Kuntzman Et Al. v. WPP Group USA, No. 8:16-cv-760 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2016)

Case 8:16-cv-00750 Document 1 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:1
C. Brooks Cutter, Esq., (SBN 121407)

bcutter@cutterlaw.com
John R. Parker, Jr., Esq. (SBN 257761)
jparker@cutterlaw.com
CUTTER LAW P.C.
401 Watt Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95864
Telephone: (916) 290-9400
Facsimile: (916) 588-9330
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
ROBYN KUNTZMANN; LINDA

BUNCH, on behalf of themselves, and a
class of similarly situated persons,
CLASS ACTION
Case No.
13
Plaintiffs,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v.
WPP GROUP USA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; THE INTERPUBLIC
GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; ALPHONSO,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; TAPAD,
INC., a Delaware Corporation;
ISPOT.TV, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; LOTAME SOLUTIONS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; XAXIS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation;
TUBEMOGUL, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; AUDIENCE XPRESS LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
VIZIO HOLDINGS, INC, a Delaware
Corporation; VIZIO, INC., a California
Corporation; VIZIO INSCAPE
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; VIZIO INSCAPE
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

FOR:
1. Violations of the Video Privacy
Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2710
2. Violations of Californias
Consumer Records Act, Cal.
Civ. Code 2798.80
3. Violation of Californias Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code 17200, et seq.
4. Violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act Cal. Civ.
Code 1750, et seq.
5. Violation of Cal. Civ. Code
1799.3
6. Violation of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. 2511
7. Unjust Enrichment
8. Violation of California
Customer Records Act, Cal.
-1COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
4
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Delaware

Limited Liability Company; COGNITIVE
MEDIA NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 50, inclusive,
Civ. Code 1798.80, et seq.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants.
5
6
7
8
9
Plaintiffs Robyn Kuntzmann and Linda Bunch, by and through their

attorneys, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, upon personal
knowledge as to themselves and their own acts and experiences, and upon
information and belief as to all other matters, complain and allege as follows:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of the minimum

jurisdictional limit of this Court.
2. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. section
1332 (d) of The Class Action Fairness Act because the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs and because
Plaintiffs and Defendants are residents of different states.
3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1391 because
many of the acts and transactions giving rise to this action occurred in this District,
and Defendants (1) are authorized to conduct business in this District and have
intentionally availed themselves of the laws and markets of this District through the
manufacture, distribution and sale of their products in this District; and (2) are
subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
II.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
4. Vizio Holdings Inc. (Vizio) was founded in California in 2002, and since
then has become a major marketer of electronics including Smart TVs, or Internetconnectable televisions.
28
5. According to Vizios S-1/A registration filing, filed with the Security and
Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, their products are sold in over 8,000
retail stores across the United States. The company held the #2 unit share
position in the U.S. smart, high definition television, or HDTV, industry in 2014.
See
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1648158/000119312515350398/d946612d
s1a.htm
8
9
6. Through its broad distribution of Smart TVs, Vizio states that it is creating a
community of over 10 million VIZIO connected units, or VCUs. A VCU is a
10
Smart TV that has been connected to the Internet and has transmitted data
11
collectively by our Inscape data services. Our Inscape data services capture real-
12
time viewing behavior data from our VCUs and enable us to provide it to
13
advertisers and media content providers. See
14
15
s1a.htm
16
7. According to Vizio, approximately 90% of its Smart TV customers made an
17
initial connection of their Smart TVs to the Internet for the twelve month period
18
ended September 30, 2015. Vizios Discovery and Engagement Software, known
19
as VIZIO Internet Apps Plus, connects customers with traditional and streaming
20
content providers, such as Netflix, Hulu, YouTube and Amazon Instant Video.
21
Since 2009, users have streamed more than 3.5 billion hours of content through our
22
discovery and engagement software. See
23
24
25
26
27
28
s1a.htm
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
8. The companys Inscape data services capture this viewing data in real time.
Inscape provides highly specific viewing behavior data on a massive scale with
great accuracy, which can be used to generate intelligent insights for advertisers and
media content providers. The company, according to its October 22, 2015, SEC
filing, expects that this will fuel future growth and drive revenue. See
s1a.htm
9. On information and belief, to further realize its goal of monetizing its VCU
television viewers habits, Vizio acquired full ownership of Cognitive Media
Networks, Inc., a software provider based in San Francisco, that enables Vizios
Inscape data services.
10. On information and belief, Vizio actually knew that data brokers, advertisers,
or other partners would combine user identification information transmitted to it-including the users IP address and other device identification information--with
information held by others to identify persons as having requested or obtained
specific video materials or services.
28
11. On information and belief, Vizio determines the date, time, channel of
programs, and whether users watch them live or recorded. The viewing patterns are
then connected with a user's IP address - the Internet address that can be used to
identify every device in a home, from the household TVs to mobile phones. Vizio
actually knows that IP addresses can be linked to individuals through data brokers
offering data enrichment, combining additional information about persons tied to
particular IP addresses provided by Vizio.
12. On information and belief, Vizio has worked with such data brokers.
13. On information and belief, Vizio falsely states that it encrypts IP addresses
10
before sharing them; therefore, data brokers whose data includes IP addresses tied
11
to names can identify the persons and the prerecorded video cassette tapes or
12
similar audio visual materials watched by those persons merely by having their IP
13
address or other device IDs.
14
14. Consumers under this regime of tracking must make extensive efforts to
15
opt-out of this procedure, and it is set as the default in violation of the Video
16
Privacy Protection Act, which requires an opt-in procedure.
17
15. As its privacy policy concedes, Vizio has begun providing data about
18
customers viewing habits to companies that may combine this information with
19
other information about devices associated with that IP address. Vizio actually
20
knows that such data can identify persons by name.
21
16. On information and belief, the companies Vizio has partnered with to
22
collect, synthesize, sell and otherwise disclose customers data include WPP Group
23
USA, Inc.; The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.; Alphonso, Inc.; Tapad, Inc.;
24
iSpot.tv, Inc.; Lotame Solutions, Inc.; Xaxis, Inc.; TubeMogul, Inc.; and Audience
25
Xpress LLC (collectively Data Partners).
26
17. WPP Group USA, Inc. is the U.S. branch of WPP PLC, the worlds largest
27
communications services group. Through its numerous operating companies, WPP
28
provides a comprehensive range of advertising and marketing services. See

1
2
http://wpp.com/wpp/about/.
18. The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. is an organization of advertising
agencies and marketing service companies. It is a global provider of marketing
solutions that specializes in consumer advertising, digital marketing,
communications planning and media buying, public relations and specialty
marketing. See https://www.interpublic.com/about/overview.
19. Alphonso, Inc. is an advertising technology company that works to enable its
clients to capture TV audience data and monetize their audience better. See
http://alphonso.tv/#advertisers.
10
20. Tapad, Inc. is a marketing technology firm that offers the largest in-market
11
opportunity for marketers to address the ever-evolving reality of media
12
consumption on smartphones, tablets, home computers and smart TVs. See
13
http://www.tapad.com/about-us/who-we-are/. According to its website, Tapad has
14
the ability to connect a user who views an ad on TV with all of their digital
15
devices. Its technology takes its clients audience segment IDs and fills in all of
16
the associated devices.
17
21. iSpot.tv, Inc. is a marketing technology company that provides social
18
marketing tools and analytics. On its website, iSpot.tv urges its clients to [s]ee
19
your customers in a way youve never bene able to before, bringing an
20
unprecedented measurement capability to TV advertising. See www.ispot.tv.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
22. Lotame Solutions, Inc. is a marketing technology company that operates one
of the worlds largest third-party data networks. According to its website, it
collects and analyzes rich data signals flowing from [its] partner's 12MM Smart
TVs across the US and then applies its technology to match with mobile devices,
tablets, laptops and desktops, which are linked 1:1. See
http://resources.lotame.com/smart-tv-audiences. Lotame further suggests that its
clients can mix and match that data with their own first-party data or other third-
party data.
10
23. Xaxis, Inc. is a digital advertising company that delivers targeted digital
11
media products that allow advertisers to reach and understand their audiences.
12
Xaxis collects information when Internet users view and interact with certain
13
websites. This information includes the type of Internet browser, browser
14
language, and operating system you use, your devices Internet protocol (IP)
15
address, unique identifiers available at or pertaining to your device, connection type
16
(wired or Wi-Fi), region where your device is located, network to which your
17
device is connected, longitude/latitude of a (mobile) device, mobile carrier (if
18
available), the Site and page you came from before, and visited after, viewing an
19
advertisement, and information related to the Site and page you are viewing (i.e., in
20
order to ascertain your interests). Devices include computers, mobile phones,
21
tablets, e-readers, or other digital devices capable of maintaining an Internet
22
connection. See https://www.xaxis.com/static/view/privacy-policy-en.
23
24. TubeMogul, Inc. is a digital advertising company. According to its website,
24
TubeMoguls cross-channel advertising software allows you to run global,
25
sophisticated brand campaigns using 1st and 3rd party data across premium
26
inventory on all devices, formats and channels. See
27
https://www.tubemogul.com/tubemogul-software/.
28
25. Audience Xpress LLC is an advertising technology firm. According to its

