`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`ANGELA LUGO and ANDREW
`BRYNILDSON, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`888 SEVENTH AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01230 Document 1 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
` Plaintiffs Angela Lugo and Andrew Brynildson, individually and on behalf of all others
`
`similarly situated, by and through their attorneys, make the following allegations pursuant to the
`
`investigation of their counsel and based upon information and belief, except as to allegations
`
`specifically pertaining to themselves, which are based on personal knowledge.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a class action suit brought against Defendant Amazon.com Inc. (“Amazon”
`
`or “Defendant”) for its unlawful retention of Plaintiffs’ and its other New York and Minnesota
`
`customers’ personally identifiable information, including their names, addresses, credit card
`
`information, and video rental history in violation of the New York Video Consumer Privacy Act,
`
`N.Y. General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 670-675 (“NYVCPA”) and Minnesota’s M.S.A.
`
`§ 325I.01-03 (the “Minnesota Statute”).
`
`2.
`
`Amazon is a leading technology company that rents videos for streaming to
`
`consumers through its Amazon Prime Video platform.
`
`3.
`
`Amazon maintains a digital record system that details the rental histories of every
`
`customer that rents a video from Amazon.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Amazon also maintains records containing its customers’ billing addresses.
`
`As a result, Amazon maintains a digital dossier on millions of consumers
`
`throughout New York and Minnesota. These records contain not only its customers’ credit card
`
`numbers and billing/contact information, but also a detailed account of its customers’ video rental
`
`histories.
`
`6.
`
`In recognition of the fact that companies who rent digital media – like Amazon –
`
`must collect certain confidential and sensitive consumer information with respect to personal
`
`viewing habits, New York and Minnesota law requires such companies to “destroy personally
`
`identifiable information as soon as practicable.” GBL § 673(5); M.S.A. § 325I.02(6).
`
`7.
`
`However, in direct contravention of the protections afforded to New York and
`
`Minnesota consumers under the NYVCPA and the Minnesota Statute § 325I.02(6), Amazon
`
`maintains and stores its customers’ names, credit card numbers, billing and contact information,
`
`and most importantly, sensitive video rental histories for an indefinite period of time.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`888 SEVENTH AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01230 Document 1 Filed 09/01/22 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Accordingly, Amazon has knowingly retained the “personally identifiable
`
`information” and sensitive video rental histories of millions of New York and Minnesota
`
`consumers, in violation of New York and Minnesota law.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and two separate classes of all
`
`people in New York and Minnesota whose personally identifiable information and sensitive video
`
`rental histories were retained by Amazon.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Angela Lugo lives and is domiciled in Rochester, New York.
`
`11. Ms. Lugo has an Amazon account and has rented videos through that account.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`In January 2020, Ms. Lugo rented movies from Amazon.
`
`In connection with that rental, Amazon collected Ms. Lugo’s name, address, and
`
`credit card information.
`
`14.
`
`As of at least June 28, 2022, Ms. Lugo’s account history still displayed the titles of
`
`the videos she rented, as well as the date she rented it and the price she paid for it.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Andrew Brynildson lives and is domiciled in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
`
`16. Mr. Brynildson has an Amazon account and has rented videos through that account.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`In March 2021, Mr. Brynildson rented movies from Amazon.
`
`In connection with that rental, Amazon collected Mr. Brynildson’s name, address,
`
`and credit card information.
`
`19.
`
`As of at least June 22, 2022, Mr. Brynildson’s account history still displayed the
`
`titles of the videos he rented, as well as the date he rented it and the price he paid for it.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant Amazon Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Seattle,
`
`Washington. Amazon does business throughout New York and Minnesota.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`21.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A)
`
`because this case is a class action where the aggregate claims of all members of the proposed class
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`888 SEVENTH AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01230 Document 1 Filed 09/01/22 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`are in excess of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and at least one member of the
`
`proposed class is a citizen of a state different from Defendant.
`
`22.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has
`
`purposefully availed itself of the laws and benefits of doing business in this State, and Plaintiffs’
`
`claims arise out of each of Defendant’s forum-related activities. Furthermore, a substantial portion
`
`of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.
