Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page1 of 51
`
`
`23-1147
`
`
`
`I n T h e
`
`United States Court Of Appeals
`For T he Secon d Circu it
`
`MICHAEL SALAZAR,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION,
`Defendant-Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`G i b s o n M o o r e A p p e l l a t e S e r v i c e s , L L C
`2 0 6 E a s t C a r y S t r e e t
`♦ P . O . B o x 1 4 6 0 ( 2 3 2 1 8 )
`♦ R i c h m o n d , V A
`8 0 4 - 2 4 9 - 7 7 7 0 ♦ w w w . g i b s o n m o o r e . n e t
`
`
`
`2 3 2 1 9
`
`
`
`
`APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK CITY)
`The Honorable Jennifer Louise Rochon, U.S. District Judge
`NO. 0208-1 : 22-CV-7935
`
`_______________
`
`BRIEF OF APPELLANT
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joshua I. Hammack
`Michael L. Murphy
`BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
`1055 Thomas Jefferson
`Street, NW
`Suite 540
`Washington, DC 20007
`(202) 463-2101
`
`Counsel for Appellant
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page2 of 51
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page:
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iii
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ........................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................................... 1
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................... 4
`
`The Complaint ................................................................................................. 4
`
`The NBA’s Motion to Dismiss ......................................................................... 7
`
`The District Court’s Opinion ........................................................................... 9
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 12
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 15
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 16
`
`I. Mr. Salazar Is a “Subscriber of Goods or Services from a Video
`Tape Service Provider.” ....................................................................... 18
`
`The broad statutory phrase “goods or services” plainly
`includes the NBA’s online newsletter ....................................... 20
`
`In holding that Mr. Salazar was not a “consumer,” the
`district court
`improperly narrowed
`the
`statute’s
`unambiguous language .............................................................. 26
`
`Even if the term “goods or services” were intended to
`mean only audio-visual goods or services, the NBA’s
`newsletter would qualify ........................................................... 31
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page3 of 51
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The court compounded these legal errors by denying
`Mr. Salazar leave to amend ....................................................... 33
`
`The district court’s analysis overlooks the statutory
`correlation between “subscriber” in Section 2710(a)(1)
`and “delivery” in Section 2710(a)(4) ........................................ 35
`
`II.
`
`The NBA’s Other Arguments Below Do Not Alter These
`Conclusions ......................................................................................... 37
`
`A. Mr. Salazar suffered a concrete injury-in-fact based on
`the disclosure of his private information .................................. 38
`
`B.
`
`The district court should address the NBA’s remaining
`arguments in the first instance on remand ................................ 40
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 41
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a) ....................................... 42
`
`CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE.......................................................... 43
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page4 of 51
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s):
`
`Cases:
`
`Alex v. NFL Enterprises LLC,
`No. 1:22-cv-09239, 2023 WL 6294260 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2023) .............. 11
`
`Ark. Tchr. Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc.,
`11 F.4th 138 (2d Cir. 2021) ............................................................................ 40
`
`Auburn Hous. Auth. v. Martinez,
`277 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2002) ........................................................................... 16
`
`Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co.,
`534 U.S. 438 (2002)................................................................................. 18, 25
`
`BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States,
`541 U.S. 176 (2004)................................................................................passim
`
`Bensch v. Estate of Umar,
`2 F.4th 70 (2d Cir. 2021) ................................................................................ 16
`
`Buechler v. Gannett Co., Inc.,
`No. CV 22-1464, 2023 WL 6389447 (D. Del. Oct. 2, 2023) ........................ 22
`
`Carroll v. Gen. Mills, Inc.,
`No. CV231746, 2023 WL 6373868 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2023) ...................... 11
`
`Carter v. Scripps Networks, LLC,
`--- F.Supp.3d ---, No. 22-cv-02031, 2023 WL 3061858
`(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2023) ........................................................................passim
`
`City of Pontiac Gen. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. MBIA, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 15
`
`Cruz-Miguel v. Holder,
`650 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 25
`
`Ct. Nat’l Bank v. Germain,
`503 U.S. 249 (1992)................................................................................. 19, 24
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page5 of 51
`
`DiPierre v. U.S.,
`564 U.S. 70 (2011) ......................................................................................... 24
`
`Ellis v. Cartoon Network, Inc.,
`803 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 17
`
`El Omari v. Int’l Crim. Police Org.,
`35 F.4th 83 (2d Cir. 2022) .............................................................................. 21
`
`Faehner v. Webcollex, LLC,
`No. 21-1734, 2022 WL 5000454 (2d Cir. Feb. 18, 2022) ............................. 38
`
`Fisher v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,
