Carlsen v. GameStop, Inc., No. 15-2453 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, individually and purportedly on behalf of others similarly situated, filed suit against GameStop for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and violation of Minnesota’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), Minn. Stat. 325F.68, et seq. Plaintiff alleged that GameStop's disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) to a third party (Facebook) violated an express agreement not to do so. The district court granted GameStop's motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's lack of standing. The court concluded that plaintiff provided sufficient facts alleging that he is party to a binding contract with GameStop, and GameStop does not dispute this contractual relationship; GameStop has violated that policy; and plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of GameStop's breach. The court also concluded that plaintiff has standing to bring his breach-of-contract claim and to bring his other claims. The court concluded, however, that the privacy policy unambiguously does not include those pieces of information among the protected PII. Therefore, the protection plaintiff argues GameStop failed to provide was not among the protections for which he bargained by agreeing to the terms of service, and GameStop thus could not have breached its contract with plaintiff. Plaintiff's Minnesota CFA claims fail for similar reasons. Finally, plaintiff has not alleged a claim for unjust enrichment or the related claim of money had and received.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Beam, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Consumer law. In action alleging defendant shared plaintiff's personally identifiable information with Facebook in violation of the privacy policy contained in defendant's online terms of service, the district court erred in finding plaintiff did not have standing to pursue the action, as he provided sufficient facts alleging he is a party to a binding contract - the terms of service, which included the privacy policy - with defendant and defendant does not dispute this relationship;; further, he alleged a breach of the agreement and that he had suffered damages as a result of the breach, in the form of devaluation of the value of his subscription (the difference in value between what he paid for and what he received - a subscription with compromised privacy protection); additionally, he showed his injury was fairly traceable to defendant's action and that his injury was redress able;; he also had standing to pursue his claim for unjust retention of his subscription payment and to bring a claim under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act; however, the district court did not err in dismissing the action for failure to state a claim as the privacy policy in the service agreement does not ambiguously promise not to disclose plaintiff's personally identifiable information, including his Facebook ID and browser history; accordingly defendant did not breach the agreement by disclosing the information; plaintiff's Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act claim fails for similar reasons; with respect to plaintiff's equitable claims, plaintiff did not allege that any portion of his subscriber fee went to data protection or that defendant agreed to provide additional protection to subscribers, and the claims fail. Judge Beam, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.