Hawkins v. MyHeritage Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

TAMMY HAWKINS, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:24-cv-225

vs.

MYHERITAGE LTD., et al., District Judge Michael J. Newman

Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER: (1) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 19); AND (2)

ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ON OR

BEFORE SEPTEMBER 19, 2025

________________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Tammy Hawkins brings this civil case, through counsel, seeking class certification

and damages for alleged violations of Ohio statutory law. Doc. No. 17 at PageID 175-79. She claims

that Defendants, MyHeritage Ltd. and MyHeritage (USA) Inc., have used her personal information,

including her name, image, and likeness, on Defendants’ genealogy website, myheritage.com, in

violation of Ohio’s right of publicity statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 2741.01, et seq. See id. at PageID

174, 177-79.

Plaintiff asserts the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case “pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness Act, because the proposed class consists of more than 100

members and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.” Id. at PageID 166. She explains

Defendant MyHeritage Ltd. is an Israeli entity with its principal place of business in Israel, and

Defendant MyHeritage (USA) Inc. is a Delaware-registered corporation with its principal place of

business in Lehi, Utah. Doc. No. 17 at PageID 165. Plaintiff is a citizen of Ohio.1 See id.

1 The Court notes its ongoing duty to ensure it has jurisdiction to act in each case before it. Answers in Genesis

of Ky., Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int’l., Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009) (“[F]ederal courts have a duty

to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue sua sponte”).

This case is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 19), Plaintiff’s

memorandum in opposition (Doc. No. 22), and Defendants’ reply. Doc. No. 23. Defendants seek

dismissal of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of

personal jurisdiction; Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing; and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. Doc. No. 19 at PageID 191.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is ripe for review.

I.

The following factual review is based on the allegations raised in Plaintiff’s first amended

complaint or Defendants’ motion to dismiss and attached documents.

Plaintiff alleges, “According to the Terms and Conditions found on www.myheritage.com,

(dated as of September 5, 2024) [Defendants] MyHeritage Ltd. and MyHeritage (USA) Inc. own and

operate a group of websites…, which includes www.myheritage.com and a sister genealogy website

www.geni.com.” Doc. No. 17 at PageID 166; see Doc. No. 19 at PageID 212-13 (Decl. of Gilad

Japhet). “MyHeritage is an online genealogy platform that enables customers to explore their family

history and discover new relatives through its website, www.myheritage.com.” Doc. No. 17 at

PageID 168. MyHeritage allows users to “just search a name” and “uncover more than . . . ever

imagined.” Id. MyHeritage is accessible worldwide and hosts billions of historical records.2 See id.

at PageID 172.

MyHeritage offers potential users free limited access to preview certain records and a free 14-

day trial that provides a user access to explore the larger database of records hosted on the platform.

2 See Goplin v. WeConnect, Inc., 893 F.3d 488, 491 (7th Cir. 2018) (when a party refers the court to another

party’s website, the court may take judicial notice of the website’s contents); Energy Automation Sys., Inc. v.

Saxton, 618 F. Supp. 2d 807, 810 n.1 (M.D. Tenn. 2009) (“A court may take judicial notice of the contents of

an Internet website”); MYHERITAGE, https://www.myheritage.com [https://perma.cc/CGX9-QEHE] (last

visited July 2, 2025).

Id. at PageID 170, 175. Typically, only paid subscribers can access this larger database. Id.

MyHeritage’s wiki website states its database contains 118 collections of records from Ohio.3 Id. at

PageID 167. MyHeritage offers a tiered subscription service—higher tiered plans provide users with

extensive access to the website’s features, including “‘Instant Discoveries’ (a trademarked tool that

leverages MyHeritage’s database to purportedly allow customers to add entire branches to their

family trees within a single click) and ‘Smart Matches’ (another trademarked feature that purportedly

reveals insights into a customer’s family tree based on other customers’ family tree).” Id. at PageID

171.