`32 F.4th 124 (2d Cir. 2022) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Foman v. Davis,
`371 U.S. 178 (1962)................................................................................. 33, 34
`
`Gardener v. MeTV,
`No. 22 CV 5963, 2023 WL 4365901 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2023) ....................... 11
`
`Golden v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC,
`No. 22 CIV 9858, 2023 WL 5434378 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2023) ................. 11
`
`Harris v. Pub. Broad. Serv.,
`No. 1:22-cv-2456, 2023 WL 2583118 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2023) ................. 27
`
`Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.,
`582 U.S. 79 (2017)................................................................................... 24, 25
`
`Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enf’t,
`543 U.S. 335 (2005)....................................................................................... 23
`
`King v. Burwell,
`576 U.S. 473 (2015)....................................................................................... 35
`
`Lamb v. Forbes Media LLC,
`No. 22-cv-06319, 2023 WL 6318033 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2023) ................. 11
`
`Lamie v. U.S. Trustee,
`540 U.S. 526 (2004)................................................................................. 19, 22
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page6 of 51
`
`Lebakken v. WebMD, LLC,
`640 F. Supp. 3d 1335 (N.D. Ga. 2022) .......................................................... 22
`
`Markels v. AARP,
`No. 4:22-cv-5499, 2023 WL 6411720 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2023) ................ 11
`
`Mendez v. Barr,
`960 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2020) ............................................................................. 25
`
`Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 40—41
`
`Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth.,
`566 U.S. 449 (2012)....................................................................................... 25
`
`Novak v. Kasaks,
`216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2000) ............................................................. 18, 25—26
`
`Nwozuzu v. Holder,
`726 F.3d 323 (2d Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 18
`
`Panther Partners Inc. v. Ikanos Commc’ns, Inc.,
`681 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 16
`
`Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.,
`469 U.S. 189 (1985)....................................................................................... 20
`
`Power Auth. v. M/V Ellen S. Bouchard,
`968 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2020) ..................................................................... 25, 31
`
`Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.,
`519 U.S. 337 (1997)..................................................................... 18, 19, 23, 25
`
`Ronzani v. Sanofi S.A.,
`899 F.2d 195 (2d Cir. 1990) ........................................................................... 34
`
`Ryder Energy Distrib. Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities Inc.,
`748 F.2d 774 (2d Cir. 1984) ........................................................................... 34
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page7 of 51
`
`Salazar v. Global,
`No. 3:22-cv-00756, 2023 WL 4611819 (M.D. Tenn. July 18, 2023) ............ 11
`
`Salazar v. National Basketball Ass’n,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2023 WL 5016968 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2023) ..................... 4
`
`Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp.,
`571 U.S. 220 (2014)....................................................................................... 20
`
`Singleton v. Wulff,
`428 U.S. 106 (1976)....................................................................................... 40
`
`Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,
`542 U.S. 692 (2004)....................................................................................... 25
`
`Spokeo v. Robins,
`578 U.S. 330 (2016)....................................................................................... 39
`
`Tawam v. Feld Ent. Inc.,
`No. 23-cv-357, 2023 WL 5599007 (S.D. Cal. July 28, 2023) ....................... 11
`
`TransUnion v. Ramirez,
`141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) ............................................................................passim
`
`United States v. Gomez,
`877 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2017) ............................................................................. 40
`
`United States v. Maria,
`186 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1999) ............................................................................. 24
`
`Wisc. Cent. Ltd. v. United States,
`138 S. Ct. 2067 (2018) ............................................................................. 20, 24
`
`Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.,
`820 F.3d 482 (1st Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Zepeda-Lopez v. Garland,
`38 F.4th 315 (2d Cir. 2022) ............................................................................ 18
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page8 of 51
`
`Statutes:
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2710 ...............................................................................................passim
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`Constitutional Provisions:
`
`U.S. CONST. art. III ............................................................................................passim
`
`Rules:
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 15 ...................................................................................................... 14
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2) ............................................................................................. 33
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019) ............................................................ 21
`
`NBAGAMEWORN.NBA.COM, LeBron James – Purple Statement Edition –
`Worn 2 Games – 3/31/23 & 4/2/23 (Recorded a Triple-Double),
`https://nbagameworn.nba.com/iSynApp/productDisplay.action?