`
`23.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, this Court is the proper venue for this action because
`
`a substantial part of the events, omissions, and acts giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this
`
`District.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`The Federal Video Privacy Protection Act and Digital Dossiers
`
`24.
`
` The desire to keep video rental history records private led Congress to enact the
`
`Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, 18 U.S.C. § 2710 (“VPPA”). Inspired by the release of
`
`video rental records of Supreme Court Justice Nominee Robert H. Bork and his family, Congress
`
`promulgated the Act to explicitly preserve United States citizens’ right to privacy in their video
`
`rental histories.
`
`25. When the VPPA was introduced, Senator Paul Simon noted that:
`There is no denying that the computer age has revolutionized our
`world. Over the past 20 years we have seen remarkable changes
`in the way each one of us goes about our lives. Our children learn
`through computers. We bank by machine. We watch movies in
`our living rooms. These technological innovations are exciting
`and as a nation we should be proud of the accomplishments we
`have made. Yet, as we continue to move ahead, we must protect
`time honored values that are so central to this society, particularly
`our right to privacy. The advent of the computer means not only
`that we can be more efficient than ever before, but that we have
`the ability to be more intrusive than ever before. Every day
`Americans are forced to provide to businesses and others
`personal information without having any control over where that
`information goes. These records are a window into our loves,
`likes, and dislikes.
`
`
`S. Rep. No. 100-599 at 7-8 (1988) (emphasis added).
`
`26.
`
`One of the original drafters of the VPPA, Senator Patrick Leahy, remarked that “the
`
`trail of information generated by every transaction is now recorded and stored in sophisticated
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`888 SEVENTH AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01230 Document 1 Filed 09/01/22 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`record-keeping systems is a new, more subtle and pervasive form of surveillance.” S. Rep. No.
`
`100-599 at 8 (1988).
`
`27.
`
`In recognition of the sensitivity of the video renting information, the VPPA requires
`
`video tape service providers, like Amazon, to destroy “personally identifiable information as soon
`
`as practicable, but no later than one year from the date the information is no longer necessary for
`
`the purpose for which it was collected … .” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(e).
`
`28.
`
`However, the VPPA differs from the NYVCPA and Minnesota Statute § 325I.02(6)
`
`in that it only provides a private right of action for the wrongful disclosure of personally
`
`identifiable information, and not failure to destroy it. See 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c) (providing private
`
`right of action for a “violation of this section” immediately after the disclosure prohibitions in
`
`section (b), but not listing the destruction requirements until section (e)).
`
`The New York Video Consumer Privacy Act and Minnesota Statute § 325I.02(6)
`
`29.
`
`On the heels of Congress having passed the VPPA, the New York Legislature
`
`passed the NYVCPA in 1993 “to protect the personal privacy of individuals and their families who
`
`rent video cassette tapes and movies and similar audio visual materials.” GBL § 671.
`
`30.
`
`In his sponsor memorandum, Assemblyman Anthony J. Genovesi noted:
`
`Video lists have enormous commercial utility, which adds to the
`likelihood that an individual’s entertainment preferences will be
`disclosed. Mailing lists are easily devised based on categorizing
`an individual’s viewing habits as documented by video retail
`establishments’ records. For example, catalog companies and
`direct mail sales companies are naturally interested in obtaining
`lists of people who rent children’s films, physical fitness films,
`adventure films, or adult films.
`
`
`
`Exhibit A, Sponsor Memo at 3.
`
`31.
`
`In furtherance of those concerns, like the VPPA, the NYVCPA requires that video
`
`tape service provides, like Defendant, “destroy personally identifiable information as soon as
`
`practicable, but no later than one year from the date the information is no longer necessary for the
`
`purpose for which it was collected … .” GBL § 673(5).
`
`32.
`
`However, unlike the VPPA, the NYVCPA explicitly provides a private right of
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`888 SEVENTH AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01230 Document 1 Filed 09/01/22 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`action to enforce that statutory requirement. See GBL § 675(1).
`
`33.
`
`Specifically, under the NYVCPA, the private right of action is located at the end of
`
`the Act and extends to all “violation[s] of this article,” which refers to Article 32 of the General
`
`Business Law, i.e., the NYVCPA.
`
`34.
`
`This deviation from the VPPA is not an accident. Indeed, Assemblyman Genovesi
`
`specifically noted in his sponsor memorandum that due to the shortcomings of the VPPA, “a
`
`separate state law is needed in New York to give her citizens meaningful protection from unwanted
`
`intrusions.” Ex. A, Sponsor Memo at 3.
`
`35. Minnesota’s law governing video rental records are similar to the NYVCPA.
`
`36. Minnesota law has the same language found in the NYVCPA, requiring video tape
`
`service provides, like Defendant, to “destroy personally identifiable information as soon as
`
`practicable, but no later than one year from the date the information is no longer necessary for the
`
`purpose for which it was collected … .” M.S.A. § 325I.02(6).
`
`37.
`
`And, like NYVCPA, the Minnesota Statute explicitly provides a private right of
`
`action to enforce that statutory requirement. See id. at § 325I.03.
`
`38.
`
`Specifically, under the Minnesota Statute, “a consumer who prevails or substantially
`
`prevails in an action brought under this section is entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages,
`
`regardless of the amount of actual damage proved, plus costs, disbursements, and reasonable
`
`attorney fees.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`39.
`
`As a result, by its plain terms, Minnesota Statute § 325I.03 affords greater
`
`protections than does VPPA.
`
`A Brief Overview of Renting Videos From Amazon
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Amazon allows consumers to rent videos to instantly stream on their devices.
`
`Consumers must first create an account with Amazon which requires them to input
`
`their name, date of birth, email address, billing address, and credit card information.
`
`42.
`
`After creating an Amazon account, renting a video through Amazon is a four-step
`
`process. First, the customer logs onto Amazon by entering her username and password. Second,
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`888 SEVENTH AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01230 Document 1 Filed 09/01/22 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`the customer searches Amazon’s selections by using its interface. Third, after the customer
`
`identifies a video that she wishes to rent, the customer clicks on that video. Fourth, the page for the
`
`video will present the option to rent or buy the video. If a customer clicks the “rent” button,
`
`Amazon will charge the credit card on file with the Amazon account and the video will be
`
`available for streaming for a limited period of time.1
`
`43.
`
`The customer must watch the video within 30 days of the rental and has 48 hours
`
`from first viewing the video to complete it.
`
`44.
`
`After 30 days of the rental, or after 48 hours from first viewing the video, whichever
`
`comes earlier, the video is no longer accessible to the customer.
`
`45.
`
`At no time does Amazon obtain the consent of its customers to retain their
`
`personally identifiable information beyond the period permitted by law.
`
`46.
`
`Amazon requires customers to use only credit or debit cards to rent videos from
`
`Amazon.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`All rental transactions are final.
`
`Amazon will only offer a refund for a video rental within 48 hours of purchase, and
`
`only if the customer has not started watching the rental.
`
`Amazon Systematically Violates the NYVCPA and Minnesota Statute § 325I.02(6)
`
`49. With every rental transaction, Amazon collects, stores, and maintains its customers’
`
`name, credit and debit card information, billing address, and video rental history for an indefinite
`
`period of time.
`
`50.
`
`The video rental histories that Amazon stores include every video that the customer
`
`has ever rented from Amazon, as well as information which identifies the customer as having
`
`requested or obtained specific video materials or services.
`
`51.
`
`In light of the fact that its customers’ rental transactions are necessarily completed
`
`within 30 days from the date of rental, and given Amazon’s policy not to provide refunds for
`
`charges after 48 hours, Amazon systematically violates New York law by storing and maintaining
`
`1 Depending on a customer’s account settings, a customer may need to input a five-digit security
`pin to complete the rental.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`888 SEVENTH AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01230 Document 1 Filed 09/01/22 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`its customers’ “personally identifiable information,” as that term is defined by the statutes, for
`
`longer than 30 days, or at the very least, for longer than one year.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff Lugo seeks to represent a class of all New York residents who (a) rented a
`
`video from Amazon wherein (b) Amazon retained for more than 30 days their personally
`
`identifiable information, including information that identifies the person as having requested or
`
`obtained specific video materials or services, and (c) retains the personal identifiable information
`
`without their consent.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff Brynildson seeks to represent a class of all Minnesota residents who (a)
`
`rented a video from Amazon wherein (b) Amazon retained for more than 30 days their personally
`
`identifiable information, including information that identifies the person as having requested or
`
`obtained specific video materials or services, and (c) retains the personal identifiable information
`
`without their consent.
