Amicus Curiae Brief — Michael Salazar, Petitioner v. Paramount Global, dba 247Sports

Supreme Court briefJun 30, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 25-459

In the Supreme Court of the United States

_________

MICHAEL SALAZAR,

Petitioner,

PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, DBA 247SPORTS,

Respondent.

_________

On Writ of Certiorari To The United States

Court of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit

_________

BRIEF OF THE RETAIL LITIGATION CENTER

AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF

RESPONDENT

_________

Michael W. McTigue Jr.

Meredith C. Slawe

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,

MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

One Manhattan West

New York, NY 10001

Monica Welt

Josh Moore

RETAIL LITIGATION

CENTER, INC.

99 M Street, S.E., Suite

7000

Washington, DC 20003

Archis A. Parasharami

Counsel of Record

Daniel E. Jones

Andrew D. Quinn

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,

MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

1440 New York Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20005

archis.parasharami@skadden.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................... iii

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE.............................1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF

ARGUMENT ......................................................... 3

ARGUMENT................................................................5

Petitioner’s Overreaching Interpretation Of

“Consumer” Threatens To Expose Retailers

To Coercive VPPA Lawsuits................................. 5

A. Retail customers desire, and retailers

routinely provide, digital video content......... 6

B. Accepting Salazar’s interpretation of the

VPPA would open the door to lawsuits by

retail customers who have never rented,

purchased, or subscribed to any

audiovisual content ........................................ 9

II. The Decision Below Correctly Ensures That

The Statutory Definition Of “Consumer”

Performs A Critical Gatekeeping Function

Against Abusive VPPA Litigation...................... 12

III. A Properly Limited Definition Of “Consumer”

Is Needed To Curb The Recent Surge Of

Abusive VPPA Litigation.................................... 13

A. Claims under the VPPA were infrequent

for the first two decades after it was

enacted. .........................................................14

B. In 2022, businesses, including retailers,

began facing a surge of VPPA class

actions. .........................................................15

C. Retailers have also been subject to

abusive VPPA suits. ..................................... 18

CONCLUSION ..........................................................21

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

APPENDIX A—Video Privacy Protection Act

Cases Filed Between January 1, 2022

And June 15, 2026 ......................................... 1a

APPENDIX B—Video Privacy Protection Act

Cases Filed Against Retailers ..................... 26a

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CASES

Brown v. Learfield Communications, LLC,

713 F. Supp. 3d 355 (W.D. Tex. 2024)................19

Cantu v. Tractor Supply Co.,

2024 WL 1601257

(C.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2024) ..............................18, 19

Carroll v. General Mills, Inc.,

2023 WL 6373868

(C.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2023).......................................19

Chewy, Inc. v. United States Department of

Labor,

69 F.4th 773 (11th Cir. 2023) ...............................1

Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski,

599 U.S. 736 (2023).............................................17

Dirkes v. Borough of Runnemede,

936 F. Supp. 235 (D.N.J. 1996) ..........................14

Edwards v. Learfield Communications, LLC,

697 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (N.D. Fla. 2023)...............19

Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid,

592 U.S. 395 (2021)...............................................5

Heather v. Healthline Media, Inc.,

2023 WL 8788760

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2023) ....................................19

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

Hernandez v. Container Store, Inc.,

2024 WL 72657

(C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2024).............................7, 18, 19

Hernandez v. Jostens, Inc.,

2024 WL 1135165

(C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2024).......................................19

Hughes v. National Football League,

2025 WL 1720295

(2d Cir. June 20, 2025) .......................................12

Hunthausen v. Spine Media, LLC,

678 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (S.D. Cal. 2023) ...............19

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

568 U.S. 519 (2013)...............................................1

In re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy

Litigation,

827 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2016) ..................................5

Pileggi v. Washington Newspaper Publishing

Co.,

146 F.4th 1219 (D.C. Cir. 2025) ...............8, 10, 11

Rodriguez v. JP Boden Services Inc.,

2024 WL 559228 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024) ..........18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

Salazar v. National Basketball Ass’n,

2025 WL 2830939

(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025)........................................12

Shayler v. 1310 PCH, LLC,

51 F.4th 1015 (9th Cir. 2022) .............................20

Smith v. Duffey,

576 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2009)...............................13

Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc.,

136 F.4th 41 (2d Cir.)....................................10, 12

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.,

585 U.S. 162 (2018)...............................................1

State v. Welch,

595 S.W.3d 615 (Tenn. 2020)................................1

Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Information

Network, Inc.,

104 F. Supp. 3d 135 (D. Mass. 2015)..................15

STATUTE

18 U.S.C. § 2710 ..........................................2, 3, 11, 12

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

OTHER AUTHORITIES

134 Cong. Rec. 10,260-61 (1988)...............................11

Café and Building Amenities, https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/buildingamenities.

aspx........................................................................7

D. Daniel Sokol & Feng Zhu, Essay, Harming

Competition and Consumers Under the

Guise of Protecting Privacy: An Analysis of

Apple’s iOS 14 Policy Updates, 107 Cornell

L. Rev. Online 94 (2022) .....................................16

John Deighton & Leora Kornfeld, Interactive

Advertising Bureau, The Socioeconomic

Impact of Internet Tracking (2020),

https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/

2020/02/The-Socio-Economic-Impact-of-Internet-Tracking.pdf.............................................16

Judge Henry J. Friendly, Federal Jurisdiction:

A General View (1973) ........................................18

Max Stratmann, Survey: Shoppers Prefer Retailers With a Digital Presence, TotalRetail

(Nov. 13, 2024), https://www.mytotalretail.

com/article/survey-shoppers-prefer-retailers-with-a-digital-presence...................................8

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

Odysseas Garganas, Digital Video Advertising:

Breakthrough or Extension of TV Advertising in the New Digital Media Landscape?,

Journal and Media (June 14, 2024),

https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia5020049..................................................7

Omnichannel Statistics, Capital One Shopping

Statistics (Apr. 14, 2026), https://capital

oneshopping.com/research/omnichannelstatistics/ ...............................................................8

Online vs In-Store Shopping Statistics, Capital

One Shopping Statistics (June 3, 2026),

https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/

online-vs-in-store-shopping-statistics/ .................8

S. Rep. No. 100-599 (1988)........................................11

Sheila B. Scheuerman, Due Process Forgotten:

The Problem of Statutory Damages and

Class Actions, 74 Mo. L. Rev. 103 (2009) ...........17

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

Skye Witley, Meta Pixel’s Video Tracking

Spurs Wave of Data Privacy Suits, Bloomberg Law (Oct. 13, 2022),

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacyand-data-security/meta-pixels-video-tracking-spurs-wave-of-consumer-privacy-suits ........16

VOD: Oath Ceremony, https://www.supreme

court.gov/media/event_vod.aspx...........................7

Yan Lau, Bureau of Economics, FTC, Economic Issues: A Brief Primer on the Economics of Targeted Advertising (Jan.

2020), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/brief-primer-economicstargeted-advertising/economic_issues_paper_-_economics_of_targeted_advertising.

pdf ........................................................................16

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The Retail Litigation Center, Inc. (“RLC”) is a

501(c)(6) nonprofit trade association that represents

national and regional retailers, including many of the

country’s largest and most innovative retailers, across

a breadth of retail verticals. The RLC is the only trade

organization solely dedicated to representing the retail industry in the courts. The RLC’s members employ millions of people throughout the United States,

provide goods and services to tens of millions more,

and account for hundreds of billions of dollars in annual sales. The RLC offers retail-industry perspectives to courts on important legal issues and highlights the industry-wide consequences of significant

cases. Since its founding in 2010, the RLC has filed

more than 250 amicus briefs on issues of importance

to the retail industry. Its amicus briefs have been

helpful to courts throughout the United States, as evidenced by citation to those briefs in numerous precedential opinions. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Wayfair,

Inc., 585 U.S. 162, 184 (2018); Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley

& Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519, 542-43 (2013); Chewy, Inc.

v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 69 F.4th 773, 777-78 (11th Cir.

2023); State v. Welch, 595 S.W.3d 615, 630 (Tenn.

2020).1

The RLC and its members have a significant interest in the outcome of this case. Virtually every major retailer has a website, and virtually every one of

those websites provides audiovisual content that is

freely available to visitors to the website. Customers

No persons or entities other than amicus, its members, or

its counsel authored this brief, in whole or in part, or made

a monetary contribution to this brief’s preparation or submission.

value and seek out such content, which can be accessed without a subscription, signing up, or making

a purchase.

But over the past four years, retailers have been

targeted with claims that they somehow violated the

Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (“VPPA”), 18

U.S.C. § 2710, merely because their websites contained some pre-recorded video content. Most of these

claims have been brought by a handful of plaintiffs’

firms—often using serial plaintiffs. These lawsuits exploit the $2,500 in statutory damages available under

the VPPA. They seek to expand the statute far beyond

its textual, contextual, and structural contours. Many

rest on the same expansive interpretation of who

counts as a “consumer” under the VPPA that Petitioner advances in this case.

RLC, its members, and the retail industry thus

have a strong interest in affirmance of the judgment

below. The Sixth Circuit properly held that a person

must rent, buy, or subscribe to video tapes or similar

audiovisual materials to be a ‘consumer’ under the

VPPA. That approach not only interprets the statute

correctly, but also provides needed clarity on the types

of customer relationships that implicate the VPPA.

And given the ubiquity of freely-available video content on retailers’ websites, Salazar’s contrary reading

of the statute would open the floodgates to abusive

VPPA litigation practices by permitting claims to advance even though they are wholly untethered to the

video-viewing privacy issues that Congress intended

to address.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF

ARGUMENT

Under the VPPA, a “consumer” is “any renter,

purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a

video tape service provider.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(1).

The phrase “goods or services” cannot be read in a

vacuum, as the Sixth Circuit below and the D.C. Circuit have correctly held. The statute’s text, context,

and structure— including the interrelated definitions

of “video tape service provider” and “personally identifiable information”—are all focused on video tapes or

similar audiovisual materials. Thus, a “consumer” under the VPPA is likewise limited to people who rent,

buy, or subscribe to video tapes or similar audiovisual

materials (such as a person who rents a DVD or BluRay). See Paramount Br. 18-31.

RLC submits this brief to supply additional context underscoring the practical problems that would

flow from Salazar’s contrary interpretation. That interpretation makes the purchaser or renter of any

product—even retail products that are entirely unrelated to video content—a “consumer” under the VPPA.

There has already been a surge of VPPA litigation in

recent years, as some plaintiffs and their lawyers have

sought to leverage the VPPA’s nationwide coverage

and minimum statutory damages of $2,500 per violation. Salazar’s sweeping attempt to expand the scope

of the VPPA, if adopted, will no doubt lead to a new

flood of abusive claims under the statute.

This risk is particularly acute for retailers. Video

content is ubiquitous on retailers’ websites; customers

expect and desire video content, and retailers make

free video content available to provide visitors with

more information about the retailers’ stores, products,

and services. Additionally, most customers interact

with retailers through both brick-and-mortar stores

and websites, but the majority of retail sales still happen at brick-and-mortar stores. Nonetheless, under

Salazar’s approach, all of those in-store purchasers

who happen to visit the retailer’s website and encounter audiovisual content would become potential VPPA

plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the recent surge in VPPA lawsuits

will only get worse if the Court adopts Salazar’s interpretation. For decades after it was enacted, only a relative handful of VPPA claims were asserted. Starting

in 2022, however, serial plaintiffs and their counsel

began filing hundreds of similar lawsuits attempting

to expand the VPPA far beyond its intended contours

by pointing to the use of commonplace website technologies. (It is telling that Salazar himself is a plaintiff on both sides of the circuit split.)

Retailers were heavily targeted at the outset of

this surge, almost entirely by a small group of “tester”

plaintiffs who alleged that they had purchased a product from a retailer at some point in the past and then

subsequently watched a freely available video on the

same retailer’s website. Most of those lawsuits appear

to have been successful in coercing quick settlements,

even though the courts that reached the merits correctly concluded that the claims were implausible—

including because merely purchasing any product in

the past and then watching a website video does not

transform a plaintiff into a VPPA “consumer.”

If Salazar’s approach prevails, however, the inevitable result will be a new surge of similarly abusive

VPPA litigation, including against retailers whose

core business has little or nothing to do with selling or

delivering video content. That result is contrary to

both the text and structure of the statute.

The Court should affirm.

ARGUMENT

Petitioner’s Overreaching Interpretation

Of “Consumer” Threatens To Expose Retailers To Coercive VPPA Lawsuits.

The VPPA was not designed to be an omnibus Internet privacy statute—which is not surprising, given

that it was adopted well before the advent of the modern Internet. Instead, as the Third Circuit has put it,

the VPPA “serves different purposes, and protects different constituencies, than other, broader privacy

laws.” In re Nickelodeon Consumer Priv. Litig., 827

F.3d 262, 288 (3d Cir. 2016).

Or, as this Court has explained in the context of

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (a law of similar vintage), a statute should not be used “as an ‘agile

tool’” that automatically adapts to evolving technologies or circumstances. Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592

U.S. 395, 408-09 (2021) (citation omitted) (rejecting

overbroad reading of the TCPA’s definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system”). Instead, statutes

must be given their “best reading” in light of their text

and context, even if the result is to limit the statute to

“senescent technology.” Id. at 409 (citation omitted).

Yet Salazar’s expansive reading of the VPPA

would stretch the statute far beyond its intended

reach. With respect to retailers in particular, virtually

every major national retailer offers some form of

online audiovisual content. And under Salazar’s interpretation of the VPPA, everyone who makes any purchase from such a retailer, whether online or at a

brick-and-mortar store—a pair of jeans, a coffee mug,

a box of cereal, or a tube of toothpaste—is a VPPA

“consumer.”

That interpretation would give the VPPA a

breathtaking sweep that reaches far more broadly

than the statute allows. And when coupled with the

VPPA’s nationwide coverage and $2,500 statutory

damages provision, Salazar’s interpretation, if accepted, would threaten retailers with massive potential exposure for alleged conduct that bears no resemblance to the conduct that Congress enacted the VPPA

to address.

Moreover, market realities make it difficult, if not

impossible, for retailers to avoid that risk. Audiovisual content is a critical part of retailers’ online presence. And even brick-and-mortar purchasers frequently visit retailers’ websites and watch video content about the retailer’s products or services, even if

they do not make a purchase online.

As a result, under Salazar’s interpretation retailers face potential VPPA claims from virtually all of

their website visitors, because any website visitor who

views a video on a retailer’s website and makes an entirely unrelated in-store purchase could conceivably

pursue a claim. The statute should not be interpreted

to permit such an incongruous result.

Retail customers desire, and retailers

routinely provide, digital video content.

Most major retailers have digital video content on

their websites to market their goods and brands.

That is simply a function of the modern Internet.

Videos are the most consumed and most popular type

of content on the internet, accounting for roughly 80%

of all web traffic. See Odysseas Garganas, Digital

Video Advertising: Breakthrough or Extension of TV

Advertising in the New Digital Media Landscape?,

Journal

and

Media

(June

14,

2024),

https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia5020049.

Indeed, digital video content is ubiquitous across

websites of all kinds, including retail websites. Even

this Court has a video on its website (and sells goods

in its gift shop, which is linked on the Court’s main

website).2

Many retailers have added some form of freelyavailable digital video content to their websites. Digital audiovisual content on retail websites runs the

gamut from product demonstrations or overviews, to

how-to guides (such as assembly instruction videos),

to brand stories that highlight the retailer’s mission

or manufacturing processes. Visitors to the website

are not necessarily seeking out the video content in

particular—they may just be browsing or shopping

and encounter the videos as part of the enhanced experience that retailers offer and that customers have

come to expect.

A common characteristic of digital videos on retailers’ websites is that they “are aimed toward the

sale of [the retailer’s] products and are a marketing

tool to promote [the retailer’s] brand and website.”

Hernandez v. Container Store, Inc., 2024 WL 72657,

at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2024). In other words, the

See VOD: Oath Ceremony, https://www.supremecourt.

gov/media/event_vod.aspx; Café and Building Amenities,

https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/buildingamenities.

aspx.

videos “are not themselves the goods on offer.” Ibid.

Such video content is a far cry from the “Hitchcock

classics and James Bond thrillers” in Judge Bork’s

rental history. Pileggi v. Wash. Newspaper Publ’g Co.,

146 F.4th 1219, 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (Millett, J.).

Nevertheless, as explained infra at Part III, such videos have been the target of a wave of VPPA suits in

recent years.

Moreover, people who make purchases at brickand-mortar stores also routinely view retailers’ websites. Nearly every major retailer has both a brickand-mortar storefront and online presence. The vast

majority of retail sales in the United States, 80.8%,

are from brick-and-mortar storefronts, while 19.2% of

retail sales are online. See Online vs In-Store Shopping Statistics, Capital One Shopping Statistics (June

3, 2026), https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/

online-vs-in-store-shopping-statistics/. But far more

than 1 out of 5 retail purchasers visit retailers’ websites. Indeed, one recent report found that 86% of retail customers research products online at some point

in the shopping experience, even if they ultimately

buy the product in a store.3

In other words, the reality of modern shopping

habits demonstrates that customers primarily

See Omnichannel Statistics, Capital One Shopping Statistics (Apr. 14, 2026), https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/omnichannel-statistics/; see also, e.g., Max Stratmann, Survey: Shoppers Prefer Retailers With a Digital

Presence, TotalRetail (Nov. 13, 2024), https://www.mytotalretail.com/article/survey-shoppers-prefer-retailerswith-a-digital-presence/ (85% of the 1,516 survey

purchase goods in a brick-and-mortar store, but frequently visit the same retailer’s website at some point

during the shopping experience. Under Salazar’s interpretation, each of these customers is a potential

VPPA “consumer.”

Accepting Salazar’s interpretation of

the VPPA would open the door to lawsuits by retail customers who have

never rented, purchased, or subscribed

to any audiovisual content.

Under Salazar’s interpretation, the definition of a

“consumer” under the VPPA is entirely unmoored

from the statute’s focus on audiovisual content. Salazar concedes as much, acknowledging that under his

view “a person who bought” non-audiovisual goods

(such as “candles, sunglasses, posters, and even dog

bandanas”) “would be described as Blockbuster’s ‘consumer.’” Pet’r. Br. 20.

That approach is misguided even when it comes to

traditional video tape service providers like Blockbuster. But it yields especially anomalous results

when extended to retailers and other companies that

aren’t in the audiovisual business.

Indeed, it is not hard to imagine how, under Salazar’s view, the combination of modern website design

and ordinary shopping habits can open the door to potential VPPA claims against retailers:



A customer is shopping for a t-shirt from a

brick-and-mortar store that does not offer any

audiovisual goods or services.

respondents “use their smartphones when visiting stores

to look up product details or compare prices”).



The same retailer, however, employs digital

video content on its website.



While browsing t-shirts in the store, the customer pulls out her phone and looks on the retailer’s website for any online discounts.



While on the retailer’s website, the customer

encounters a video on the website’s home page

showcasing the retailer’s newest line of products.



Third-party code on the retailer’s website

shares encoded information about the viewing

of the video that is completely indecipherable to

ordinary humans.4



The customer does not find any discounts on

the website, and she instead purchases a t-shirt

from the store.

Under the proper interpretation of “consumer”

adopted by the Sixth and D.C. Circuits, someone who

buys a t-shirt from a store cannot turn around and sue

a retailer for VPPA statutory damages based on the

retailer’s website. That is because the phrase “goods

and services” is immediately followed by the phrase

“from a video tape service provider.” Pileggi, 146 F.4th

at 1235. As Judge Millett explained, “[t]he named

source ‘from’ which the product must derive gives

meaning to the scope of the regulated goods and

See Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc., 136 F.4th 41, 54 (2d

Cir.), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 885 (2025) (dismissing VPPA

claim, noting that “[i]t is implausible that an ordinary person would look at the phrase ‘title% 22% 3A% 22-% E2%

96% B7% 20The% 20Roast% 20of% - 20Ric% 20Flair’ . . .

and understand it to be a video title”).

services”: “After all, if Congress sought to protect the

consumers of ‘goods or services from a medical provider,’ the natural reading would be that consumers

are those who received medical services, not those

who only bought a coffee in the foyer.” Ibid.

Salazar’s reading of the statute, by contrast, gives

the VPPA near-limitless sweep; on that reading,

whether a person is a “consumer” under the VPPA

would “inexplicably turn[] on purchasing something—

anything—at some however-distant point in time before viewing a video.” Pileggi, 146 F.4th at 1236. According to Salazar, the hypothetical t-shirt purchaser

would become a VPPA “consumer” even though the

purchase would have nothing to do with “obtain[ing]

the products or services that one seeks from a video

tape service provider—that is, videos.” Id. at 1235.5

By encouraging non-video purchasers to bring

VPPA claims, Salazar’s approach would foster further

misuse of the VPPA. In recent years, the VPPA has

been weaponized in this very manner even though

these situations bear no resemblance to the context

that motivated the passage of the statute. Adopting

Notably, Congress originally included provisions governing both libraries and video tape service providers in the

legislation that would become the VPPA. S. Rep. No. 100599 (1988); 134 Cong. Rec. 10,260-61 (1988) (statement of

Sen. Patrick Leahy). Contrary to Salazar’s arguments, the

eventual deletion of libraries (and borrowing books or other

materials from libraries)—rather than any contrast with

the definition of “consumer”—is why the VPPA includes

the modifier “video” before “materials or services” in the

statute’s definition of “personally identifiable information.”

Ibid.; see 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(3).

Salazar’s interpretation will only exacerbate the problem.

II. The Decision Below Correctly Ensures That

The Statutory Definition Of “Consumer”

Performs A Critical Gatekeeping Function

Against Abusive VPPA Litigation.

Salazar’s interpretation of the VPPA’s definition

of “consumer” is not just wrong as a matter of statutory text, context, structure, and purpose; it also will

lead to continued abusive VPPA litigation.