website, Audience Xpress optimizes media buying based on the efficiency of
reaching a specific audience, using connected TV and leading 3rd party data and
analytics. See http://www.audiencexpress.com/about/.
26. The Data Partners collaborate and partner with Vizio to track, receive,
exchange and/or repackage the personally identifiable information of Vizio
customers.
27. On information and belief, Vizio may share hashed or masked IDs in a way
that permits matching the users to information in other data sets, so that data
brokers, and specifically the Data Partners, can associate a devices viewing
10
information with the personally-identifying information that the broker already
11
holds, therefore revealing the viewing habits of persons identified by the broker.
12
28. On information and belief, Vizio actually knows such data can and in many
13
instances will be recombined to identify persons, indeed Vizio knows it raises the
14
value of the data. Accordingly, Vizio actually knew that it was disclosing: 1) a
15
users identity; 2) the identity of the video material; and 3) the connection between
16
the twothat the given user had requested or obtained the given video material.
17
In its October 22, 2015 filing for an initial public offering, Vizio touted its ability to
18
provide highly specific viewing behavior data on a massive scale with great
19
accuracy.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
29. The Data Partners are recipients of this personally identifiable information
and in some cases resell this information to their own, third-party clients.
III.
PARTIES
30. Defendant Vizio Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation. Its principal

executive offices are located at 39 Tesla, Irvine, California.
31. Defendant Vizio, Inc., is a California corporation. Its principal executive
offices are located at 39 Tesla, Irvine, California.
27
32. Defendant Vizio Inscape Services, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability
28
Company. On information and belief, its principal executive offices are located at
1
2
39 Tesla, Irvine, California.

33. Defendant Vizio Inscape Technologies, LLC, is a Delaware Limited
Liability Company. On information and belief, its principal executive offices are
located at 39 Tesla, Irvine, California.
34. Defendant Cognitive Media Networks, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation
registered to do business in the State of California. Its principal executive offices
are located at 39 Tesla, Irvine, California.
35. Vizio Holdings, Inc.; Vizio, Inc.; Vizio Inscape Services, LLC; Vizio
Inscape Technologies, LLC; and Cognitive Media Networks, Inc. are referred to
10
collectively throughout this Complaint as Vizio.
11
36. Defendant WPP Group USA, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation registered to do
12
business in the State of California. Its principal executive offices are located at 100
13
Park Ave., New York, New York.
14
37. Defendant The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. is a Delaware
15
Corporation registered to do business in the State of California. Its principal
16
executive offices are located at 909 Third Ave., New York, New York.
17
38. Defendant Alphonso, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation registered to do
18
business in the State of California. Its principal executive offices are located at 735
19
Industrial Rd., San Carlos, California.
20
39. Defendant Tapad, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation registered to do business in
21
the State of California. Its principal executive offices are located at 60 Madison
22
Ave., New York, New York.
23
24
25
40. Defendant iSpot.tv, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation. Its principal executive

