Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Horton v. GameStop Corp.

Horton v. GameStop Corp.

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division

September 28, 2018, Decided; September 28, 2018, Filed

Case No. 1:18-CV-596

Opinion

 [*681]  OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff Robert Jeremy Horton, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, sued GameStop Corp., alleging that GameStop was unlawfully selling his personal reading information [**2]  to third-party marketing, list-rental, and data-mining companies between May 29, 2015 and July 30, 2016. The Plaintiff claims that this conduct violated the Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (PPPA), also known as the Video Rental Privacy Act (VRPA). Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1711 et seq.

GameStop has moved to dismiss on two grounds: failure to state a claim and applicability of the actual-damages requirement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 8). The Court will deny GameStop's motion.

I. Background

GameStop offers subscriptions to its video-game magazine, Game Informer. Plaintiff alleges that GameStop sold information about its Game Informer subscribers to data-mining companies for profit without the customers' written consent. (ECF No. 1 at PageID.1-2.) Specifically, Horton claims that he purchased a one-year subscription to Game Informer in 2010, and then again in 2013, and he has renewed his subscription in the years since. Horton maintains that he never agreed to sell or disclose his personal reading information and did not receive notice prior to the disclosures to various third parties. (Id. at PageID.11.) According to Horton, due to GameStop's alleged disclosures of his personal reading information, he now receives unwanted junk mail and [**3]  telephone solicitations and that he suffered an invasion of privacy. Horton also claims that he suffered economic harm because GameStop's sale of his personal reading information rendered his subscription to Game Informer less valuable. (Id. at PageID.12.)

II. Legal Standards

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

380 F. Supp. 3d 679 *; 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227673 **

ROBERT JEREMY HORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GAMESTOP CORP., d/b/a GAME INFORMER, Defendant.

CORE TERMS

damages, subscription, disclosure, mail