To be sure, courts have dismissed VPPA claims

similar to Salazar’s on other grounds too. For example, while the Second Circuit sided with Salazar on

the meaning of “consumer,” on remand the district

court (after a year of further litigation and motion

practice) dismissed Salazar’s similar claim against

the NBA for failure to allege disclosure of “personally

identifiable information” within the meaning of 18

U.S.C. § 2710(a)(3). Salazar v. Nat’l Basketball Ass’n,

2025 WL 2830939, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025). A

growing number of courts have likewise dismissed

Pixel-based VPPA claims on that basis. See id. at *35 (citing, e.g., Solomon, 136 F.4th at 54; Hughes v.

Nat’l Football League, 2025 WL 1720295, at *2-3 (2d

Cir. June 20, 2025), cert. denied, 2026 WL 642810

(U.S. Mar. 9, 2026)).

But the next theory that comes along may not be

so susceptible to resolution at the pleadings stage—

and may instead require factual development to determine whether the information allegedly disclosed

qualifies as “personally identifiable information” under the circuit courts’ divergent “interpretation of this

term.” Id. at *3 (describing difference between First

Circuit’s “reasonable foreseeability” standard and

Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits’ “ordinary person”

standard).

Because Salazar’s approach forces the terms “personally identifiable information” and “video tape service provider” to bear the entire weight of the VPPA’s

video-privacy aims, it would lead to increased litigation costs, including substantial costs resulting from

discovery. That interpretation not only reflects an unnatural reading of the statute, but threatens to further increase the ability of VPPA class actions to coerce unjustified settlements of even weak claims. See

Smith v. Duffey, 576 F.3d 336, 340 (7th Cir. 2009) (discovery costs alone “can be so steep as to coerce a settlement on terms favorable to the plaintiff even when

his claim is very weak”).

By contrast, adhering to the properly limited definition of “consumer” creates a clear, administrable

line that will be easy to apply at the pleadings stage

in the mine run of cases. A customer who purchases a

t-shirt or a coffee cup from a retailer cannot plausibly

allege (consistent with Rule 11) that she is a renter,

purchaser, or subscriber of audiovisual content.

III. A Properly Limited Definition Of “Consumer” Is Needed To Curb The Recent

Surge Of Abusive VPPA Litigation.

The Court should interpret “consumer” narrowly—and in a manner tethered to the purpose of the

VPPA—for an additional, critical reason: an overlybroad reading of the term will lead to even more vexatious litigation under the statute than what has already taken place over the last several years.

Claims under the VPPA were infrequent for the first two decades after it

was enacted.

Consistent with the limited purpose animating

the VPPA’s adoption, the VPPA was only rarely invoked in the first twenty years after it was passed. A

review of published opinions available on Westlaw reveals that, from 1988 through 2008, the VPPA was

cited in only 37 opinions. And of those opinions, only

five involved an actual VPPA claim; the remainder of

the opinions cited the VPPA for ancillary purposes.

The five that did involve VPPA claims largely hewed

closely to the context the prompted the passage of the

VPPA. See, e.g., Dirkes v. Borough of Runnemede, 936

F. Supp. 235, 239 (D.N.J. 1996) (“Videos to Go, the

video tape service provider [akin to Blockbuster] in

this matter, violated subsection (b) of the Act by disclosing Plaintiffs’ video rental information to [a police

officer].”).

From 2008 to 2021, there was a slight uptick in

VPPA lawsuits, as online video boomed and certain

plaintiffs and their lawyers began exploring theories

seeking to shift the VPPA from VHS tapes to digital

streaming of audiovisual content.6 Nevertheless,

The number of VPPA lawsuits discussed in this brief was

determined through searches of legal databases (Bloomberg and Lex Machina) containing text-searchable complaints. Thus, the actual number of VPPA lawsuits, including cases with non-text-searchable complaints, may be

greater.

during this period, only 61 actions—less than a halfdozen a year on average—asserted a VPPA claim.7

In 2022, businesses, including retailers,

began facing a surge of VPPA class actions.

In recent years, however, some plaintiffs and their

lawyers have attempted “to place a square peg (modern electronic technology) into a round hole (a statute

written in 1988 aimed principally at videotape rental

services).” Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network,

Inc., 104 F. Supp. 3d 135, 140 (D. Mass. 2015), rev’d

on other grounds, 820 F.3d 482 (1st Cir. 2016).

Specifically, the VPPA litigation landscape

changed dramatically in 2022, when plaintiffs and

their lawyers began targeting countless businesses,

including retailers, with VPPA lawsuits. Many of

these lawsuits are filed by the same firms, using virtually identical complaints, on behalf of a few repeat

named plaintiffs.

Nearly all of these claims are premised on the use

of third-party code, like the Meta Pixel (formerly the

Facebook Pixel), used by many internet businesses for

targeted advertising and other business purposes.

Data sharing in support of this type of targeted

advertising is a longstanding and routine business

Notably, 30 of these actions were consolidated into two

multidistrict litigations. In re Vizio, Inc., Consumer Priv.

Litig., No. 8:16-ml-02693-JLS-KES, MDL No. 2693 (C.D.

Cal. filed Apr. 11, 2016) (24 actions); In re Nickelodeon Consumer Priv. Litig., No. 2:12-cv-07829-SRC-CLW, MDL

No. 2443 (D.N.J. filed Dec. 24, 2012) (6 actions).

practice.8 And targeted advertising allows businesses

to subsidize free services and content on the Internet,

which has “enabled the open internet to flourish.”9

Nevertheless, plaintiffs’ lawyers rushed to attack

this commonplace practice through the novel use of

the VPPA. In 2022 alone, plaintiffs filed at least 61

suits bringing VPPA claims, the majority of which alleged substantially similar Pixel-based VPPA claims.

See Appendix A (listing VPPA suits by year since

2022).10

This surge of VPPA litigation continued into 2023,

when plaintiffs filed 129 cases (also mainly involving

See Yan Lau, Bur. of Econ., FTC, Economic Issues: A Brief

Primer on the Economics of Targeted Advertising 2 (Jan.

2020), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/

brief-primer-economics-targeted-advertising/economic_issues_paper_-_economics_of_targeted_advertising.pdf.

See D. Daniel Sokol & Feng Zhu, Essay, Harming Competition and Consumers Under the Guise of Protecting Privacy: An Analysis of Apple’s iOS 14 Policy Updates, 107

Cornell L. Rev. Online 94, 98 (2022) (citing John Deighton

& Leora Kornfeld, Interactive Advert. Bureau, The Socioeconomic Impact of Internet Tracking 24-30 (2020), https://

www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/

The-Socio-Economic-Impact-of-Internet-Tracking.pdf).

See also Skye Witley, Meta Pixel’s Video Tracking Spurs

Wave of Data Privacy Suits, Bloomberg Law (Oct. 13,

2022), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-datasecurity/meta-pixels-video-tracking-spurs-wave-of-consumer-privacy-suits (“At least 47 proposed class actions

filed since February claim that Meta Platforms Inc.’s Pixel

tracking tool sent the plaintiffs’ personal video consumption data from online platforms to Facebook without their

consent . . . .”).

Pixel-related claims). See Appendix A. The number of

VPPA cases remained relatively steady in 2024 (112

additional cases). The number of VPPA lawsuits has

dwindled slightly in the past year-and-a-half, although plaintiffs have still filed a substantial number

of new lawsuits: At least 65 cases were filed in 2025,

and 19 have been filed this year (as of June 15). See

Appendix A.

It is no secret why the VPPA is attractive to some

plaintiffs’ lawyers. The statute applies nationwide

and imposes a minimum statutory penalty of $2,500

per violation without the need to show any actual

damages or economic harm. In other words, “[w]hat

makes these statutory damages class actions so attractive to plaintiffs’ lawyers is simple mathematics:

these suits multiply a minimum . . . statutory

award . . . by the number of individuals in a nationwide . . . class.” Sheila B. Scheuerman, Due Process

Forgotten: The Problem of Statutory Damages and

Class Actions, 74 Mo. L. Rev. 103, 114 (2009).

This Court too has repeatedly recognized that

class actions create the “potential for coercion,” as the

specter of “colossal liability” may force litigants into

“what Judge Friendly called ‘blackmail settlements.’”

Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736, 743 (2023)

(quoting Judge Henry J. Friendly, Federal Jurisdiction: A General View 120 (1973)).

Salazar’s sweeping interpretation of the VPPA’s

scope, if adopted, will undoubtedly lead to further coercive lawsuits under the statute.

Retailers have also been subject to abusive VPPA suits.

Between December 2022 and August 2023 alone,

40 of the VPPA cases just discussed were filed against

retailers and ecommerce businesses. See Appendix B

(listing VPPA cases against retailers since 2022).

Alarmingly, 39 of these cases were filed on behalf of a

small group of eight “tester” plaintiffs. See, e.g., Cantu

v. Tractor Supply Co., 2024 WL 1601257, at *1 (C.D.

Cal. Mar. 21, 2024) (“Plaintiff is a consumer privacy

advocate and ‘tester’” . . . .).

All of these suits were premised on freely-available audiovisual content on retailers’ websites. These

videos included demonstrating how to create custom

spaces with container products;11 “a six-second loop

with no dialogue of a woman walking on the beach”

that appeared on an “online clothing” retailer’s “landing page”;12 and a video that featured an “‘inspirational’ story of [a farming equipment retailer’s] employees who recovered from cancer” that was used for

“brand awareness.”13

Several of these cases (or ones like them) were dismissed because the courts concluded that the plaintiff

did not qualify as a VPPA “consumer.” For example,

one court noted that the plaintiff did “not allege that

she purchased any ‘audio-visual goods or services’

from Defendant, and indeed alleges that the ‘products’

Defendant sells are ‘container products and associated goods.’” Hernandez, 2024 WL 72657, at *3 (citation omitted); see also Hernandez v. Jostens, Inc.,

Hernandez, 2024 WL 72657, at *1 (“Plaintiff is a consumer privacy advocate who watched a video titled ‘Custom Spaces’ on Defendant’s website . . . .”).

Rodriguez v. JP Boden Servs. Inc., 2024 WL 559228, at

*4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024).

Cantu, 2024 WL 1601257, at *4.

2024 WL 1135165, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2024) (rejecting similar argument by same plaintiff); Carroll v.

Gen. Mills, Inc., 2023 WL 6373868, at *4 (C.D. Cal.

Sep. 1, 2023) (holding that the company’s “food is an

unrelated product and its purchase and use does not

make Plaintiffs consumers of audiovisual material”).14

While a handful of these suits against retailers

were dismissed on a motion to dismiss, half were voluntarily dismissed before the retailers even responded

to the complaints—likely reflecting early individual

settlements. See Appendix B. And none of them

reached summary judgment, class certification, or resulted in a class settlement. Ibid.

