Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
876 F.3d 979 (2017)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
ESPN, Inc. (defendant), a producer of sports programming, offered access to video content via WatchESPN Channel, a streaming application for Roku devices. Chad Eichenberger (plaintiff) downloaded the application to his Roku device and used it to watch sports content. Without Eichenberger’s knowledge or consent, each time Eichenberger watched a video, ESPN shared the identity of that video along with the serial number of Eichenberger’s Roku device with Adobe Analytics (Adobe). Adobe was a third party that obtained vast quantities of information from various sources. Although ESPN did not share users’ names, addresses, or contact information, Adobe’s system allowed it to connect the incoming data with other data and identify specific consumers. Adobe would then provide aggregated data to ESPN revealing consumers’ demographic information. ESPN would share that information with advertisers. When Eichenberger learned of ESPN’s practices, he sued ESPN, alleging that ESPN violated the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (VPPA) by sharing Eichenberger’s personally identifiable information with Adobe. The district court dismissed Eichenberger’s complaint, concluding that his video history and device serial number did not constitute personally identifiable information and that ESPN therefore did not violate the VPPA by sharing that information with Adobe. Eichenberger appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Graber, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.