`
`54. Members of the Classes are so numerous that their individual joinder herein is
`
`impracticable. On information and belief, members of the Classes number in the millions. The
`
`precise number of Class members and their identities are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time but may
`
`be determined through discovery. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action
`
`by mail and/or publication through the distribution records of Defendant.
`
`55.
`
`Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and predominate
`
`over questions affecting only individual Class members. Common legal and factual questions
`
`include, but are not limited to, whether Defendant has violated New York or Minnesota law by
`
`storing and maintaining personally identifiable information, including video rental histories for
`
`longer than 30 days; and whether Class members are entitled to statutory damages for the
`
`aforementioned violations.
`
`56.
`
`The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Classes because
`
`the named Plaintiffs, like all other Class members, rented videos from Defendant and had their
`
`personally identifiable information, including video rental histories stored and maintained by
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`888 SEVENTH AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01230 Document 1 Filed 09/01/22 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`Defendant for longer than 30 days.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because their interests do not conflict
`
`with the interests of the Class members they seek to represent, they have retained competent
`
`counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and they intend to prosecute this action
`
`vigorously. The interests of Class members will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs
`
`and their counsel.
`
`58.
`
`The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of the claims of Class members. Each individual Class member may lack the
`
`resources to undergo the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and
`
`extensive litigation necessary to establish Defendant’s liability. Individualized litigation increases
`
`the delay and expense to all parties and multiplies the burden on the judicial system presented by
`
`the complex legal and factual issues of this case. Individualized litigation also presents a potential
`
`for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. In contrast, the class action device presents far fewer
`
`management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and
`
`comprehensive supervision by a single court on the issue of Defendant’s liability. Class treatment
`
`of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and claimants are before this Court for consistent
`
`adjudication of the liability issues.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiffs bring their claims in this action individually and on behalf of members of
`
`the Classes against Defendant.
`
`
`COUNT I
`Violation of the New York Video Consumer Privacy Act,
`N.Y. GBL §§ 670-675
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff Lugo brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the
`
`proposed New York Class against Defendant.
`
`62.
`
`Amazon is a “video tape service provider” as defined by the NYVCPA, because it
`
`“[e]nage[s] in the business of rental of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`888 SEVENTH AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01230 Document 1 Filed 09/01/22 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`materials.” GBL § 672(4).
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff Lugo is a “consumer” as defined by the NYVCPA, because she is a “renter
`
`… of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” GBL § 672(1).
`
`64.
`
`The NYVCPA requires video tape service providers “destroy personally identifiable
`
`information as soon as practicable, but no later than one year from the date the information is no
`
`longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected … .” GBL § 673(5).
`
`65.
`
`The NYVCPA defines “personally identifiable information” as “any information
`
`which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from
`
`a video tape service provider.” GBL § 672(1).
`
`66.
`
`As Amazon’s customer video rental transactions are completed within 30 days of
`
`the rental (as the video is no longer accessible to the customer after that time), and Amazon does
`
`not provide refunds for charges that are more than 48 hours old, it is not necessary for Amazon to
`
`store and maintain Plaintiff Lugo’s and the Class’s personally identifiable information and personal
`
`video rental histories for longer than 30 days.
`
`67.
`
`Accordingly, and in violation of GBL § 673(5), Amazon has failed to destroy its
`
`customers’ personally identifiable information as soon as practicable after it was no longer
`
`necessary for the purpose for which it was collected.
`
`68.
`
`Nonetheless, Amazon has stored and maintained Plaintiff Lugo’s personally
`
`identifiable information, as that term is defined by the NYVCPA, for well over 30 days since she
`
`rented a video from Amazon.