`sid=1101561&productId=2582409 (last visited October 30, 2023) ........................ 29
`
`THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2d ed. 1989) .................................................. 21
`
`THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (3d ed. 2014) .................................................. 21
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page9 of 51
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`The district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s single-count
`
`lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because his claim arises under federal law—namely,
`
`the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710. The district court granted
`
`Defendant’s motion to dismiss on August 7, 2023, and entered the corresponding
`
`judgment on August 8, 2023. JA.191, JA.213. Two days later, on August 10, 2023,
`
`Plaintiff timely filed a notice of appeal. JA.214. This Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction to review the district court’s final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`The Video Privacy Protection Act defines the term “consumer” to include a
`
`“subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” This appeal
`
`presents the following questions, the first of which—if answered in the affirmative—
`
`is dispositive:
`
`1. Whether the broad statutory term “goods or services” includes an online
`
`newsletter;
`
`2. Whether, as the district court held, Congress intended “goods or services”
`
`to mean only “audio-visual goods or services”;
`
`3. Whether, even if it did, an online newsletter with a curated list of links to
`
`video content qualifies as an “audio-visual good[] or service[]”;
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page10 of 51
`
`4. Whether, if it does not, Plaintiff should have been granted leave to amend
`
`his complaint—for the first time—in response to the court’s concerns; and
`
`5. Whether the statutory term “subscriber” should be read in conjunction with
`
`the correlated term “delivery” such that anyone who accepts delivery of
`
`video content is a “consumer.”
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`At bottom, this appeal presents a single, straightforward issue—namely,
`
`whether an online newsletter falls within the broad, all-inclusive category of “goods
`
`or services.” It does. In this case, that reality comes with consequences. The Video
`
`Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) defines “consumer” to include a “subscriber of
`
`goods or services from a video tape service provider.” Here, everyone agrees the
`
`National Basketball Association (“NBA”) is a “video tape service provider.”
`
`Likewise, everyone agrees Michael Salazar is a subscriber of the NBA’s online
`
`newsletter. Accordingly, by the VPPA’s plain text, he is a “consumer.”
`
`
`
`The only way to conclude otherwise is to rewrite the statute’s unambiguous
`
`language. And that is exactly what the district court did here. Without determining
`
`that any statutory term was ambiguous, the court held an individual qualifies as a
`
`VPPA “consumer” only if he subscribes to audio-visual goods or services. The
`
`statute simply does not contain this limitation. The order dismissing Mr. Salazar’s
`
`claim for failure to meet this nonexistent requirement was wrong as a matter of law.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page11 of 51
`
`
`
`Of course, even if the statute contained this limitation, the NBA’s newsletter
`
`would still qualify. The newsletter contains a curated list of links to videos on
`
`NBA.com, directs subscribers to that content, and encourages and entices them to
`
`watch it. Put simply, the newsletter makes the NBA’s videos easier to find and more
`
`convenient to view. Accordingly, it gives subscribers enhanced access to that video
`
`content. Again, the district court’s contrary conclusion was wrong as a matter of law.
`
`
`
`To the extent Mr. Salazar’s initial complaint did not make these realities
`
`sufficiently clear, he should have been granted leave to amend. At the very least, he
`
`presented a colorable basis to conclude that the newsletter may meet the district
`
`court’s reinterpreted standard. Under Rule 15, no more is required. On this front as
`
`well, the district court erred as a matter of law. And leave to amend was particularly
`
`appropriate here, given that the court’s order imposed a series of requirements and
`
`limitations found nowhere in the statute’s text.
`
`
`
`As a final point, the court ignored the downstream effects of its limiting
`
`construction. In particular, its narrow interpretation of “goods or services” rendered
`
`another statutory term—namely, “subscriber”—ambiguous. The VPPA contains
`
`somewhat symmetrical definitions of “consumer” (i.e., a “renter, purchaser, or
`
`subscriber” of certain materials) and “video tape service provider” (i.e., one engaged
`
`in the “rental, sale, or delivery” of certain materials). If these definitions refer to the
`
`same underlying content, as the court concluded here, their structure suggests that
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page12 of 51
`
`“subscriber” should be read to include all who accept “delivery” of that content. On
`
`this view, because Mr. Salazar watched videos on NBA.com, he was a “subscriber”
`
`of that delivered video content and, thus, a “consumer” under the VPPA.
`
`
`
`For any of these reasons, or for all of them together, the order granting the
`
`NBA’s motion to dismiss should be reversed. At the very least, Mr. Salazar should
`
`be granted leave to amend.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`In this lawsuit, Michael Salazar alleges the NBA violated the VPPA by
`
`disclosing his and others’ personally identifiable information to Facebook without
`
`first obtaining consent. JA.7 (¶ 1). The NBA filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
`
`JA.31–61. The Honorable Jennifer L. Rochon, District Judge for the Southern
`
`District of New York, granted the NBA’s motion with prejudice, holding Mr. Salazar
`
`does not meet the statutory definition of a “consumer.” JA.191–212. The opinion can
`
`be found at Salazar v. National Basketball Ass’n, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL
`
`5016968 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2023). This appeal ensued.
`
`The Complaint
`
`On September 16, 2022, Mr. Salazar filed a lawsuit against the NBA for
`
`alleged violations of the VPPA. JA.7–26. In particular, he alleged the NBA
`
`intentionally installed the Facebook Pixel—a piece of code—on NBA.com. JA.8,
`
`JA.15–16 (¶¶ 4, 31–33). This invidious bit of code tracks when users enter the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page13 of 51
`
`website and what they do there, including when they view video content. Id. Without
`
`obtaining consent, the NBA then disclosed that video-watching history, along with
`
`users’ Facebook IDs, to Facebook. JA.7–8, JA.15 (¶¶ 1, 4–5, 30). Any ordinary
`
`person can use the disclosed Facebook IDs “to quickly and easily locate, access, and
`
`view digital subscribers’ corresponding Facebook profile.” JA.8, JA.16 (¶¶ 5, 34).
`
`And the NBA “profit[ed] handsomely from its unauthorized disclosure[s],” all at the
`
`expense of its consumers’ “statutorily protected privacy rights.” JA.8–9 (¶¶ 6, 8).
`
`Through NBA.com and an app, the NBA “delivers and . . . is in the business
`
`of delivering countless hours of video content.” JA.10 (¶ 13.g). Mr. Salazar has a
`
`“digital subscription to NBA.com.” JA.10, JA.19 (¶¶ 12, 46). To obtain it, he
`
`“sign[ed] up for an online newsletter.” JA.12 (¶ 20). During the registration process,
`
`the NBA required Mr. Salazar to provide certain personal information, including his
`
`e-mail address and his IP address (i.e., a unique number assigned to devices that
`
`reveals the user’s “city, zip code and physical location”). JA.12–13, JA.19 (¶¶ 20,
`
`22, 46). The NBA “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.” JA.17 (¶ 36).