Those data points only reinforce that the wave of

VPPA litigation against retailers and other businesses is designed to coerce quick settlements

Many district courts had reached the same conclusion

outside of the retail context. See, e.g., Hunthausen v. Spine

Media, LLC, 678 F. Supp. 3d 1228, 1232-33 (S.D. Cal. 2023)

(a plaintiff must show that he or she is “a renter, purchaser

or subscriber of audio-visual goods or services, and not

goods or services writ large”); Brown v. Learfield

Commc’ns, LLC, 713 F. Supp. 3d 355, 367 (W.D. Tex. 2024)

(dismissing VPPA claim where “[p]laintiff d[id] not allege

that the video content he accessed was exclusive to a subscribership”); Heather v. Healthline Media, Inc., 2023 WL

8788760, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2023) (plaintiffs’ subscriptions to newsletters “equally available to all Healthline’s visitors” did not make them video subscribers, and

therefore “consumers”); Edwards v. Learfield Commc’ns,

LLC, 697 F. Supp. 3d 1297, 1306 (N.D. Fla. 2023) (similar

for plaintiffs’ allegations that they created an account, because the accounts did not “grant access to any exclusive or

restricted content, much less any exclusive video content”).

independent of the merits of the claims. See pages 1718, supra. Courts have recognized the problems posed

by law firms using professional plaintiffs to bring

cookie cutter complaints in an effort to coerce quick

settlements. See Shayler v. 1310 PCH, LLC, 51 F.4th

1015, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2022).

Accepting Salazar’s reading of the statute threatens to subject retailers to a new wave of strike suits

under the statute. Simply put, the VPPA should not

sweep in broad segments of the business community,

including retailers, whose business has nothing to do

with selling video content.

CONCLUSION

The Court should affirm the judgment below.

Respectfully submitted.

Michael W. McTigue Jr.

Meredith C. Slawe

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,

MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

One Manhattan West

New York, NY 10001

Monica Welt

Josh Moore

RETAIL LITIGATION

CENTER, INC.

99 M Street, S.E., Suite

7000

Washington, DC 20003

Archis A. Parasharami

Counsel of Record

Daniel E. Jones

Andrew D. Quinn

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,

MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

1440 New York Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20005

archis.parasharami@skadden.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

June 30, 2026

APPENDICES

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

APPENDIX A—Video Privacy Protection Act

Cases Filed Between January 1, 2022

And June 15, 2026 ......................................... 1a

APPENDIX B—Video Privacy Protection Act

Cases Filed Against Retailers ..................... 26a

APPENDIX A

Video Privacy Protection Act

Cases Filed Between January 1, 2022

And June 15, 2026

Cases Filed In 2022

Ambrose v. Boston Globe Media Partners LLC,

No. 1:22-cv-10195 (D. Mass. filed Feb. 5, 2022).

Suufi v. MediaLab.Ai, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00979 (C.D.

Cal. filed Feb. 11, 2022).

Jancik v. WebMD LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00644 (N.D. Ga.

filed Feb. 15, 2022).

Bloom v. Zuffa, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00412 (D. Nev.

filed Mar. 4, 2022).

McDaniel v. Home Box Office Inc., No. 1:22-cv01942 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 7, 2022).

Carter v. Scripps Networks, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-02031

(S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 11, 2022).

Goldstein v. Fandango Media, LLC, No. 9:22-cv80569 (S.D. Fla. filed Apr. 11, 2022).

Echevarria v. Gamestop, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02143

(E.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 13, 2022).

Ring v. NYP Holdings, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-03312

(S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 22, 2022).

10.

Rancourt v. Meredith Corporation, No. 1:22-cv10696 (D. Mass. filed May 6, 2022).

11.

Stark v. Patreon, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-03131 (N.D. Cal.

filed May 27, 2022).

12.

Martin v. Meredith Corporation, No. 1:22-cv-04776

(S.D.N.Y. filed June 7, 2022).

13.

Baker v. Bloomberg L.P., No.

(S.D.N.Y. filed June 14, 2022).

1:22-cv-04988

14.

Feldman v. Star Tribune Media Company LLC,

No. 0:22-cv-01731 (D. Minn. filed July 7, 2022).

15.

Parcell v. Paramount Global Corporation, No. 1:22cv-03666 (N.D. Ill. filed July 14, 2022).

16.

Lamb v. Forbes Media LLC, No. 1:22-cv-06319

(S.D.N.Y. filed July 25, 2022).

17.

Newlands v. Philo, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-04296 (N.D.

Cal. filed July 25, 2022).

18.

Czarnionka v. The Epoch Times Association, Inc.,

No. 1:22-cv-06348 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 26, 2022).

19.

Jackson v. Fandom, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-04423 (N.D.

Cal. filed July 29, 2022).

20.

In re Insider, Inc. Pixel-VPPA Litigation, No. 1:22cv-06529 (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 1, 2022).

21.

Adams v. America's Test Kitchen, Inc., No. 1:22-cv11309 (D. Mass. filed Aug. 15, 2022).

22.

Aldana v. Gamestop, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-07063

(S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 18, 2022).

23.

Nickerson v. Philo, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-05006 (N.D.

Cal. filed Sep. 1, 2022).

24.

McCausland v. Gray Television, Inc., No. 1:22-cv07539 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sep. 2, 2022).

25.

Hughley v. Healthline Media, Inc., No. 3:22-cv05059 (N.D. Cal. filed Sep. 6, 2022).

26.

Guida v. Gaia, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02350 (D. Colo. filed

Sep. 12, 2022).

27.

Fiorentino v. FloSports, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-11502 (D.

Mass. filed Sep. 13, 2022).

28.

Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-05508

(E.D.N.Y. filed Sep. 14, 2022).

29.

Salazar v. National Basketball Association,

No. 1:22-cv-07935 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sep. 16, 2022).

30.

Lam v. Books-A-Million, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01717

(M.D. Fla. filed Sep. 20, 2022).

31.

Markels v. AARP, No. 4:22-cv-05499 (N.D. Cal. filed

Sep. 27, 2022).

32.

Buechler v. Rumble, Inc., No. 8:22-cv-02237 (M.D.

Fla. filed Sep. 29, 2022).

33.

Sorensen v. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.,

No. 1:22-cv-05522 (N.D. Ill. filed Oct. 7, 2022).

34.

Elliot v. Trusted Media Brands, Inc., No. 1:22-cv08740 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 13, 2022).

35.

Guider-Shaw v. Equifax, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-05733

(N.D. Ill. filed Oct. 18, 2022).

36.

Hayes v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media,

L.P., No. 1:22-cv-05822 (N.D. Ill. filed Oct. 21,

2022).

37.

Roberts v. Perez Hilton Management, Inc., No. 2:22cv-07767 (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 25, 2022).

38.

Alex v. NFL Enterprises, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-09239

(S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 27, 2022).

39.

Gardner v. MeTV, No. 1:22-cv-05963 (N.D. Ill. filed

Oct. 28, 2022).

40.

Cantu v. WW.com, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-07977 (C.D.

Cal. filed Nov. 1, 2022).

41.

Buechler v. USA TODAY Co., Inc., No. 1:22-cv01464 (D. Del. filed Nov. 7, 2022).

42.

Hawkins v. CMG Media Corporation, No. 1:22-cv04462 (N.D. Ga. filed Nov. 8, 2022).

43.

Moloney v. Intuit, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-06351 (N.D. Ill.

filed Nov. 14, 2022).

44.

Cantu v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-08473

(C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 18, 2022).

45.

Golden v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, No. 1:22-cv09858 (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 18, 2022).

46.

Cantu v. Darden Corporation, No. 2:22-cv-08489

(C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 20, 2022).

47.

Osheske v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co.,

No. 22STCV37156 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed Nov. 23,

2022).

48.

Siegfried v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., No. 2:22-cv04877 (E.D. Pa. filed Dec. 7, 2022).

49.

Cantu v. Dealer Dot Com, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-01938

(S.D. Cal. filed Dec. 8, 2022).

50.

Cantu v. Vimeo.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-08888 (C.D.

Cal. filed Dec. 8, 2022).

51.

Mohamed v. Udemy, Inc., No. L-006626-22 (N.J.

Super. Ct. Law Div. filed Dec. 12, 2022).

52.

Passariello v. The Atlantic Monthly Group LLC,

No. 2:22-cv-08993 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 12, 2022).

53.

Cantu v. Tapestry, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-01974 (S.D. Cal.

filed Dec. 13, 2022).

54.

Cantu v. The Sherwin-Williams Company, No. 3:22cv-01971 (S.D. Cal. filed Dec. 13, 2022).

55.

Hunthausen v. Spine Media, LLC, No. 3:22-cv01970 (S.D. Cal. filed Dec. 13, 2022).

56.

Carroll v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 2:22-cv09109 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 15, 2022).

57.

Carroll v. La-Z-Boy Incorporated, No. 4:22-cv-08961

(N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 19, 2022).

58.

Carroll v. Mattel Inc., No. 3:22-cv-08954 (N.D. Cal.

filed Dec. 19, 2022).

59.

Carroll v. The J.M. Smucker Company, No. 3:22-cv08952 (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 19, 2022).

60.

Stoudemire v. Lee Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:22-cv00086 (S.D. Iowa filed Dec. 19, 2022).

61.

Carroll v. Dave & Buster's, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-09070

(N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 21, 2022).

Cases Filed In 2023

Carroll v. The Procter & Gamble Company,

No. 3:23-cv-00010 (S.D. Cal. filed Jan. 4, 2023).

Carroll v. Newell Brands Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00105

(C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 8, 2023).

Bryant v. Philo, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00136 (N.D. Cal.

filed Jan. 11, 2023).

McCoy v. AMC Networks, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00441

(S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 18, 2023).

Carroll v. Bombas LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00462 (C.D.

Cal. filed Jan. 20, 2023).

Carroll v. Chick-fil-a, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00314 (N.D.

Cal. filed Jan. 22, 2023).

Kuzenski v. Uproxx LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00945 (C.D.

Cal. filed Feb. 8, 2023).

Collins v. Toledo Blade Company, No. 3:23-cv00302 (N.D. Ohio filed Feb. 16, 2023).

Kandel v. Eros Media PLC, No. 2:23-cv-00905

(D.N.J. filed Feb. 16, 2023).

10.

Carroll v. MLB Advanced Media L.P., No. 2:23-cv01216 (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 17, 2023).

11.

Ickes v. AMC Networks Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00803

(N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 22, 2023).

12.

Tawam v. Feld Entertainment, Inc., No. 3:23-cv00357 (S.D. Cal. filed Feb. 23, 2023).

13.

Ghanaat v. Numerade Labs, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00833

(N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 24, 2023).

14.

Tawam v. Merchsource LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00393

(S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 1, 2023).

15.

Rodriguez v. The Hershey Company, No. 3:23-cv00398 (S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 2, 2023).

16.

Tawam v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., No. 3:23-cv00392 (S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 2, 2023).

17.

Rodriguez v. Mattress Firm, Inc., No. 23STCV04679

(Cal. Super. Ct. filed Mar. 3, 2023).

18.

Carroll v. General Mills, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-01746

(C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 8, 2023).

19.

Carroll v. Mars, Incorporated, No. 2:23-cv-01755

(C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 8, 2023).

20.

Joiner v. NHL Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-02083

(S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 10, 2023).

21.

Klein v. Gamma Entertainment, Inc., No. 2:23-cv01890 (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 14, 2023).

22.

Collins v. Pearson Education, Inc., No. 1:23-cv02219 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 15, 2023).

23.

Licea v. Fitlife Brands Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00509 (S.D.

