Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, in the Southern District of California, granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a digital streaming service operator, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a concrete injury necessary to establish federal jurisdiction. The plaintiff was given leave to amend the complaint.
Plaintiff alleged that the defendants, operators of a digital video streaming platform, unlawfully disclosed users’ video viewing information and personal data to third parties through tracking tools embedded on their website. The complaint asserted violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), the Federal Wiretap Act, and California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), among other claims. Plaintiff claimed that after using the website, he received targeted advertisements related to the videos he had purportedly watched, and that he did not consent to the sharing of his information.
Defendants responded with a factual challenge to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, submitting evidence that the plaintiff had not actually viewed any videos, entered search terms, or navigated to any video content on the platform. Platform records indicated that the plaintiff’s account was created and accessed only once, with no evidence of video consumption or search activity.
The court’s analysis centered on Article III standing, which requires a plaintiff to show a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. In the context of a factual challenge to standing, the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings, and plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction.
Here, defendants’ evidence demonstrated that plaintiff did not engage in the activities that formed the basis of his privacy claims. The plaintiff did not submit any evidence to rebut the defendants’ factual showing. As a result, the court found no genuine dispute regarding the absence of a concrete injury and concluded that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing.
MARK GLINOGA, v. SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT INC., SULLIVAN HOME ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED, SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL INC., AND SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC., No. 25CV0707-GPC(SBC), 2025 WL 3035032 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025).
