The Western District of Wisconsin denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The case centers on allegations that a video seller disclosed customers’ video purchase information to social media companies and data brokers without consent.
Key Issues
- Applicability of the VPPA to Nonprofit Video Sellers
Defendant argued that, as a nonprofit, it was not a “video tape service provider” under the VPPA. The court rejected this argument, finding that the statutory definition is not limited to for-profit entities. The court reasoned that “engaged in the business” encompasses regular commercial activity, regardless of profit motive, and that nonprofits can fall within the VPPA’s scope if they regularly sell prerecorded video content.
- Scope of “Personally Identifiable Information” (PII) Under the VPPA
A central issue was whether the information allegedly disclosed—such as unique account identifiers (e.g., Facebook ID, Google client ID), video titles, and customer names—constituted PII under the VPPA. The court adopted a broad interpretation, holding that PII includes not only information that directly identifies a person, but also information that can be used to identify a person as having obtained specific video materials. The court specifically rejected the “ordinary person” test (which would limit PII to information an average person could use to identify someone), instead focusing on whether the disclosed information enables the recipient (such as a social media company) to identify the customer’s video viewing history.
- Pleading Standards and Sufficiency of Allegations
Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s allegations, arguing the complaint lacked detail regarding the disclosure of PII and the plaintiff’s use of social media accounts. The court found that, at the pleading stage, plaintiff need not allege every fact that will ultimately be required to prove the claim. It was sufficient to allege that plaintiff had accounts with the relevant social media companies, purchased videos, and that the seller disclosed her unique identifiers and video titles to those companies. The court also found that allegations regarding the sale of customer lists to data brokers were sufficient to state a claim, even if the evidence was “barely” enough at this stage.
DANA MANZA, individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PESI, INC, Defendant., No. 24-CV-690-JDP, 2025 WL 1445762, at *3 (W.D. Wis. May 20, 2025).