offices are located at 15831 NE 8th St., Bellevue, Washington.
41. Defendant Lotame Solutions, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation registered to do
26
business in the State of California. Its principal executive offices are located at
27
8850 Stanford Blvd., Columbia, Maryland.
28
42. Defendant Xaxis, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation registered to do business in

the State of California. Its principal executive offices are located at 100 Park Ave.,
New York, New York.
43. Defendant TubeMogul, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation registered to do
business in the State of California. Its principal executive offices are located at
1250 53rd St., Emeryville, California.
44. Defendant Audience Xpress LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company.
On information and belief, its principal executive offices are located at 460 West
34th St., New York, New York.
45. The true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50 are unknown to
10
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of these
11
Defendants are in some way liable for the events referred to in this complaint and
12
caused damage to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint and insert the
13
correct names and capacities of those defendants when they are discovered.
14
46. At all times mentioned, each of the Defendants including Does 1 through
15
50 was the representative, agent, employee, joint venture, or alter ego of each of
16
the other defendants and in doing the things alleged herein was acting within the
17
scope of its authority as such. Each Defendant is referred to collectively throughout
18
this Complaint as Defendants.
19
47. Plaintiff Robyn Kuntzmann is a resident of Multnomah County, Oregon.
20
She purchased a Vizio Smart TV model E502AR at a Costco store in Oregon in
21
December 2013.
22
48. Plaintiff Linda Bunch is a resident of Atlantic County, New Jersey. She
23
purchased a Vizio Smart TV model E40-C2 at a Best Buy in Mays Landing, New
24
Jersey in September 2015.
25
26
IV.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
49. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action on their own behalf and on
27
behalf of all other persons similarly situated as members of the proposed Class,
28
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1), and (b)(3). This action
satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance and
superiority requirements of those provisions.
50. The proposed Class is defined as:
All persons or entities who purchased one or more Vizio Smart
Televisions within the United States, in United States territories, and
U.S. service people and citizens who have purchased a Vizio Smart
Television(s) and who viewed content broadcast over the Internet on
the Vizio Smart TV(s) from the four years before the first complaint in
this matter is filed through the time of trial.
10
11
12
51. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their affiliates, employees, agents
and attorneys, and the Court.
52. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the Class definitions if discovery and
13
further investigation reveal that any Class should be expanded, divided into
14
additional subclasses, or modified in any other way.
15
16
a. Numerosity and Ascertainability of the Class

53. The exact number of Class Members is presently unknown. However, the
17
size of the Class can be estimated with reasonable precision. Based upon the
18
Vizios representations in its SEC-1/A filing that their products are sold in over
19
8,000 retail stores throughout the United States and that they held the #2 unit share
20
position in the US smart, high definition television, or HDTV, industry in 2014
21
and seek to create a community of over 10 million VIZIO connected units, or
22
VCUs, it is reasonable to presume that the members of the Class are so numerous
23
that joinder of all members is impracticable.
24
25
26
27
28
54. The disposition of the claims of these Class Members in a single action will
provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court.
b. Typicality
55. The claims of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the
Class because, Plaintiffs, like all Class Members, purchased one or more Vizio
Smart TVs, connected them to the Internet as intended, and used the TV(s) for their
own personal use. Plaintiffs, like all Class Members, have been damaged by
Defendants conduct because they have had their private, identifiable viewing
habits and information obtained by Defendants, used by them, and distributed to
third parties, including the Defendant Data Partners without Plaintiffs knowledge
or consent. Further, the factual bases of Defendants misconduct are common to all
Class Members and represent a common thread of misconduct resulting in injury to
all Class Members.
9
10
c. Adequate Representation
56. Plaintiffs are members of the Class and will fairly and adequately represent
11
and protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel with
12
substantial experience in prosecuting consumer class actions, including actions
13
involving false advertising.
14
57. Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this
15
action on behalf of the Class and have the financial resources to do so. Neither
16
Plaintiffs nor their counsel have interests adverse to those of the Class.
17
d. Commonality
18
58. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs and
19
Class Members that predominate over any question affecting only individual Class
20
Members. The answers to these common questions will advance resolution of the
21
litigation as to all Class Members. These common legal and factual issues include:
22
a. whether the Defendants gathered, stored and transmitted the private
23
information about their Vizio Smart TV customers to third parties,
24
including the Data Partners;
25
b. whether Defendants knew or should have known that the private
26
customer information and viewing habits of Vizios Smart TV
27
customers could be easily combined with the Internet IP address of
28
each customer or personally did so;

c. whether Defendants failed to take the steps necessary to ensure that
the private, identifiable information of Vizios individual customers
was not disclosed to third parties, including the Data Partners and
their clients;
d. whether Defendants made material misrepresentations regarding
the collection, storage, distribution, disclosure and utilization of
Vizios Smart TV customers personal, identifiable information;
e. whether Defendants had a duty to disclose the true nature of their
data collection and dissemination practices to Plaintiffs and Class
10
11
12
13
Members;
f. whether Defendants omitted and failed to disclose material facts
about their data collection and dissemination;
g. whether Defendants concealment of the true nature of the data
14
collection, dissemination and utilization induced a reasonable
15
consumer to act to their detriment by purchasing one or more Vizio
16
Smart TVs; and
17
h. whether the Data Partners received and/or further disclosed the
18
personally identifiable information of consumers in partnership
19
with Vizio; and
20
21
22
i. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to injunctive and

equitable relief.
e. Superiority
23
59. Plaintiffs and Class Members have all suffered and will continue to suffer
24
harm and damages as a result of Defendants unlawful and wrongful conduct. A
25
class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
26
adjudication of this controversy.
27
60. Absent a class action, most Class Members would likely find the cost of
28
litigating their claims prohibitively high and would therefore have no effective
remedy at law. Because of the relatively small size of the individual Class
Members claims, it is likely that only a few Class Members could afford to seek
legal redress for Defendants misconduct. Absent a class action, Class Members
will continue to incur damages and Defendants misconduct will continue without
remedy.
61. Class action treatment of common questions of law and fact would also be a
superior method to multiple individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that class
treatment will conserve the resources of the courts and the litigants, and will
promote consistency and efficiency of adjudication.
10
11
62. Defendants have acted in a uniform manner with respect to the Plaintiffs and
Class Members.
12
63. Class-wide declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief is appropriate
13
because Defendants have acted on grounds that apply generally to the Class, and
14
inconsistent adjudications with respect to Defendants liability would establish
15
incompatible standards and substantially impair or impede the ability of Class
16
Members to protect their interests. Class-wide relief assures fair, consistent, and
17
equitable treatment and protection of all Class Members, and uniformity and
18
consistency in Defendants duties to perform corrective action regarding the Vizio
19
Smart TVs and the disclosure of consumers information.
20
V.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
21
Violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2710
22
(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
23
64. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
24
65. Vizio qualifies now and has qualified in the past as a video tape service
25
provider under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), because Vizio is
26
engaged in the business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of rental,
27
sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual
28
materials. 18 U.S.C. 2710(a)(4).