Plaintiff alleges that during “the promotional free trial[, a free-trial user] may search for,

download, and view records in MyHeritage’s database . . . .,” including Plaintiff’s records. Id. at

PageID 174. As such, a free-trial user receives access to Plaintiff’s records as if the user is a paid

subscriber. Id. at PageID 175. According to Plaintiff, “MyHeritage’s sole purpose in using [her]

name, identity, and likeness in the promotional free 14-day trial is to advertise, sell, and solicit the

purchase of paid subscription plans.” Id. Plaintiff claims this violates Ohio’s right of publicity statute

because it prohibits the use of “any aspect of an individual’s persona for a commercial purpose”

without “the written consent” of the individual. Ohio Rev. Code § 2741.02; Doc. No. 17 at PageID

172-75, 177-79. Plaintiff also alleges she did not consent to such use. See id. at PageID 175.

II.

A. The Parties’ Contentions

Defendants contend that dismissal of Plaintiff’s amended complaint is warranted for lack of

personal jurisdiction because there is no basis to exercise general or specific jurisdiction over them.

Doc. No. 19 at PageID 195. They reason the complaint’s conclusory allegation—that Defendants

3 See MYHERITAGE, https://www.myheritage.com/wiki/United_States/Ohio#Explore_more_about_Ohio

[https://perma.cc/XMD3-2H8J] (last visited July 8, 2025).

“expressly aim[]” their genealogy website at Ohio does not show intentionally tortious conduct aimed

at Ohio, and the mere fact their genealogy website is accessible in Ohio is insufficient. Id. They

further reason: (1) the complaint advances no allegation showing Plaintiff’s claim arises from, or

relates to, Defendants’ contacts with Ohio; (2) Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Defendants’ Ohio-

specific collections are not jurisdictionally significant, particularly when the records at issue were not

acquired from Ohio but were gleaned from the United States Public Records Index—a database of

records from all 50 states, which is licensed to a data broker in California; and (3) Plaintiff’s assertion

of personal jurisdiction over Defendants is unreasonable due to the disproportionate burden on them

as international companies with no significant business operations or physical presence in Ohio. Id.

at PageID 195-98.

Plaintiff challenges each of Defendants’ jurisdictional arguments. See Doc. No. 22 at PageID

262-67.

B. The Prima Facie Case

A plaintiff has the burden to establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over each

defendant. Carbone v. Kaal, 140 F.4th 805, 808 (6th Cir. 2025). This initial burden can be met

“‘merely through the complaint.’” Id. (quoting Malone v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., 965 F.3d

499, 504 (6th Cir. 2020)). “This requires ‘establish[ing], with reasonable particularity, sufficient

contacts between the defendant and the forum state to satisfy the relevant long-arm statute and the

Due Process Clause.’” Id. at 808-09 (quoting Malone, 965 F.3d at 504); see Arnold v.

CooperSurgical, Inc., 681 F. Supp. 3d 803, 814 (S.D. Ohio 2023) (“conclusory statements or bare

allegations alone are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.” (citing Morrison v. Taurus Int’l

Co., No. 3:11-cv-322, 2012 WL 5493962, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 13, 2012))).

If plaintiff’s complaint establishes a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction, the burden shifts

to the defendants to support their motion to dismiss with evidence showing the district court lacks

personal jurisdiction over them. Carbone, 140 F.4th at 809. If the defendants succeed, the burden

returns to plaintiff to go beyond the complaint and present, “by affidavit or otherwise, specific facts

showing that the court has jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Peters Broad. Eng’g, Inc. v. 24 Cap., LLC, 40

F.4th 432, 437 (6th Cir. 2022)).

In the present case, if Plaintiff does not show the exercise of personal jurisdiction over

Defendants satisfies due process, there is no need to consider whether the exercise of personal

jurisdiction over them would also run afoul of Ohio’s long-arm statute. Id. (citing Theunissen v.

Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1459 (6th Cir. 1991) (conducting the due-process analysis first)).

C. The Due Process Clause

“‘A federal court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction in a diversity of citizenship case must be

both (1) authorized by the law of the state in which it sits, and (2) in accordance with the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’”4 Beydoun v. Wataniya Rests. Holding, Q.S.C., 768 F.3d 499,

504 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883, 888 (6th Cir.

2002)).

The Due Process Clause “protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being subject to the

binding judgments of a forum with which he [or she] has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or

relations.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985) (internal quotation marks

omitted). When, as in the present case, an out-of-state defendant is sued, personal jurisdiction over

the defendant arises from “certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that maintenance of the

suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v.

Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted).

4 The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits “any State” from “depriv[ing] any person of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

Two types of personal jurisdiction exist: “general” or “specific.” BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell,

581 U.S. 402, 413 (2017). “General jurisdiction exists when a defendant’s relationship with the forum

state is ‘so “continuous and systematic” as to render [it] essentially at home’ there.” Carbone, 140

F.4th at 810 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)).

Specific jurisdiction “arises out of or relates to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Daimler

AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014) (citation modified).

III.

Plaintiff does not explicitly state whether she is asserting general or specific personal

jurisdiction. Doc. Nos. 17, 22. Upon review of her first amended complaint and memorandum, the

Court finds she has not alleged facts indicating Defendants have had continuous and systematic

contacts with Ohio to support the exercise of general jurisdiction over them. See id. The Court will

therefore address only whether it has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

A three-part test determines whether the Court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction

over Defendants consistent with the Due Process Clause:

(1) Defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of acting, or

causing a consequence, in Ohio; (2) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants arise

from Defendants’ activities in Ohio; and (3) Defendants’ actions, or the

consequences they caused, have a substantial enough connection with Ohio to

make it reasonable for a court in Ohio to exercise jurisdiction.

See Carbone, 140 F.4th at 810 (first citing Peters Broad. Eng’g, Inc., 40 F.4th at 441; and then citing

S. Mach. Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir. 1968)).

Plaintiff argues Defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of acting in Ohio

by “curating 59 million Ohio-specific records from 13 Ohio-specific databases.” Doc. No. 22 at

PageID 262-65. In support of this, Plaintiff relies on two cases: Wilson v. Ancestry.com LLC, 653 F.

Supp. 3d 441 (S.D. Ohio 2023), reconsideration denied, No. 2:22-CV-861, 2024 WL 3157764 (S.D.

Ohio June 25, 2024), and Sessa v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 561 F. Supp. 3d 1008 (D. Nev.

2021), on reconsideration, 713 F. Supp. 3d 997 (D. Nev. 2024). Plaintiff’s reliance on Wilson and

Sessa is misplaced.

In Wilson, the plaintiffs alleged defendant Ancestry.com, another genealogy website,

displayed Ohio yearbook photographs of the plaintiffs in advertising based on information that

Ancestry.com sourced from yearbooks in Ohio. Wilson, 653 F. Supp. 3d at 451-52. The Wilson

plaintiffs also alleged Ancestry.com intentionally targeted Ohio residents with its advertisements.

The district court found this fact persuasive and supported its exercise of personal jurisdiction over

Ancestry.com. Id. Likewise, the Sessa court found Ancestry.com purposefully availed itself in

Nevada when targeting yearbook records from Nevada schools and using Nevada residents’ names

and images in email promotional materials. Sessa, 561 F. Supp. 3d at 1025.

Both cases are distinguishable because Plaintiff here does not allege that Defendants collected

names and photographs from Ohio yearbooks. See Doc. No. 17. Nor does she allege in her amended

complaint that Ohio residents’ names and images were used for promotional materials targeted

specifically at Ohio residents. See id. Plaintiff’s screenshot of her record on MyHeritage’s website

found in her amended complaint shows her record is “in U.S. Public Records Index”—not from an

Ohio-specific source. Id. at PageID 174.

IV.

Plaintiff contends Defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of acting in

Ohio by targeting advertisements at Ohio residents and using their personas to sell its services. Doc.

No. 22 at PageID 262-65. She also maintains Defendants “regularly chos[e] to do business with Ohio

residents.” Id. However, the allegations supporting these contentions are not found in her amended

complaint. See Doc. No. 17 at PageID 164-79. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff has not properly

alleged in her amended complaint that Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Ohio. Yet,

because leave to amend is freely granted as justice so requires, and given Plaintiff made new

allegations in her opposition memorandum, the Court will allow Plaintiff to amend her complaint

again to properly make her allegations. Accord. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

V.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court: (1) DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of

personal jurisdiction (Doc. No. 19); and (2) ALLOWS Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint

on or before September 19, 2025. If Plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint by the

deadline, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice for the reasons more fully discussed in this

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 21, 2025 s/Michael J. Newman

Hon. Michael J. Newman

United States District Judge