(CN) --- A federal judge appeared skeptical that Thomson Reuters’ creation of a database that hosts peoples’ identities for investigative research purposes is an invasion of privacy or an example of unfair business practices under California law.
Plaintiffs Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz claim that Thomson Reuters, a worldwide provider of news information and business services, have gathered their personal information into a database and then sells subscriptions to that database without their permission.
Thomson Reuters maintains a “CLEAR” database, a searchable database that contains individuals’ names and other information scraped from various public data sources. Brooks and Shabazz say a composite of their identities are included in the database without their permission and the company uses their identities to help drive profits.
“Information is being collected without consent and used to define and make clear the identity of the individuals and provide third parties who pay for this information secretly,” their attorney Andre Mura, of Gibbs Law Group, said during the Thursday hearing.
But U.S. District Judge Edward Chen expressed doubt about the central legal arguments.
“My understanding of tort law is that it is illegal to use somebody else’s likeness to promote a product or service and uses their fame to capitalize,” Chen said. “This doesn’t seem to be the mode. This seems more like a straight-up privacy invasion case.”
But Mura argued it was a “sale and consent” issue.
“They are controlling the use of your identity without permission,” he said.
But Susan Fahringer, attorney for Thomson Reuters with Perkins Coie, said the company is well within its rights to publish factual information about people according to numerous rulings on media rights and fair use.
“There is a right to publicity that means you can’t stop someone from disclosing factual information about you,” Fahringer said.
Fahringer said that if Thomson Reuters was using individual identities to endorse a product or create an advertisement, that would be unlawful. But providing access to a database with factual information about individuals is legal under U.S. law.
But Mura said Thomson Reuters is collecting non-public and proprietary information for the purpose of selling it to third parties.
“We are attacking the sale of it,” he said. “That’s what is causing the privacy and economic harm.”
At one point, Chen asked Mura if putting people in a phone book was a violation of privacy, indicating that he believes putting a person’s identity and face into a database is not in itself a privacy violation.
But phone books were never sold, though advertisements and the yellow pages could be construed as a sale.
Fahringer said the sales component of the matter does not necessarily mean Thomson Reuters must gain permission from the people in its database. Instead, because subscriptions to the database are sold, it triggers a legal balancing test where the judge must weigh the right to privacy against the public interest in a given issue.
Thomson Reuters believes the public has an interest in a reliable and safe place where investigative research can take place that outweighs the right to anonymity.
Mura said Reuters is conflating its historical role as a journalistic institution with its new product that uses data collection and database searches to intrude on personal privacy.
“If they were just a passive transmitter of information, they would be immune, but the illegality stems from Thompson Reuters collecting this information and creating a product that didn’t exist,” Mura said.
Chen took the matter under submission and said he will rule on the motion to dismiss in the next few weeks.
Follow Matthew Renda on Twitter
Follow @@MatthewCRenda
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
Baby formula prices April 15, 2024