Cal. filed Mar. 22, 2023).

24.

Darden v. Times Publishing Company, No. 8:23-cv00661 (M.D. Fla. filed Mar. 23, 2023).

25.

Edwards v. Learfield Communications LLC,

No. 1:23-cv-00065 (N.D. Fla. filed Mar. 23, 2023).

26.

May v. Philo, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-01394 (N.D. Cal. filed

Mar. 24, 2023).

27.

Vela v. AMC Networks, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-02524

(S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 24, 2023).

28.

Rodriguez v. JP Boden Services Inc., No. 3:23-cv00534 (S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 27, 2023).

29.

Carroll v. La-Z-Boy Incorporated, No. 2:23-cv-10744

(E.D. Mich. filed Mar. 30, 2023).

30.

Li v. Georges Media Group, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-01117

(E.D. La. filed Mar. 30, 2023).

31.

Rodriguez v. Transform SR Brands LLC, No. 3:23cv-00585 (S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 31, 2023).

32.

Tawam v. Athene USA Corporation, No. 2:23-cv02429 (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 31, 2023).

33.

Brown v. The University of Texas at Austin,

No. 1:23-cv-00374 (W.D. Tex. filed Apr. 3, 2023).

34.

Dicker v. Media Research Center, No. 1:23-cv-00453

(E.D. Va. filed Apr. 6, 2023).

35.

Rodriguez v. Luxy Hair Co., No. 3:23-cv-00657 (S.D.

Cal. filed Apr. 11, 2023).

36.

Martinez v. D2C, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-21394 (S.D. Fla.

filed Apr. 13, 2023).

37.

Peterson v. Learfield Communications, LLC,

No. 8:23-cv-00146 (D. Neb. filed Apr. 16, 2023).

38.

Cantu v. Adorama Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02907 (C.D. Cal.

filed Apr. 18, 2023).

39.

Rodriguez v. Givenchy Corporation, No. 3:23-cv00710 (S.D. Cal. filed Apr. 18, 2023).

40.

Rodriguez v. The Pampered Chef, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv02920 (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 18, 2023).

41.

McKay v. Nugs.net Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:23-cv01900 (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 20, 2023).

42.

Cantu v. Tractor Supply Company, No. 2:23-cv03027 (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 21, 2023).

43.

Cantu v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association,

No. 2:23-cv-03084 (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 24, 2023).

44.

Cantu v. Geico Insurance Agency, LLC, No. 2:23-cv03125 (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 25, 2023).

45.

Cantu v. Boardriders, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-03162 (C.D.

Cal. filed Apr. 26, 2023).

46.

Hernandez v. Dine Brands Global, Inc., No. 3:23-cv00786 (S.D. Cal. filed May 1, 2023).

47.

Cantu v. Fossil Group, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-03337 (C.D.

Cal. filed May 2, 2023).

48.

Hernandez v. Yeti Coolers LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00798

(S.D. Cal. filed May 2, 2023).

49.

Ade v. Viki, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-02161 (N.D. Cal. filed

May 3, 2023).

50.

Munoz v. Paula's Choice, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-03426

(C.D. Cal. filed May 4, 2023).

51.

Saunders v. Hearst Television, Inc., No. 1:23-cv10998 (D. Mass. filed May 5, 2023).

52.

Munoz v. Peter Thomas Roth Labs LLC, No. 2:23cv-03475 (C.D. Cal. filed May 7, 2023).

53.

Cantu v. Sound United LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00841

(S.D. Cal. filed May 8, 2023).

54.

Cantu v. DFO, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-03696 (C.D. Cal.

filed May 15, 2023).

55.

Rodriguez v. Delta T LLC, No. 2:23-cv-03717 (C.D.

Cal. filed May 15, 2023).

56.

Hunthausen v. Buzzfeed, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00900

(S.D. Cal. filed May 16, 2023).

57.

Diaz v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-02510

(N.D. Cal. filed May 23, 2023).

58.

Hernandez v. Pure Health Research LLC, No. 3:23cv-00971 (S.D. Cal. filed May 25, 2023).

59.

Cantu v. Sunrun Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00974 (S.D. Cal.

filed May 26, 2023).

60.

Rodriguez v. Zagg, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00976 (S.D. Cal.

filed May 26, 2023).

61.

Munoz v. Compassion International Inc.,

No. 23STCV12470 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed June 2,

2023).

62.

Heerde v. Learfield Communications, LLC,

No. 2:23-cv-04493 (C.D. Cal. filed June 8, 2023).

63.

Hernandez v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc., No. 2:23-cv04654 (C.D. Cal. filed June 13, 2023).

64.

Nino v. CNBC LLC, No. 1:23-cv-05025 (S.D.N.Y.

filed June 14, 2023).

65.

Jackson

Fandango

Media

LLC,

No. 2023LA000631 (Ill. Cir. Ct. filed June 15, 2023).

66.

Campos v. Tubi, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-03843 (N.D. Ill.

filed June 16, 2023).

67.

Munoz v. SharpSpring Inc., No. 3:23-cv-01130 (S.D.

Cal. filed June 16, 2023).

68.

Taino v. Bow Tie Cinemas, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-05371

(S.D.N.Y. filed June 23, 2023).

69.

Hernandez v. Ashley Global Retail, LLC, No. 2:23cv-05066 (C.D. Cal. filed June 26, 2023).

70.

Hernandez v. The Container Store, Inc., No. 2:23-cv05067 (C.D. Cal. filed June 26, 2023).

71.

Hernandez v. Jostens, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-05227 (C.D.

Cal. filed June 30, 2023).

72.

Rodriguez v. Aquatic Sales Solutions LLC, No. 2:23cv-05198 (C.D. Cal. filed June 30, 2023).

73.

Munoz v. Belkin International, Inc., No. 2:23-cv05287 (C.D. Cal. filed July 3, 2023).

74.

Ickes v. AMC Networks Inc., No. 1:23-cv-05730

(S.D.N.Y. filed July 5, 2023).

75.

Hernandez v. Chewy, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-05620 (C.D.

Cal. filed July 12, 2023).

76.

Bate v. Securly, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-01304 (S.D. Cal.

filed July 14, 2023).

77.

Bretto v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.,

No. 2:23-cv-02317 (D. Kan. filed July 19, 2023).

78.

Kishore v. BCCL Worldwide, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-03594

(N.D. Cal. filed July 20, 2023).

79.

Buckley v. AMC Networks, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03630

(N.D. Cal. filed July 21, 2023).

80.

Shapiro v. Peacock TV LLC, No. 7:23-cv-06345

(S.D.N.Y. filed July 21, 2023).

81.

Munoz v. Fantasia Trading LLC, No. 2:23-cv-06154

(C.D. Cal. filed July 28, 2023).

82.

Rodriguez v. ByteDance, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-04953

(N.D. Ill. filed July 28, 2023).

83.

Carroll v. Vida Shoes International, Inc., No. 2:23cv-06242 (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 1, 2023).

10a

84.

Dhruva v. Curiosity Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03863 (N.D.

Cal. filed Aug. 1, 2023).

85.

James v. Sentai Filmworks, LLC, No. 5:23-cv-03928

(N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 4, 2023).

86.

Myers v. National Association for Stock Car Auto

Racing, Inc., No. 6:23-cv-01540 (M.D. Fla. filed Aug.

11, 2023).

87.

Dhruva v. CuriosityStream Inc., No. 1:23-cv-02265

(D. Md. filed Aug. 18, 2023).

88.

Rodriguez v. Fiskars Brands, Inc., No. 2:23-cv07814 (C.D. Cal. filed Sep 19, 2023).

89.

John v. Delta Defense LLC, No. 2:23-cv-01253 (E.D.

Wis. filed Sep. 21, 2023).

90.

Fan v. NBA Properties Inc., No. 3:23-cv-05069 (N.D.

Cal. filed Oct. 3, 2023).

91.

Potter v. Babbel, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00617 (M.D. Fla.

filed Oct. 12, 2023).

92.

Potter v. Dotdash Media, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00616

(M.D. Fla. filed Oct. 12, 2023).

93.

Antoine v. ESPN Enterprises, Inc., No. 2:23-cv00887 (M.D. Fla. filed Oct. 13, 2023).

94.

Antoine v. Sling TV, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00888 (M.D.

Fla. filed Oct. 13, 2023).

95.

Brinkley v. Philo, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-01207 (M.D. Fla.

filed Oct. 13, 2023).

96.

Evans v. BET Interactive, LLC, No. 6:23-cv-01978

(M.D. Fla. filed Oct. 13, 2023).

97.

Perez v. FuboTV, Inc., No. 0:23-cv-61961 (S.D. Fla.

filed Oct. 13, 2023).

98.

Perez v. Redbox Entertainment, Inc., No. 0:23-cv61962 (S.D. Fla. filed Oct. 13, 2023).

99.

Weiss v. Peacock TV, LLC, No. 0:23-cv-61956 (S.D.

Fla. filed Oct. 13, 2023).

11a

100.

Sleigh v. PGA Tour, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00893 (M.D.

Fla. filed Oct. 14, 2023).

101.

Falcon v. TelevisaUnivision Interactive Media, Inc.,

No. 8:23-cv-02340 (M.D. Fla. filed Oct. 16, 2023).

102.

Garcia v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., No. 8:23-cv02351 (M.D. Fla. filed Oct. 17, 2023).

103.

Nguyen v. Course Hero, Inc., No. 0:23-cv-61981

(S.D. Fla. filed Oct. 18, 2023).

104.

Nguyen v. National Geographic Partners, LLC,

No. 8:23-cv-02359 (M.D. Fla. filed Oct. 18, 2023).

105.

Foulkes v. Chegg, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-23993 (S.D. Fla.

filed Oct. 19, 2023).

106.

Sutton v. TED Foundation, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-09219

(S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 19, 2023).

107.

Baker v. Vimeo.com, Inc., No. 6:23-cv-02030 (M.D.

Fla. filed Oct. 20, 2023).

108.

LaCasse v. Study.com, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-24026 (S.D.

Fla. filed Oct. 23, 2023).

109.

Doe v. MUBI, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-05509 (N.D. Cal.

filed Oct. 25, 2023).

110.

Badwal v. Alo Moves, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-24164 (S.D.

Fla. filed Oct. 31, 2023).

111.

Shah v. Asia TV USA Limited, No. 2:23-cv-21722

(D.N.J. filed Oct. 31, 2023).

112.

Ghazizadeh v. Coursera, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-05646

(N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 1, 2023).

113.

Garza v. Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas, LLC, No. 4:23cv-05719 (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 6, 2023).

114.

Messner v. Stingray Music USA Inc., No. 6:23-cv06636 (W.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 7, 2023).

115.

Lyons v. Betterme International Limited, No. 1:23cv-24274 (S.D. Fla. filed Nov. 8, 2023).

116.

Garza v. Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC,

No. 3:23-cv-05849 (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 13, 2023).

12a

117.

Tejon v. Vimeo.com, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-24347 (S.D.

Fla. filed Nov. 13, 2023).

118.

Walsh v. California Cinema Investments LLC,

No. 2:23-cv-09608 (C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 13, 2023).

119.

Christopherson

Cinema

Entertainment

Corporation, No. 0:23-cv-03614 (D. Minn. filed Nov.

22, 2023).

120.

Arora v. Honolulu Star-Advertiser, No. 1:23-cv00480 (D. Haw. filed Nov. 27, 2023).

121.

Fuhrhop v. JustWatch, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-12923 (D.

Mass. filed Nov. 30, 2023).

122.

Sancruzado

Bare

Knuckle

Fighting

Championship, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-24657 (S.D. Fla.

filed Dec. 9, 2023).

123.

Sancruzado v. Flipps Media, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-24659

(S.D. Fla. filed Dec. 9, 2023).

124.

Sancruzado v. Rumble, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-24661 (S.D.

Fla. filed Dec. 9, 2023).

125.

Tejon v. CuriosityStream, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-24658

(S.D. Fla. filed Dec. 9, 2023).

126.

Tejon v. Up Faith & Family, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-24660

(S.D. Fla. filed Dec. 9, 2023).

127.

Tejon v. Cineverse Entertainment Corp., No. 1:23cv-24684 (S.D. Fla. filed Dec. 12, 2023).

128.

Weiss v. Peacock TV, LLC, No. 7:23-cv-11037

(S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 20, 2023).

129.

Myers v. National Association for Stock Car Auto

Racing, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00888 (W.D.N.C. filed Dec.

21, 2023).

13a

Cases Filed In 2024

Shapiro v. Sellers International, LLC, No. 4:24-cv00079 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 4, 2024).

Beasley v. FuboTV, Inc., No.

(S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 31, 2024).

Thornton v. Mindvalley, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-00593

(N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 31, 2024).

Berryman v. Reading International, Inc., No. 1:24cv-00750 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 1, 2024).

Serra v. New England Patriots, LLC, No. 4:24-cv40022 (D. Mass. filed Feb 1, 2024).

Edwards v. MUBI, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-00638 (N.D.

Cal. filed Feb. 2, 2024).

Huang v. TGC, LLC, No. 6:24-cv-00270 (M.D. Fla.

filed Feb. 6, 2024).

Valentini v. Reading International, Inc., No. 2:24cv-00255 (D. Nev. filed Feb. 6, 2024).

Krik v. Fandango Media, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00895

(S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 7, 2024).

10.

Tejon v. Zeus Networks, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-20498

(S.D. Fla. filed Feb. 8, 2024).

11.

Wong v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., No. 3:24-cv00779 (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 8, 2024).

12.

Hossain v. Mediastar Limited, No. 1:24-cv-01201

(S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 16, 2024).

13.

Kasper v. NFHS Network, LLC, No. 8:24-cv-00383

(C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 23, 2024).

14.

Endres v. FitOn Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01589 (C.D. Cal.

filed Feb. 27, 2024).

15.

Seguin v. Digital Download, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-01354

(N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 6, 2024).

16.

Beagle v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00316

(W.D. Wash. filed Mar. 8, 2024).

1:24-cv-00711

14a

17.

Sahagn v. Themis Bar Review, LLC, No. 1:24-cv02065 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 12, 2024).

18.

Villalobos v. D2C, LLC, No. 5:24-cv-01517 (N.D.

Cal. filed Mar. 12, 2024).

19.

Hyman v. Sinclair, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-02168 (C.D.

Cal. filed Mar. 18, 2024).

20.

Johnson v. Times Internet Limited, No. 2:24-cv04350 (D.N.J. filed Mar. 28, 2024).

21.

Stricker v. The Christian Broadcasting Network,

Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00501 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 28,

2024).

22.

Flores v. Dazn US LLC, No. 24STCV08450 (Cal.

Super. Ct. filed Apr. 3, 2024).

23.

De La Paz v. 2U, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-11049 (D. Mass.

filed Apr. 19, 2024).

24.

Doe v. Aylo Holdings S.A.R.L., No. 2:24-cv-03267

(C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 19, 2024).

25.

Labernik v. Augusta National, Inc., No. 1:24-cv03058 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 22, 2024).

26.

Lee v. Plex, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-02386 (N.D. Cal. filed

Apr. 22, 2024).

27.

Bennett v. TestMax, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-03662 (C.D.

Cal. filed May 2, 2024).

28.

Kauffman v. 800 Pound Gorilla Media, LLC,

No. 3:24-cv-00787 (S.D. Cal. filed May 2, 2024).

29.

Morrison v. Yippee Entertainment, Inc., No. 3:24-cv00797 (S.D. Cal. filed May 3, 2024).

30.

Stricker v. Centr LLC, No. 2:24-cv-03877 (C.D. Cal.

filed May 9, 2024).

31.

Smith v. Trinity Broadcasting of Texas, Inc.,

No. 8:24-cv-01046 (C.D. Cal. filed May 14, 2024).

32.

Marden v. Weather Group Television, LLC,

No. 1:24-cv-11349 (D. Mass. filed May 21, 2024).

15a

33.

Krayzman v. iStockphoto, LP, No 3:24-cv-03086

(N.D. Cal. filed May 22, 2024).

34.

Plotsker v. Envato Pty Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-04412 (C.D.

Cal. filed May 28, 2024).

35.

De La Torre v. Vshred, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-04917 (C.D.

Cal. filed June 11, 2024).

36.

Lee v. Springer Nature America, Inc., No. 1:24-cv04493 (S.D.N.Y. filed June 12, 2024).

37.

Joseph v. IGN Entertainment, Inc., No. 1:24-cv11579 (D. Mass. filed June 18, 2024).

38.

Mata v. Redfin Corporation, No. 3:24-cv-01094 (S.D.

Cal. filed June 25, 2024).

39.

Mata v. Zillow Group, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-01095 (S.D.

Cal. filed June 25, 2024).

40.

J.S. v. Connected Ventures, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-04992

(S.D.N.Y. filed July 1, 2024).

41.

DuCote v. CuriosityStream, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01922

(D. Md. filed July 2, 2024).

42.

Krueger v. Chess.com, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-05722 (N.D.

Ill. filed July 8, 2024).

43.

Gutierrez v. Liberty Media Corporation, No. 1:24-cv05770 (N.D. Ill. filed July 9, 2024).

44.

Brown v. Walmart, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-05144 (W.D.

Ark. filed July 15, 2024).

45.

Arias v. Sling TV, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-05493 (S.D.N.Y.

filed July 19, 2024).

46.

Palma v. Formula One Digital Media Limited,

No. 1:24-cv-05283 (E.D.N.Y. filed July 29, 2024).

47.

N.Z. v. Fenix International Limited, No. 8:24-cv01655 (C.D. Cal. filed July 29, 2024).

48.

Feller v. Alliance Entertainment, LLC, No. 0:23-cv61444 (S.D. Fla. filed Aug. 8, 2024).

49.

Blakeley v. The National Rugby League Limited,

No. 3:24-cv-04923 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 9, 2024).

16a

50.

McCormick v. The Australian Football League,

No. 4:24-cv-04929 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 9, 2024).

51.

MacAlpine v. Onnit, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00933 (W.D.

Tex. filed Aug. 15, 2024).

52.

Silva v. Yanka Industries, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-05264

(N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 16, 2024).

53.

Archer v. Shout! Factory, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-07056

(C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 20, 2024).

54.

Golland v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media,

L.P., No. 1:24-cv-06270 (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 20,

2024).

55.

Brady v. Weather Group Television, LLC, No. 1:24cv-00261 (D.N.H. filed Aug. 23, 2024).

56.

Jolly v. FurtherEd, Inc., No.

(S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 23, 2024).

57.

Gakuba v. James, No. 1:24-cv-01043 (N.D.N.Y. filed

Aug. 25, 2024).

58.

Stachovic v. Pig Newton, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-06589

(S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 30, 2024).

59.

Gakuba v. James, No. 1:24-cv-06661 (S.D.N.Y. filed,

Aug. 31, 2024).

60.

Ezpeleta v. FurtherEd, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-06709

(S.D.N.Y. filed Sep. 4, 2024).

61.

Williams v. CD Projekt S.A., No. 1:24-cv-06205

(E.D.N.Y. filed Sep. 5, 2024).

62.

Gakuba v. James, No. 1:24-cv-06969 (S.D.N.Y. filed

Sep. 8, 2024).

63.

Coppedge v. The Athletic Media Company, No. 1:24cv-12312 (D. Mass. filed Sep. 9, 2024).

64.

Harlos v. LexVid Services, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-01621

(S.D. Cal. filed Sep. 11, 2024).

65.

Harper v. NBI, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00644 (W.D. Wis.

filed Sep. 11, 2024).

1:24-cv-06401

17a

66.

Carruth v. KD Creatives, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-02484

(E.D. Cal. filed Sep. 12, 2024).

67.

To v. DirectToU, LLC, No. 3:24-cv-06447 (N.D. Cal.

filed Sep. 12, 2024).

68.

Penning v. The Daily Caller, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-02662

(D.D.C. filed Sep. 17, 2024).

69.

Comarow v. TRTCLE, Corp., No. 1:24-cv-07096

(S.D.N.Y. filed Sep. 18, 2024).

70.

Jordan v. Crunch, LLC, No.

(S.D.N.Y. filed Sep. 19, 2024).

71.

Harwell v. McGraw Hill, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-07222

(S.D.N.Y. filed Sep. 24, 2024).

72.

Saarloos v. The Cowboy Channel, LLC, No. 5:24-cv02058 (C.D. Cal. filed Sep. 25, 2024).

73.

Trimboli v. Filmsupply, LLC, No. 4:24-cv-06752

(N.D. Cal. filed Sep. 26, 2024).

74.

Lucchese-Soto v. The Criterion Collection, LLC,

No. 1:24-cv-07345 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sep. 27, 2024).

75.

McGuire v. The Criterion Collection, LLC, No. 1:24cv-07354 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sep. 27, 2024).

76.

Wissel v. Rural Media Group, Inc., No. 4:24-cv00925 (N.D. Tex. filed Sep. 27, 2024).

77.

McGrath v. Shout! Factory, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-09360

(N.D. Ill. filed Oct. 2, 2024).

78.

Lakes v. Ubisoft, Inc., 3:24-cv-06943 (N.D. Cal. filed

Oct. 3, 2024).

79.

Manza v. Pesi, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00690 (W.D. Wis.

filed Oct. 3, 2024).

80.

Benson v. SimpleNursing LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01118

(D. Del. filed Oct. 9, 2024).

81.

Zamora v. Green Man Gaming Limited, No. 1:24-cv07175 (E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 11, 2024).

82.

Lovett v. Continued.com, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00590

(S.D. Ohio filed Oct. 16, 2024).

1:24-cv-07118

18a

83.

Wissel v. Rural Media Group, Inc., No. 4:24-cv00999 (N.D. Tex. filed Oct. 18, 2024).

84.

Guereca v. Motorsport.tv Digital, LLC, No. 1:24-cv24066 (S.D. Fla. filed Oct. 21, 2024).

85.

Hoffman v. FitOn, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-09105 (C.D. Cal.

filed Oct. 22, 2024).

86.

Birch v. Green Man Gaming Limited, No. 2:24-cv02929 (E.D. Cal. filed Oct. 23, 2024).

