Federal Trade Commission v. Kochava, Inc.

715 F. Supp. 3d 1319 (2024)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Federal Trade Commission v. Kochava, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Idaho
715 F. Supp. 3d 1319 (2024)

Facts

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (plaintiff) sued Kochava, Inc. (defendant), alleging that Kochava violated § 5(a) of the FTC Act by collecting and selling vast quantities of consumer data acquired from consumers’ cell phones. Specifically, the FTC argued that Kochava’s conduct constituted an unfair practice because it exposed consumers to secondary harm by third parties and invaded consumers’ privacy. After the initial complaint was dismissed for failure to include sufficient factual information, the FTC filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint referenced four of Kochava’s products, namely (1) geolocation data revealing consumers’ daily movements; (2) a database graph with detailed consumer profiles that included names, addresses, ethnicities, education, and employment; (3) an app graph showing consumers’ downloads and uses of apps; and (4) audience segments identifying consumers by characteristics or interests. The FTC reiterated that the aggregation and sale of the identified data posed two risks of harm to consumers. First, it put consumers at risk of secondary harm by third parties because Kochava’s customers could use the data to target consumers based on their activities and characteristics. The FTC provided examples of geolocation data being used to target consumers, although the specific examples did not rely on Kochava data. Second, the data aggregation and sales invaded consumers’ privacy by providing data that could reveal a person’s political and religious affiliations, medical conditions, sexual orientation, and more. Kochava again moved to dismiss the FTC’s complaint, arguing that Kochava’s mere collection and sale of consumer data neither caused nor was likely to cause a substantial injury to consumers as required for an unfair practice under § 5(a). The court considered Kochava’s motion.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Winmill, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership