Susan Illston in the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a proposed class action under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) against an event management company. The plaintiff alleges that the company unlawfully disclosed users’ personally identifiable information (PII) to third parties, including Facebook and TikTok, through tracking tools embedded on its website and app.
Is an Event Promoter a Video Tape Service Provider?
The defendant argued that its core business is producing live music festivals, and that any video content on its website or app is merely peripheral. However, the court found that, at the pleading stage, the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the company’s prerecorded video content—such as trailers, recaps, and Insomniac TV—was more than incidental to its business model. The court noted that the VPPA’s definition of a VTSP can encompass entities whose business includes the delivery of audiovisual materials, even if not their sole or primary focus.
Who Qualifies as a Consumer?
Plaintiff, who subscribed to the company’s newsletter and provided personal information, qualifies as a “consumer” under the VPPA. The court reviewed diverging interpretations from various federal circuits. Some courts have limited “consumer” status to those subscribing specifically to video-related goods or services, while others have adopted a broader reading, allowing any subscription to goods or services from a VTSP to suffice.
This Court agrees with the Second and Seventh Circuits’ plain reading of the statute and finds that the definition of “consumer” in the VPPA is not cabined to “audio visual” goods and services, as Congress chose to omit an “audio visual” clause from the consumer definition.
Allegations of Knowing Disclosure
The defendant also challenged whether the complaint plausibly alleged that it “knowingly” disclosed PII. The court found the plaintiff’s allegations sufficient, noting that the company allegedly installed and controlled tracking tools (Facebook Pixel and TikTok Pixel) that transmitted users’ video viewing information and unique identifiers to third parties. The court concluded that these facts, if true, could support a finding of knowing disclosure under the VPPA.
AUSTIN BALLARD v. INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS, LLC, No. 25-CV-00811-SI, 2025 WL 1696558 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2025).