`
`After becoming a digital subscriber, Mr. Salazar had access to a variety of
`
`NBA.com content, including a broad array of video content. JA.10, JA.13 (¶¶ 13.e,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page14 of 51
`
`25). Mr. Salazar “used his NBA.com digital subscription to view Video Media
`
`through NBA.com . . . while logged into his Facebook account.” JA.10 (¶ 12). As a
`
`result, the NBA disclosed his personally identifiable information—including his
`
`Facebook ID and which videos he watched—to Facebook. JA.10, JA.15, JA.17,
`
`JA.19, JA.23, JA.24 (¶¶ 12, 30, 32, 37, 43, 62, 66). The disclosures occur
`
`automatically as the result of the Facebook Pixel the NBA installed on its website.
`
`JA.15–16 (¶ 33). The NBA never informed Mr. Salazar that it would disclose this
`
`material to third parties, nor did Mr. Salazar consent to these disclosures. JA.10,
`
`JA.12–13, JA.15, JA.19–20, JA.23 (¶¶ 12, 19, 24, 26, 29, 42, 48, 64).
`
`Accordingly, the NBA “knowingly disclosed to Facebook for its own personal
`
`profit the Personal Viewing Information of [its] digital subscribers,” including
`
`Mr. Salazar, “together with additional sensitive personal information.” JA.19 (¶ 41).
`
`Facebook and the NBA then used this information to create and display targeted
`
`advertising, for which each “received financial remuneration.” JA.16 (¶ 35). In this
`
`way, the NBA “monetized its database by disclosing subscribers’ Personal Viewing
`
`Information to Facebook.” JA.17 (¶ 37). Further, the Facebook Pixel is entirely
`
`unnecessary to NBA.com’s general operation; it exists and is “deployed . . . for the
`
`sole purpose of enriching [the NBA] and Facebook.” JA.19 (¶ 44).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page15 of 51
`
`The NBA’s Motion to Dismiss
`
`On December 2, 2022, the NBA filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
`
`JA.31–61. It argued Mr. Salazar lacked Article III standing because he did not suffer
`
`an injury-in-fact. JA.45–49. Here, relying on its view that TransUnion v. Ramirez,
`
`141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), fundamentally transformed standing jurisprudence, the NBA
`
`argued that its alleged disclosures did not cause Mr. Salazar “any discernable real-
`
`world injury.” JA.45. It argued Mr. Salazar did not allege any monetary loss and
`
`failed to offer “a credible theory of intangible harm,” which it viewed as limited to
`
`“reputational damage or embarrassment.” JA.47. Instead, it argued, Mr. Salazar
`
`alleged only that the NBA’s unauthorized disclosures “resulted in Facebook learning
`
`something truthful about him.” Id. And it argued, based on general First Amendment
`
`principles, that truthful communications are “generally lawful.” Id.
`
`The NBA also argued that Mr. Salazar failed to state a claim because he did
`
`not adequately allege he was a “consumer.” JA.49–52. Here, the NBA argued that
`
`Mr. Salazar was not a “renter, purchaser, or subscriber” of “video tape services” from
`
`the NBA. JA.38; see also JA.49 (arguing Mr. Salazar “does not actually subscribe to
`
`any video goods or services from NBA.com”). It pointed out that Mr. Salazar’s
`
`subscription to the newsletter was not “necessary to access the video content he
`
`viewed.” JA.39; see also JA.51 (arguing the e-mail newsletter was “distinct and set
`
`apart from [the NBA’s] video services”). Thus, the NBA argued, Mr. Salazar was not
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page16 of 51
`
`“a ‘subscriber’ of ‘prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials’
`
`from NBA.com.” JA.50. Instead, the NBA conceded, Mr. Salazar subscribed to an
`
`e-mail newsletter created by the NBA and distributed through NBA.com. Id.1
`
`In response, Mr. Salazar argued he has Article III standing because the NBA
`
`disclosed his personal information, without his consent, to a third party. JA.113–117.