87.

Kueppers v. Zumba Fitness, LLC, No. 0:24-cv-61983

(S.D. Fla. filed Oct. 23, 2024).

88.

Damrau v. Colibri Group, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-01441

(E.D. Mo. filed Oct. 25. 2024).

89.

Gakuba v. James, No. 1:24-cv-08313 (S.D.N.Y. filed

Oct. 25, 2024).

90.

Simon v. Scripps Networks, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-08175

(S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 28, 2024).

91.

Gakuba v. James, No. 1:24-cv-01329 (N.D.N.Y. filed

Oct. 31, 2024).

92.

Cho v. Paramount Global, No. 1:24-cv-08312

(S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 1, 2024).

93.

Jones v. Becker Professional Development

Corporation, No. 6:24-cv-06642 (W.D.N.Y. filed

Nov. 1, 2024).

94.

Penning v. The International Business Machines,

Inc., No. 7:24-cv-08380 (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 4, 2024).

95.

Garcia v. Brigham Young University, No. 1:24-cv00188 (D. Utah filed Nov. 12, 2024).

96.

Sarhadi v. Pear Health Labs, Inc., No. 3:24-cv07921 (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 12, 2024).

97.

Mull v. Gotham Distributing Corporation, No. 2:24cv-06083 (E.D. Pa. filed Nov. 13, 2024).

98.

Dallum v. Kino Lorber LLC, No. 1:24-cv-08775

(S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 18, 2024).

19a

99.

Evans v. Macy’s, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-08761 (S.D.N.Y.

filed Nov. 18, 2024).

100.

Kroskey v. Elevate Labs, LLC, No. 5:24-cv-08113

(N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 18, 2024).

101.

Trimboli v. FilmSupply, LLC, No. 4:24-cv-01156

(N.D. Tex. filed Nov. 27, 2024).

102.

Robles v. Discovery Digital Ventures, LLC, No. 1:24cv-09327 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 6, 2024).

103.

Lindekugel v. Strafford Publications, LLC,

No. 1:24-cv-05642 (N.D. Ga. filed Dec. 9, 2024).

104.

Budette v. FuboTV Inc, No. 2024LA001460 (Ill. Cir.

Ct. filed Dec. 10, 2024).

105.

Haines v. Cengage Learning, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00710

(S.D. Ohio filed Dec. 11, 2024).

106.

Harris v. VXN Group LLC, No. 24STCV32758 (Cal.

Super. Ct. filed Dec. 11, 2024).

107.

Hasani v. Humble Bundle, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-09449

(S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 11, 2024).

108.

Archer v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, No. 2:24-cv10744 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 13, 2024).

109.

Wan v. DraftKings Inc., No. 1:24-cv-09557 (S.D.N.Y.

filed Dec. 13, 2024).

110.

Riley v. Zeus Networks, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-13120 (D.

Mass. filed Dec. 18, 2024).

111.

Carbone v. Limited Run Games, Inc., No. 2:24-cv08861 (E.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 27, 2024).

112.

Marquis v. Fandom, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-10041

(S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 31, 2024).

20a

Cases Filed In 2025

Cochenour v. 360Training.com, Inc., No. 1:25-cv00007 (W.D. Tex. filed Jan. 2, 2025).

Luna v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.,

No. 1:25-cv-00208 (S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 9, 2025).

Kohn v. CrunchLabs LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00210

(E.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 13, 2025).

Lexclaim Recovery Group US LLC v. Patreon, Inc.,

No. 3:25-cv-00428 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 13, 2025).

Teresa Turner v. National Notary Association,

No. 2:25-cv-00334 (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 13, 2025).

Hetrick v. Ascend Learning, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-10103

(D. Mass. filed Jan. 14, 2025).

Navarro-Cabrera v. QVC, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00229

(E.D. Pa. filed Jan. 14, 2025).

Cohn v. Universal Pictures Home Entertainment,

LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00469 (S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 16,

2025).

Barajas v. Atlas Obscura Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00302

(E.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 17, 2025).

10.

Ballard v. Insomniac Holdings, LLC, No. 3:25-cv00811 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 23, 2025).

11.

Nguyen v. Elsevier Inc., No. 5:25-cv-00825 (N.D.

Cal. filed Jan. 24, 2025).

12.

Bolanos v. Vshred, LLC, No. CACE25001211 (Fla.

Cir. Ct. filed Jan. 28, 2025).

13.

Kieliszewski v. Relias LLC, No. 5:25-cv-00043

(E.D.N.C. filed Jan. 30, 2025).

14.

Ware v. Relias, LLC, No. 4:25-cv-00023 (E.D.N.C.

filed Jan. 31, 2025).

15.

Whalen v. NBA Properties, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-01030

(N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 31, 2025).

16.

Cai v. DataCamp, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00954 (S.D.N.Y.

filed Feb. 3, 2025).

21a

17.

Cole v. LinkedIn Corporation, No. 5:25-cv-01097

(N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 3, 2025).

18.

Marquis v. Focus Multimedia Ltd., No. 1:25-cv01011 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 4, 2025).

19.

Wambold v. RTA Media Holdings, LLC, No. 1:25cv-00096 (M.D.N.C. filed Feb. 7, 2025).

20.

Brodiski v. Augustine Institute, Inc., No. 1:25-cv00476 (D. Colo. filed Feb. 13, 2025).

21.

Wray v. Humble Bundle, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-01592

(N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 14, 2025).

22.

Korn v. Simplilearn Americas Inc., No. 1:25-cv10461 (D. Mass. filed Feb. 26, 2025).

23.

Musick v. Dotdash Meredith, Inc., No. 1:25-cv01718 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 28, 2025).

24.

Indiviglio v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-01884

(S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 6, 2025).

25.

Porcuna v. Crazy Maple Studio, Inc., No. 3:25-cv02428 (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 10, 2025).

26.

Levens v. For Goodness Sake LLC, No. 5:25-cv02593 (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 17, 2025).

27.

Lewis v. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc.,

No. 1:25-cv-02269 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 19, 2025).

28.

Stamatis v. ATP Media Operations Ltd., No. 3:25cv-30046 (D. Mass. filed Mar. 20, 2025).

29.

Allen v. Trinity Broadcasting of Texas, Inc.,

No. 8:25-cv-00537 (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 20, 2025).

30.

Eng v. WarnerMedia Direct, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-02452

(S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 25, 2025).

31.

Brunner v. Fenix Internet, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-03244

(N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 26, 2025).

32.

Glinoga v. Sullivan Entertainment Inc., No. 3:25-cv00707 (S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 26, 2025).

33.

Casper v. Dotdash Meredith, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02613

(S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 31, 2025).

22a

34.

Dawson v. National University, No. 1:25-cv-03498

(N.D. Ill. filed Apr. 1, 2025).

35.

Dawson v. The University of Phoenix, Inc., No. 1:25cv-03497 (N.D. Ill. filed Apr. 1, 2025).

36.

Moore v. MLB Advance Media, L.P., No. 1:25-cv02880 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 7, 2025).

37.

Horan v. National Cable Satellite Corporation,

No. 1:25-cv-01114 (D.D.C. filed Apr. 14, 2025).

38.

Goodman v. Hillsdale College, No. 1:25-cv-00417

(W.D. Mich. filed Apr. 14, 2025).

39.

Anderson v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., No. 1:25cv-03249 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 18, 2025).

40.

McDonald v. Samba TV, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-03470

(N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 18, 2025).

41.

M.S. v. Aylo Global Entertainment, Inc., No. 2:25cv-01139 (E.D. Cal. filed Apr. 18, 2025).

42.

Ugoala v. Regent, L.P., No. 1:25-cv-02153 (N.D. Ga.

filed Apr. 18, 2025).

43.

Banks v. CoStar Realty Information, Inc., No. 4:25cv-00564 (E.D. Mo. filed Apr. 23, 2025).

44.

Messina v. Baseball America Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00309

(M.D.N.C. filed Apr. 23, 2025).

45.

Kopeck v. Tivoli Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-04554

(N.D. Ill. filed Apr. 25, 2025).

46.

Allen v. BAMTech, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-03861 (C.D.

Cal. filed Apr. 30, 2025).

47.

Simpson v. Valnet Inc., No. 1:25-cv-03622 (S.D.N.Y.

filed May 1, 2025).

48.

Chandra v. Prager University Foundation, No. 2:25cv-03984 (C.D. Cal. filed May 5, 2025).

49.

Dougherty v. Zynga Inc., No. 3:25-cv-04051 (N.D.

Cal. filed May 9, 2025).

50.

McRitchie v. Global Tetrahedron, LLC, No. 1:25-cv05471 (N.D. Ill. filed May 16, 2025).

23a

51.

S.H. v. Cybernet Entertainment LLC, No. 3:25-cv04682 (N.D. Cal. filed June 3, 2025).

52.

Cartagenova v. Dotdash Meredith, Inc., No. 1:25-cv11638 (D. Mass. filed June 5, 2025).

53.

D.B. v. Bellesa Enterprises US, Inc., No. 2:25-cv05099 (C.D. Cal. filed June 5, 2025).

54.

D.M. v. Vergil Services, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05102

(C.D. Cal. filed June 5, 2025).

55.

Britt v. PGATour.com, LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00667

(M.D. Fla. filed June 13, 2025).

56.

S.M. v. Select Media LLC, No. 1:25-cv-11856 (D.

Mass. filed June 27, 2025).

57.

Garcia v. Becker Professional Development

Corporation, No. 1:25-cv-12157 (D. Mass. filed July

31, 2025).

58.

Ramirez v. The Washington Times LLC, No. 1:25cv-02619 (D.D.C. filed Aug. 11, 2025).

59.

Saul v. Valnet Inc., No. 1:25-cv-12236 (D. Mass.

filed Aug. 11, 2025).

60.

Lomeli v. WHOOP, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-06828 (N.D.

Cal. filed Aug. 13, 2025).

61.

Johnson v. Gamestop, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00646 (E.D.

Va. filed Aug. 15, 2025).

62.

E.G. v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 1:25-cv07359 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sep. 4, 2025).

63.

Stowe v. Hearst Magazine Media, Inc., No. 1:25-cv01128 (D. Del. filed Sep. 10, 2025).

64.

Popa v. Disney Worldwide Services, Inc., No. 2:25cv-09390 (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 2, 2025).

65.

Diaz v. Paramount Skydance Corporation, No. 5:25cv-02945 (C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 4, 2025).

24a

Cases Filed In 2026

(January 1, 2026 – June 15, 2026)

DiGiacinto v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,

No. 1:26-cv-00196 (S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 9, 2026).

Hokes v. Zeus Networks, LLC, No. 4:26-cv-00361

(N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 13, 2026).

Cheung v. Slickdeals, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-00519 (C.D.

Cal. filed Jan. 16, 2026).

Rudnick v. Sony Corporation of America, No. 3:26cv-00297 (S.D. Cal. filed Jan. 16, 2026).

Chisholm v. BBC Global News US, LLC, No. 1:26cv-00809 (S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 29, 2026).

Shahbaz v. Z5X Global-FZ LLC, No. 2:26-cv-00372

(E.D. Cal. filed Feb. 10, 2026).

