N.C. State Bar v. Musinguzi

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiff had standing pursuant to the Video Privacy Protection Act because his intangible privacy harms were related closely to the common law analog of public disclosure of private facts.
• holding that “unauthorized” disclosure is analogous to the common law tort
• finding that the alleged injury in fact was actual where the defendant disclosed plaintiff’s PII to a company that uses the information “to show the [plaintiff] targeted ads . . . for its own commercial purposes, not the [defendant’s] or the [plaintiff’s] purposes”
• finding the plaintiff’s subscription to the NBA newsletter to “satisfy the [subscriber] 16 requirement[.]”
• finding the plaintiff plausibly pled he was a “subscriber of goods or 4 services” under the VPPA even though the newsletter he signed up for was not audio visual in 5 nature
• finding standing where Meta Pixel allegedly tracked users’ personal viewing information including the (1) title of the NBA.com video a user 28 watched, (2) that video’s URL, and (3) the user’s Facebook ID, to send user targeted advertising

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).