`
`He noted that, in the privacy context, the disclosure of personal information—not its
`
`untruthfulness—causes a cognizable injury. JA.115. And, he concluded, the NBA’s
`
`unauthorized disclosures permitted Facebook to use his “private information . . . in
`
`ways [he] would not have allowed.” JA.117.
`
`Mr. Salazar also pointed out that the NBA’s arguments about his status as a
`
`“consumer” rewrote the statute by requiring him to subscribe to “video goods or
`
`services” (i.e., the NBA’s formulation) instead of simply “goods or services from a
`
`video tape service provider” (i.e., the statute’s language). JA.117–119. By
`
`subscribing to the NBA’s newsletter, Mr. Salazar argued, he had subscribed to the
`
`
`1 The NBA made three additional arguments in its motion to dismiss. First, it argued
`it did not “knowingly disclose” Mr. Salazar’s personally identifiable information
`because his device, not the NBA, actually sent the information to Facebook. JA.52–
`55. Second, it argued that, even if it knowingly disclosed Mr. Salazar’s personally
`identifiable information, he consented to such disclosures by using NBA.com.
`JA.55–59. Third, it argued Mr. Salazar’s class allegations should be dismissed based
`on a waiver contained in its Terms of Use, to which Mr. Salazar supposedly
`consented merely by using NBA.com. JA.59–61. As discussed below, the district
`court did not address, let alone resolve, any of these fact-bound arguments. See infra
`Part II.B. This Court should not resolve them in the first instance and should, instead,
`permit the district court to resolve them, if necessary, on remand. See id.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page17 of 51
`
`“goods or services” of the NBA, which is a “video tape service provider.” Id.
`
`Because the statute requires no more, he argued, he was a “consumer” under the
`
`statute. Id.
`
`The District Court’s Opinion
`
`On August 7, 2023, the district court denied the NBA’s “motion to dismiss for
`
`lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (‘Rule’) 12(b)(1)” but
`
`granted “its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).”
`
`JA.191. It began by addressing Mr. Salazar’s standing. JA.198–204. It noted that the
`
`“disclosure of private information is a harm that courts have traditionally considered
`
`to be redressable.” JA.201 (quoting Carter v. Scripps Networks, LLC, ---
`
`F.Supp.3d ----, No. 22-cv-02031, 2023 WL 3061858, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24,
`
`2023)). And it observed that TransUnion—the case the NBA believed transformed
`
`standing jurisprudence—“specifically mentioned ‘disclosure of private information’
`
`as one of the intangible harms that was historically recognized as a legal injury.” Id.
`
`(quoting TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. at 2204). Likening his concrete injury to the one an
`
`individual suffers in a claim for intrusion upon seclusion, the court confirmed that
`
`Mr. Salazar has Article III standing to pursue his VPPA claim. JA.201–204.
`
`With respect to the failure-to-state-a-claim argument, however, the court held
`
`that Mr. Salazar was not a “consumer” under the VPPA. JA.204–210. It began by
`
`defining “subscriber” as one with an ongoing “commitment, relationship, or
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page18 of 51
`
`association (financial or otherwise)” with a given entity. JA.205–206. It then noted
`
`that the statutory definition of “consumer” refers to “the key phrase ‘video tape
`
`service provider,’” which also appears in the statute’s liability clause. JA.206. As a
`
`result, the court concluded that one could qualify as a “consumer” only by renting,
`
`purchasing, or subscribing to a video tape service provider’s “audio visual material,
`
`not just any products or services from a video tape services provider.” JA.207.
`
`To support this conclusion, the court relied heavily on Carter v. Scripps
`
`Networks, LLC, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 3061858 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2023).