Deliyannides v. Vimeo.com, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01915

(N.D. Ill. filed Feb. 20, 2026).

Cabonios v. Crunchyroll, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-02373

(C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 5, 2026).

Semonious v. Sony Electronics, Inc., No. 3:26-cv01833 (S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 23, 2026).

10.

Dougherty v. Zynga Inc.,

(S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 3, 2026).

11.

Ciric v. Al Jazeera Media Network, No. 1:26-cv11751 (D. Mass. filed Apr. 15, 2026).

12.

Haskell v. LIV Golf Inc., No. 1:26-cv-11787 (D.

Mass. filed Apr. 16, 2026).

13.

Melunsky v. LinkedIn Corporation, No. 5:26-cv03460 (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 23, 2026).

14.

Gallardo v. Redfin Corporation, No. 8:26-cv-00983

(C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 24, 2026).

15.

Cazares v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., No. 5:26-cv03840 (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 30, 2026).

16.

Manypenny v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01534

(W.D. Wash. filed May 6, 2026).

No.

1:26-cv-02772

25a

17.

Sorkin v. Fortune Media (USA) Corporation,

No. 1:26-cv-03772 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 06, 2026).

18.

Severino v. Hisense USA Corporation, No. 3:26-cv04379 (N.D. Cal. filed May 12, 2026).

19.

Rosenberg v. TCL North America Inc, No. 3:26-cv04629 (N.D. Cal. filed May 15, 2026).

26a

APPENDIX B

Video Privacy Protection Act

Cases Filed Against Retailers

Echevarria v. Gamestop, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02143

(E.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 13, 2022).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on August

3, 2022, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 11.

Aldana v. Gamestop, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-07063

(S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 18, 2022).

a. Disposition: Stipulated dismissal on January

6, 2025, after Defendant filed an answer. See

Dkt. No. 50.

Cantu v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-08473

(C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 18, 2022).

a. Disposition:

Voluntarily

dismissed

February 27, 2023, before Defendant filed an

answer or responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 11.

Siegfried v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., No. 2:22-cv04877 (E.D. Pa. filed Dec. 7, 2022).

a. Disposition: Defendant’s motion to compel

arbitration granted on November 15, 2023. See

Dkt. No. 24.

Cantu v. Tapestry, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-01974 (S.D. Cal.

filed Dec. 13, 2022).

a. Disposition: Defendant’s motion to dismiss

granted with prejudice on October 3, 2023. See

Dkt. Nos. 23 & 24.

Cantu v. The Sherwin-Williams Company, No. 3:22cv-01971 (S.D. Cal. filed Dec. 13, 2022).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on March

20, 2023, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 11.

27a

Carroll v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 2:22-cv09109 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 15, 2022).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on March

15, 2023, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 18.

Carroll v. La-Z Boy Incorporated, No. 4:22-cv-08961

(N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 19, 2022).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on March

31, 2023, after Defendant filed a motion to

dismiss and the action was transferred to E.D.

Mich (No. 2:23-cv-10744). See E.D. Mich. Dkt.

No. 6.

Carroll v. Mattel Inc., No. 3:22-cv-08954 (N.D. Cal.

filed Dec. 19, 2022).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on March

13, 2023, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 17.

10.

Carroll v. The Procter & Gamble Company, No.

3:23-cv-00010 (S.D. Cal. filed Jan. 4, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on May 3,

2023, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 13.

11.

Carroll v. Newell Brands Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00105

(C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 8, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on April 13,

2023, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 14.

12.

Carroll v. Bombas LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00462 (C.D.

Cal. filed Jan. 20, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on March

15, 2023, after Defendant filed a motion to

dismiss. See Dkt. No. 25.

13.

Tawam v. Merchsource, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00393

(S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 1, 2023).

28a

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on May 23,

2023, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 12.

14.

Rodriguez v. The Hershey Company, No. 3:23-cv00398 (S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 2, 2023).

a. Disposition: Defendant’s motion to dismiss

granted with prejudice on October 12, 2023. See

Dkt. Nos. 14 & 15.

15.

Rodriguez v. Mattress Firm, Inc., No. 23STCV04679

(Cal. Super. Ct. filed Mar. 3, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on August

14, 2023, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. BL-25.

16.

Carroll v. Mars Incorporated, No. 2:23-cv-01755

(C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 8, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on March

28, after Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

See Dkt. No. 13.

17.

Licea v. Fitlife Brands Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00509 (S.D.

Cal. filed Mar. 22, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on August

15, 2023, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 11.

18.

Rodriguez v. JP Boden Services Inc., No. 3:23-cv00534 (S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 27, 2023).

a. Disposition: Defendant’s motion to dismiss

granted without prejudice on February 12, 2024.

See Dkt. Nos. 37 & 38.

19.

Tawam v. Athene USA Corporation, No. 2:23-cv02429 (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 31, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on May 18,

2023, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 15.

20.

Rodriguez v. Transform SR Brands LLC, No. 3:23cv-00585 (S.D. Cal. filed Mar 31, 2023).

29a

a. Disposition:

Voluntarily

dismissed

February 8, 2024, after Defendant filed a motion

to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 15.

21.

Rodriguez v. Luxy Hair Co., No. 3:23-cv-00657 (S.D.

Cal. filed Apr. 11, 2023).

a. Disposition:

Voluntarily

dismissed

December 20, 2023, after Defendant filed a

motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 15.

22.

Rodriguez v. Givenchy Corporation, No. 3:23-cv00710 (S.D. Cal. filed Apr. 18, 2023).

a. Disposition: Joint motion for dismissal

granted on July 21, 2023, after Plaintiff filed

notice of settlement and before Defendant filed

an answer or responsive pleading. See Dkt. No.

10.

23.

Cantu v. Adorama Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02907 (C.D. Cal.

filed Apr. 18, 2023)

a. Disposition: Joint motion for dismissal

granted on September 15, 2023, before

Defendant filed an answer or responsive

pleading. See Dkt. No. 21.

24.

Rodriguez v. The Pampered Chef, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv02920 (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 18, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on August

4, 2023, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 16.

25.

Cantu v. Tractor Supply Company, No. 2:23-cv03027 (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 21, 2023).

a. Disposition: Defendant’s motion to dismiss

granted with prejudice March 21, 2024. See Dkt.

No. 40.

26.

Cantu v. Boardriders, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-03162 (C.D.

Cal. filed Apr. 26, 2023).

30a

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on July 24,

2023, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 12.

27.

Hernandez v. Yeti Coolers LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00798

(S.D. Cal. filed May 2, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on July 3,

2023, after Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

See Dkt. No. 9.

28.

Cantu v. Fossil Group, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-03337 (C.D.

Cal. filed May 02, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on October

25, 2023, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 22.

29.

Munoz v. Peter Thomas Roth Labs LLC, No. 2:23cv-03475 (C.D. Cal. filed May 7, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on July 17,

2023, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 16.

30.

Munoz v. Paula’s Choice, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-03426

(C.D. Cal. filed May 4, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on July 31,

2023, after Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

See Dkt. No. 28.

31.

Cantu v. Sound United LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00841

(S.D. Cal. filed May 8, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on March

6, 2024, after Defendant filed a motion to

dismiss. See Dkt. No. 17.

32.

Rodriguez v. Zagg, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00976 (S.D. Cal.

filed May 26, 2023).

a. Disposition: Joint motion for dismissal

granted on September 5, 2023, after Plaintiff

filed notice of settlement and before Defendant

filed an answer or responsive pleading. See Dkt.

No. 12.

31a

33.

Cantu v. Sunrun Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00974 (S.D. Cal.

filed May 26, 2023).

a. Disposition: Defendant’s motion to dismiss

granted with prejudice on November 22, 2023.

See Dkt. No. 17.

34.

Hernandez v. Michael Kors USA, Inc., No. 2:23-cv04654 (C.D. Cal. filed June 13, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on July 30,

2023, after Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

See Dkt. No. 11.

35.

Hernandez v. Ashley Global Retail, LLC, No. 2:23cv-05066 (C.D. Cal. filed June 26, 2023).

a. Disposition:

Voluntarily

dismissed

December 4, 2023, after Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint and Defendant filed a

motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 20.

36.

Hernandez v. The Container Store, Inc., No. 2:23-cv05067 (C.D. Cal. filed June 26, 2023).

a. Disposition: Defendant’s motion to dismiss

granted with prejudice on January 3, 2024. See

Dkt. No. 33.

37.

Hernandez v. Jostens, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-05227 (C.D.

Cal. filed June 30, 2023).

a. Disposition: Defendant’s motion to dismiss

granted with prejudice on February 7, 2024. See

Dkt. No. 24.

38.

Rodriguez v. Aquatic Sales Solutions LLC, No. 2:23cv-05198 (C.D. Cal. filed June 30, 2023).

a. Disposition: Dismissed upon joint stipulation

filed on September 10, 2024, after Defendant

filed a motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 28.

39.

Munoz v. Belkin International, Inc., No. 2:23-cv05287 (C.D. Cal. filed July 3, 2023).

a. Disposition: Dismissed after notice of

settlement filed on July 21, 2023, before

32a

Defendant filed an answer or responsive

pleading. See Dkt. No. 14.

40.

Hernandez v. Chewy, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-05620 (C.D.

Cal. filed July 12, 2023).

a. Disposition: Defendant’s motion to dismiss

granted with prejudice on December 13, 2023.

See Dkt. No. 24.

41.

Munoz v. Fantasia Trading LLC, No. 2:23-cv-06154

(C.D. Cal. filed July 28, 2023).

a. Disposition: Dismissed upon joint stipulation

on August 23, 2023, before Defendant filed an

answer or responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 23.

42.

Carroll v. Vida Shoes International, Inc., No. 2:23cv-06242 (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 1, 2023).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on August

5, 2023, before Defendant filed answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 8.

43.

Cantu v. Lux Global Inc., No. 2:23-cv-07192 (C.D.

Cal. filed Aug. 30, 2023).

a. Disposition:

Voluntarily

dismissed

September 22, 2023, before Defendant filed an

answer or responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 8.

44.

Evans v. Macy’s, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-08761 (S.D.N.Y.

filed Nov. 18, 2024).

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on April 10,

2025, after Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

See Dkt. No. 30.

45.

Rodriguez v. Fiskars Brands, Inc., No. 2:23-cv07814 (C.D. Cal. filed Sep 19, 2023).

a. Disposition:

Voluntarily

dismissed

November 27, 2023, before Defendant filed an

answer or responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 12.

46.

Navarro-Cabrera v. QVC, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00229

(E.D. Pa. filed Jan. 14, 2025).

33a

a. Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed on March

17, 2025, before Defendant filed an answer or

responsive pleading. See Dkt. No. 16.

47.

Johnson v. Gamestop, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00646 (E.D.

Va. filed Aug. 15, 2025).

a. Disposition:

Voluntarily

dismissed

September 26, 2025, after Defendant filed a

motion to strike the complaint but before

Defendant filed an answer or responsive

pleading. See Dkt. No. 9. Court entered

judgment on September 26, 2025. See Dkt. No.

10.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.