AshleyMadison.com Says 'Doe' Claims Not Valid

The parent company of extramarital site AshleyMadison.com said it plans to get lawsuits filed in the wake of its recent security breach tossed out by arguing that the plaintiffs have improperly used “Doe” pseudonyms and that their claims belong in arbitration.

The cyberattack compromised the personal information of more than 30 million subscribers of the matchmaking site for people looking for an affair.

As of September, 11 lawsuits have been filed against Avid Life Media Inc., which operates AshleyMadison.com, most of them class actions accusing the Toronto-based company of negligence in allowing its customers' personal information, like debit and credit card numbers, to be hacked in violation of several state consumer fraud and data breach statutes.

On Sept. 17, Avid filed a motion before a federal panel on multidistrict litigation to combine all the lawsuits in the Eastern District of Missouri. It also provided the first glimpse of its planned defenses, which includes challenging the anonymity of the cases as procedurally improper under federal rules.

“Moreover, aside from the procedural infirmities of the unnamed plaintiffs' purported suits, plaintiffs (and all Ashley Madison members) agreed to and are bound by a contractual arbitration provision that compels plaintiffs to bring their claims before the American Arbitration Association,” wrote Avid attorney Kevin Rising, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg in Los Angeles.

Avid, whose CEO stepped down on Aug. 28, has publicly said no credit or debit card information was stolen.

Plaintiffs in some of the cases said they filed anonymously to protect “information highly sensitive and personal” and prevent invasion of their privacy, according to court filings. They said they would disclose their identities to Ashley Madison's lawyers or the court under a protective order.

Anonymity could be an issue, says Gary Mason, founding partner of Whitfield Bryson & Mason in Washington, DC, who filed the only case against Ashley Madison by a named plaintiff.

“It's going to be hard to prosecute a case on behalf of the class, a representative lawsuit, with someone who's not willing to step forward and publicly disclose who they are,” he says.

Unlike the data breach suits, Mason's class action, filed on Sept. 11, said Ashley Madison fraudulently induced male subscribers to enter into contracts by setting up “fembot,” or female robot, accounts. He said his client spent $100 on credits to get access to these women.

The other cases were filed on behalf of a class of Ashley Madison subscribers whose data was hacked, many including those who paid $19 to completely erase their personal information.

Amanda Bronstad writes for The National Law Journal, an ALM sibling of Internet Law & Strategy.

The parent company of extramarital site AshleyMadison.com said it plans to get lawsuits filed in the wake of its recent security breach tossed out by arguing that the plaintiffs have improperly used “Doe” pseudonyms and that their claims belong in arbitration.

The cyberattack compromised the personal information of more than 30 million subscribers of the matchmaking site for people looking for an affair.

As of September, 11 lawsuits have been filed against Avid Life Media Inc., which operates AshleyMadison.com, most of them class actions accusing the Toronto-based company of negligence in allowing its customers' personal information, like debit and credit card numbers, to be hacked in violation of several state consumer fraud and data breach statutes.

On Sept. 17, Avid filed a motion before a federal panel on multidistrict litigation to combine all the lawsuits in the Eastern District of Missouri. It also provided the first glimpse of its planned defenses, which includes challenging the anonymity of the cases as procedurally improper under federal rules.

“Moreover, aside from the procedural infirmities of the unnamed plaintiffs' purported suits, plaintiffs (and all Ashley Madison members) agreed to and are bound by a contractual arbitration provision that compels plaintiffs to bring their claims before the American Arbitration Association,” wrote Avid attorney Kevin Rising, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg in Los Angeles.

Avid, whose CEO stepped down on Aug. 28, has publicly said no credit or debit card information was stolen.

Plaintiffs in some of the cases said they filed anonymously to protect “information highly sensitive and personal” and prevent invasion of their privacy, according to court filings. They said they would disclose their identities to Ashley Madison's lawyers or the court under a protective order.

Anonymity could be an issue, says Gary Mason, founding partner of Whitfield Bryson & Mason in Washington, DC, who filed the only case against Ashley Madison by a named plaintiff.

“It's going to be hard to prosecute a case on behalf of the class, a representative lawsuit, with someone who's not willing to step forward and publicly disclose who they are,” he says.

Unlike the data breach suits, Mason's class action, filed on Sept. 11, said Ashley Madison fraudulently induced male subscribers to enter into contracts by setting up “fembot,” or female robot, accounts. He said his client spent $100 on credits to get access to these women.

The other cases were filed on behalf of a class of Ashley Madison subscribers whose data was hacked, many including those who paid $19 to completely erase their personal information.

Amanda Bronstad writes for The National Law Journal, an ALM sibling of Internet Law & Strategy.