Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Users of video streaming site Hulu do not have to prove they were actually injured by disclosure of their viewing habits to win statutory damages under a 1980s video privacy law, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ruled on Dec. 20.
“The plain language of the statute shows that Congress considered a consumer to be an 'aggrieved person' under the [Video Privacy Protection Act] if a video tape service provider wrongfully discloses that consumer's personally identifiable information,” Beeler wrote,'denying summary judgment'in'In re Hulu Privacy Litigation.
It's the latest Northern District opinion on the issue of damages in a privacy case. But class counsel in'Hulu'are in a strong position because the video law ' enacted in 1988 after a Supreme Court nominee's Blockbuster video rentals were disclosed in a newspaper article ' specifically provides a minimum $2,500 in liquidated damages per violation.
Beeler has already ruled that Hulu meets the definition of a “video tape service provider.”
Class counsel led by Parisi & Havens, KamberLaw and Strange & Carpenter allege that Hulu disclosed its users' viewing selections to Facebook and to metrics company ComScore. Hulu says it transmits only anonymized information to ComScore, but plaintiffs say it would be easy enough for ComScore to reverse-engineer individual identities.
Even if that were true, Hulu's attorneys at O'Melveny & Myers argued in their'motion for summary judgment, Hulu users can't show they're “aggrieved” under the VPPA because they haven't shown any injury. When asked at deposition how they'd been harmed, class members responded simply that “my privacy has been violated.”
On Friday, Beeler ruled that is enough. Hulu had cited'Sterk v. Best Buy, a Northern District of Illinois decision that said consumers could not sue a Best Buy store for revealing video rental information to parent company Best Buy Co. Beeler ruled that'Sterk'is inconsistent with Ninth Circuit case law on injury-in-fact. In another case involving the same plaintiff,'Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail,'Judge Richard Posner's reasoning for the Seventh Circuit supported the conclusion that disclosure is an injury, Beeler added.
“The issue in this motion is whether'assuming an unauthorized disclosure in violation of the VPPA'Plaintiffs must show “actual injury” evidence beyond the unauthorized disclosure as a prerequisite to obtaining any damages (actual or statutory),” Beeler wrote. “The court holds that they do not.”
A similar suit against Netflix settled last year for $9 million.
'
Users of video streaming site Hulu do not have to prove they were actually injured by disclosure of their viewing habits to win statutory damages under a 1980s video privacy law, U.S. Magistrate Judge
“The plain language of the statute shows that Congress considered a consumer to be an 'aggrieved person' under the [Video Privacy Protection Act] if a video tape service provider wrongfully discloses that consumer's personally identifiable information,” Beeler wrote,'denying summary judgment'in'In re Hulu Privacy Litigation.
It's the latest Northern District opinion on the issue of damages in a privacy case. But class counsel in'Hulu'are in a strong position because the video law ' enacted in 1988 after a Supreme Court nominee's Blockbuster video rentals were disclosed in a newspaper article ' specifically provides a minimum $2,500 in liquidated damages per violation.
Beeler has already ruled that Hulu meets the definition of a “video tape service provider.”
Class counsel led by Parisi & Havens, KamberLaw and Strange & Carpenter allege that Hulu disclosed its users' viewing selections to Facebook and to metrics company ComScore. Hulu says it transmits only anonymized information to ComScore, but plaintiffs say it would be easy enough for ComScore to reverse-engineer individual identities.
Even if that were true, Hulu's attorneys at
On Friday, Beeler ruled that is enough. Hulu had cited'Sterk v.
“The issue in this motion is whether'assuming an unauthorized disclosure in violation of the VPPA'Plaintiffs must show “actual injury” evidence beyond the unauthorized disclosure as a prerequisite to obtaining any damages (actual or statutory),” Beeler wrote. “The court holds that they do not.”
A similar suit against Netflix settled last year for $9 million.
'
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.