`
`69.
`
`Further, Amazon does not have a policy in place to timely destroy “personally
`
`identifiable information,” as required by the NYVCPA.
`
`70.
`
`Pursuant to GBL § 675, Plaintiff Lugo and the Class have been injured by the
`
`violations of GBL § 673(5), and seek damages of not less than $500 each, regardless of the amount
`
`of actual damage proved, plus costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`888 SEVENTH AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01230 Document 1 Filed 09/01/22 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`COUNT II
`Violation Minnesota Statute M.S.A. § 325I.01-03
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff Brynildson brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
`
`the proposed Minnesota Class against Defendant.
`
`73.
`
`Defendant is a “videotape service provider” as defined by M.S.A. § 325I01(5),
`
`because it “[e]nage[s] in the business of rental of prerecorded videocassette tapes or similar
`
`audiovisual materials.”
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff Brynildson is a “consumer” within the meaning of the statute because he is
`
`a “renter … of goods or services from a videotape service provider.” Id. at § 325I01(2).
`
`75.
`
`The Minnesota Statute requires video tape service providers “destroy personally
`
`identifiable information as soon as practicable, but no later than one year from the date the
`
`information is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected … .” M.S.A.
`
`§ 325I02(6).
`
`76.
`
`The Minnesota Statute defines “personally identifiable information” as “information
`
`that identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a
`
`videotape service provider.” M.S.A. § 325I01(3).
`
`77.
`
`As Amazon’s customer video rental transactions are completed within 30 days of
`
`the rental (as the video is no longer accessible to the customer after that time), and Amazon does
`
`not provide refunds for charges that are more than 48 hours old, it is not necessary for Amazon to
`
`store and maintain Plaintiff Brynildson’s and the Class’s personally identifiable information and
`
`personal video rental histories for longer than 30 days.
`
`78.
`
`Accordingly, and in violation of Minnesota law, Defendant has failed to destroy its
`
`customers’ personally identifiable information as soon as practicable after it was no longer
`
`necessary for the purpose for which it was collected.
`
`79.
`
`Nonetheless, Defendant has stored and maintained Plaintiff Brynildson’s personally
`
`identifiable information for well over 30 days since he rented a video from Defendant.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`888 SEVENTH AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01230 Document 1 Filed 09/01/22 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`80.
`
`Further, Defendant does not have a policy in place to timely destroy “personally
`
`identifiable information,” as required by Minnesota law.
`
`81.
`
`Plaintiff Brynildson and the Minnesota Class have been injured by the violations of
`
`M.S.A. § 325I01, and seek damages of not less than $500 each, regardless of the amount of actual
`
`damage proved, plus costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seek
`
`judgment against Defendant, as follows:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Determining that this action is a proper class action;
`
`For an order certifying the Class, naming Plaintiffs as the representatives of the
`
`Classes, and naming Plaintiffs’ attorneys as Class Counsel;
`
`c.
`
`For an order declaring that the Defendant’s conduct violates the statute referenced
`
`herein;
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`For an order finding in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class;
`
`For statutory damages in amounts to be determined by the Court and/or jury;
`
`For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded;
`
`For an order awarding Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable attorneys’ fees and
`
`disbursements, expenses, and costs of suit.
`
`DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`
`Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`888 SEVENTH AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01230 Document 1 Filed 09/01/22 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`Dated: September 1, 2022
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
` /s/ Wright A. Noel
`By:
`
` Wright A. Noel
`
`Wright A. Noel (State Bar No. 25264)
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, WA 98027
`Telephone: (425) 837-4717
`Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
`Email: wright@carsonnoel.co]
`
`Local Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
` /s/ Philip L. Fraietta
`By:
`
` Philip L. Fraietta
`
`Philip L. Fraietta *
`888 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (646) 837-7150
`Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
`Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
`
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`Joel D. Smith *
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`Email: jsmith@bursor.com
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`Christopher Reilly *
`701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420
`Miami, FL 33131
`Telephone: 305) 330-5512
`Email: creilly@bursor.com
`
`
`* Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`888 SEVENTH AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`