`
`JA.207–209. In that case, decided approximately four months earlier, a different
`
`judge in the Southern District of New York concluded that, “[i]n the [VPPA’s] full
`
`context, a reasonable reader would understand the definition of ‘consumer’ to apply
`
`to a renter, purchaser or subscriber of audio-visual goods or services, and not goods
`
`or services writ large.” Carter, 2023 WL 3061858, at *6; see also JA.207 (quoting
`
`this holding). In the Carter court’s view, the statutory definition of “consumer” was
`
`“cabined by the definition of ‘video tape service provider,’ with its focus on the
`
`rental, sale or delivery of audio visual materials.” Id. Thus, according to the Carter
`
`court, and repeated by the district court here, “the VPPA ‘provides for an action by
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page19 of 51
`
`a renter, purchaser [or] subscriber of audio visual materials, and not a broader
`
`category of consumers.” JA.207 (quoting Carter, 2023 WL 3061858, at *6).2
`
`Put simply, then, the district court here granted the NBA’s motion to dismiss
`
`because Mr. Salazar “d[id] not plausibly allege that he was a subscriber of [the
`
`NBA’s] video services.” JA.208. It agreed Mr. Salazar subscribed to NBA.com’s
`
`online newsletter but noted that the complaint “does not allege that the newsletters
`
`contained videos,” nor that “a user must log in to watch the video [content on
`
`NBA.com],” nor that “the video content he accessed was exclusive to a
`
`subscribership.” Id. Once again, the court leaned on Carter:
`
`Again, the Court agrees with the Carter court’s analysis that reviewed
`a similar newsletter arrangement with a website. There, the court
`observed that “[t]he newsletters may entice or encourage recipients to
`view hgtv.com videos, but there is no assertion that a newsletter
`subscription was required to access those videos, functioned as a login,
`or gave newsletter subscribers extra benefits as viewers.” Carter, 2023
`WL 3061858, at *6. Thus, because the complaint did not support a
`claim that the “the plaintiffs acted as ‘subscribers’ when they viewed
`
`2 Carter appears to have been the first to offer this reading of “goods or services.”
`Since Carter was decided, however, several other courts—including the district
`court here—have adopted its reasoning. See, e.g., Lamb v. Forbes Media LLC, No.
`22-cv-06319, 2023 WL 6318033, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2023); Alex v. NFL
`Enterprises LLC, No. 1:22-cv-09239, 2023 WL 6294260, at *3–4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
`27, 2023); Carroll v. Gen. Mills, Inc., No. CV231746, 2023 WL 6373868, at *4 (C.D.
`Cal. Sept. 1, 2023); Markels v. AARP, No. 4:22-cv-5499, 2023 WL 6411720, at *3
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2023); Golden v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, No. 22 CIV 9858,
`2023 WL 5434378, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2023); Tawam v. Feld Ent. Inc., No.
`23-cv-357, 2023 WL 5599007, at *5 (S.D. Cal. July 28, 2023); Salazar v. Global,
`No. 3:22-cv-00756, 2023 WL 4611819, at *11 (M.D. Tenn. July 18, 2023), appeal
`filed, No. 23-5748 (6th Cir. Aug. 21, 2023); Gardener v. MeTV, No. 22 CV 5963,
`2023 WL 4365901, at *4 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2023).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 23-1147, Document 42, 10/31/2023, 3586151, Page20 of 51
`
`the videos on the hgtv.com, it d[id] not plausibly allege they were
`‘consumers’ under the VPPA.” Id. at *7. The same result holds here.
`Plaintiff had the same access to videos on the NBA.com site as any
`other visitor to the site. See id. at *6 (“Plaintiffs were free to watch or
`not watch hgtv.com videos without any type of obligation, no different
`than any of the other 9.9 million monthly visitors to the site.”).
`
`JA.208–209 (alteration in original). In the district court’s view, then, Mr. Salazar was
`
`a “subscriber[] to newsletters, not [a] subscriber[] to audio visual materials.” JA.209
`
`(quoting Carter, 2023 WL 3061858, at *6) (alterations in original); see also JA.210
`
`(holding, on this basis, “that [Mr.