Information to Facebook.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`48.
`
`Because Plaintiff is entitled by law to privacy in his Personal Viewing Information,
`
`Defendant’s disclosure of his Personal Viewing Information deprived Plaintiff of the full set of
`
`benefits to which he was entitled as part of being a Bloomberg.com digital subscriber.
`
`V.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated as
`
`a class action under Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on
`
`behalf of the following class (the “Class”):
`
`All persons in the United States with a digital subscription to an
`online website owned and/or operated by Defendant that had their
`Personal Viewing Information disclosed to Facebook by Defendant.
`
`50.
`
`Excluded from the Class are Defendant, their past or current officers, directors,
`
`affiliates, legal representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns and any entity in which any of
`
`them have a controlling interest, as well as all judicial officers assigned to this case as defined in
`
`28 USC § 455(b) and their immediate families.
`
`51.
`
`Numerosity. Members of the Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed
`
`that joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable. Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds
`
`of thousands of members of the Class widely dispersed throughout the United States. Class
`
`members can be identified from Defendant’s records and non-party Facebook’s records.
`
`52.
`
`Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of members of the Class.
`
`Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the same wrongful conduct by Defendant in
`
`that Defendant caused Personal Viewing Information to be disclosed to Facebook without
`
`obtaining express written consent. His claims are based on the same legal theories as the claims of
`
`other Class members.
`
`53.
`
`Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of
`
`the members of the Class. Plaintiff’s interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 16 of 21
`
`
`
`of the members of the Class. Plaintiff is represented by counsel with experience in the prosecution
`
`of class action litigation generally and in the emerging field of digital privacy litigation
`
`specifically.
`
`54.
`
`Commonality. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class
`
`predominate over questions that may affect only individual members of the Class because
`
`Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class. Such generally applicable
`
`conduct is inherent in Defendant’s wrongful conduct. Questions of law and fact common to the
`
`Classes include:
`
`(a) Whether Defendant knowingly disclosed Class members’ Personal Viewing
`
`Information to Facebook;
`
`(b) Whether the information disclosed to Facebook concerning Class members’
`
`Personal Viewing
`
`Information constitutes personally
`
`identifiable
`
`information under the VPPA;
`
`(c) Whether Defendant’s disclosure of Class members’ Personal Viewing
`
`Information to Facebook was knowing under the VPPA;
`
`(d) Whether Class members consented to Defendant’s disclosure of their
`
`Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in the manner required by 18
`
`U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(B); and
`
`(e) Whether the Class is entitled to damages as a result of Defendant’s conduct.
`
`55.
`
`Superiority. Class action treatment is a superior method for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of the controversy. Such treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated
`
`persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and
`
`without the unnecessary duplication of evidence, effort, or expense that numerous individual
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 17 of 21
`
`
`
`actions would engender. The benefits of proceeding through the class mechanism, including
`
`providing injured persons or entities a method for obtaining redress on claims that could not
`
`practicably be pursued individually, substantially outweighs potential difficulties in management
`
`of this class action. Plaintiff knows of no special difficulty to be encountered in litigating this
`
`action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.
`
`VI. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2710
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth
`
`56.
`
`herein.
`
`57.
`
`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.
`
`58.
`
`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.”
`
`59.
`
`Defendant 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 that are similar to
`
`prerecorded video cassette tapes and those sales affect interstate or foreign commerce.
`
`60.
`
`As defined in 18 U.S.C. §2710(a)(3), “personally-identifiable information” is
`
`defined to include “information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific
`
`video materials or services from a video tape service provider.”
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 18 of 21
`
`
`
`61.
`
`Defendant knowingly caused Personal Viewing Information, including FIDs,
`
`concerning Plaintiff and Class members to be disclosed to Facebook. This information constitutes
`
`personally identifiable information under 18 U.S.C. §2710(a)(3) because it identified each Plaintiff
`
`and Class member to Facebook as an individual who viewed Bloomberg.com Video Media,
`
`including the specific video materials requested from the website.
`
`62.
`
`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.” As alleged in the preceding
`
`paragraphs, Plaintiff subscribed to a digital Bloomberg.com plan that provides Video Media
`
`content to the digital subscriber’s desktop, tablet, and mobile device. Plaintiff is thus a “consumer”
`
`under this definition.
`
`63.
`
`As set forth in 18 U.S.C. §27109(b)(2)(B), “informed, written consent” must be (1)
`
`in a form distinct and separate from any form setting forth other legal or financial obligations of
`
`the consumer; and (2) at the election of the consumer, is either given at the time the disclosure is
`
`sought or given in advance for a set period of time not to exceed two years or until consent is
`
`withdrawn by the consumer, whichever is sooner.” Defendant failed to obtain informed, written
`
`consent under this definition.
`
`64.
`
`In addition, the VPPA creates an opt-out right for consumers in 18 U.S.C. §
`
`2710(2)(B)(iii). It requires video tape service providers to also “provide[] an opportunity for the
`
`consumer to withdraw on a case-by-case basis or to withdraw from ongoing disclosures, at the
`
`consumer’s election.” Defendant failed to provide an opportunity to opt out as required by the
`
`VPPA.
`
`65.
`
`Defendant knew that these disclosures identified Plaintiff and Class members to
`
`Facebook. Defendant also knew that Plaintiff’s and Class members’ Personal Viewing Information
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 19 of 21
`
`
`
`was disclosed to Facebook because, inter alia, Defendant chose, programmed, and intended for
`
`Facebook to receive the video content name, its URL, and, most notably, the digital subscribers’
`
`FID.
`
`66.
`
`By disclosing Plaintiff’s and the Class’s Personal Viewing Information, Defendant
`
`violated Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ statutorily protected right to privacy in their video-
`
`watching habits. See 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c).
`
`67.
`
`As a result of the above violations, Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff and other
`
`Class members for actual damages related to their loss of privacy in an amount to be determined
`
`at trial or alternatively for “liquidated damages not less than $2,500 per plaintiff.” Under the
`
`statute, Defendant is also liable for reasonable attorney’s fees, and other litigation costs, injunctive
`
`and declaratory relief, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury, but sufficient
`
`to prevent the same or similar conduct by the Defendant in the future.
`
`VII. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`68.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed Class, respectfully
`
`requests that this Court:
`
`(a)
`
`Determine that this action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to
`
`Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and direct that reasonable
`
`notice of this action, as provided by Rule 23(c)(2), be given to the Class, and declare Plaintiff as
`
`the representative of the Class;
`
`(b)
`
`For an order declaring that Defendant’s conduct as described herein violates
`
`the federal VPPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c)(2)(D);
`
`(c)
`
`For Defendant to pay $2,500.00 to Plaintiff and each Class member, as
`
`provided by the VPPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c)(2)(A);
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-07015 Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 20 of 21
`
`
`
`(d)
`
`For punitive damages, as warranted, in an amount to be determined at trial,
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2710(c)(2)(B);
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded;
`
`For an order of restitut