66. Each of the Defendant Data Partners also qualify as video tape service
providers under the VPPA because each is also engaged in the business, in or
affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded
video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials. 18 U.S.C. 2710(a)(4).
67. The VPPA mandates, among other things, that a video tape service provider
shall destroy personally identifiable information as soon as practicable, but no
later than on the date the information is no longer necessary for the purpose for
which it was collected. 18 U.S.C. 2710(e).
68. Defendants have violated 18 U.S.C. 2710(e) because they failed to destroy
10
the personally identifiable information of Vizios customers as soon as practicable
11
from the date the information was no longer necessary for the purpose for which it
12
was collected.
13
69. The VPPA also requires Defendants to keep their customers personally
14
identifiable information confidential. 18 U.S.C. 2710(b)(1). Personally
15
identifiable information cannot be disclosed to any person without the informed,
16
written consent of the consumer given at the time the disclosure is sought. 18
17
U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(B).
18
70. As owners and users of the Vizio Smart T.V., Plaintiffs personally
19
identifiable information was disclosed for marketing and advertising purposes
20
without their informed, written consent by Defendants to third parties, including
21
Defendant Data Partners.
22
71. As a result of Defendants conduct described herein and their violation of
23
2710, Plaintiffs and the Class have been aggrieved and suffered injuries. Plaintiffs,
24
on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class, seek an order enjoining Defendants
25
conduct described herein and awarding themselves and the Class the maximum
26
statutory and punitive damages available under 18 U.S.C. 2710(c), an award of
27
attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1021.5, as well as such
28
other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
VI.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of Californias Customer Records Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1798.80
73. The California Customer Records Act mandates, among other things, that a
business take all reasonable steps to destroy or arrange for the destruction of a
customers records within its custody or control, which contain personal
information that is no longer to be retained by the business. Cal. Civ. Code
1798.81.
10
74. A business may destroy customer records by erasing the information, or
11
modifying the personal information in those records to make it unreadable or
12
undecipherable through any means. Cal. Civ. Code 1798.81(b), (c).
13
75. Defendants have violated Cal. Civ. Code 1798.81 by failing to erase or
14
otherwise destroy their users personal information or making their customers
15
personal information unreadable or undecipherable.
16
76. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 1798.84, Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on
17
behalf of the Class, seek an order enjoining Defendants conduct described herein,
18
an award of attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1021.5, as
19
well as such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
20
VII.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
21
Violation of Californias Unfair Competition Law Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
22
17200, et seq.
23
24
25
78. Californias Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 27
26
17200, et seq., protects both consumers and competitors by promoting fair
27
competition in commercial markets for goods and services.
28
79. The UCL prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
practice. A business practice need only meet one of three criteria to be considered
unfair competition. An unlawful business practice is anything that can properly be
called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.
80. Defendants have violated the fraudulent prong of the UCL in that it failed to
inform Plaintiffs and the Class that it would indefinitely retain and sell their
personally identifiable information and programming viewing histories.
81. Defendants have violated the unfair prong of the UCL in that it continues to
profit from selling Plaintiffs and the Classs personally identifiable information to
third parties, including Defendant Data Partners, without obtaining their consent, in
10
that it is violating the public policies set forth in the VPPA, California Customer
11
Records Act, and the CLRA, as set forth in this Complaint, and in that the utility of
12
the Defendants conduct is outweighed by the gravity of the harm to Plaintiffs and
13
the class. Defendant Data Partners have received and benefited from this unfairly
14
collected data in violation of the unfair prong of the UCL.
15
82. Defendants have violated the unlawful prong of the UCL in that their
16
conduct violated the Video Privacy Protection Act, (18 U.S.C. 2710, et seq.),
17
and the California Customer Records Act, (Cal. Civ. Code 1798.80), and the
18
CLRA as set forth in this Complaint.
19
83. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17203, Plaintiffs, on their own behalf
20
and on behalf of the Class, seek an order enjoining Defendants from continuing to
21
engage in the unfair and unlawful conduct described herein, an award of attorneys
22
fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1021.5, as well as such other and
23
further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
24
VIII.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25
Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1750, et seq.
26
(On behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
27
28
85. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Consumer Legal Remedies
1
2
Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq. (CLRA)

86. The CLRA has adopted a comprehensive statutory scheme prohibiting
various deceptive practices in connection with the conduct of a business providing
goods, property, or services to consumers primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes. The self-declared purposes of the Act are to protect
consumers against unfair and deceptive practices and to provide efficient and
economical procedures to secure such protection.
8
9
10
87. Each Defendant is a person as defined by Civil Code Section 1761(c),

because each Defendant is a corporation as set forth above.
88. Plaintiffs and Class Members are consumers, within the meaning of Civil
11
Code Section 1761(d), because they are individuals who purchased one or more
12
Vizio Smart TVs for personal and/or household use.
13
89. Defendants Vizio Smart TVs are goods within the meaning of California
14
Civil Code Section 1761(a), in that they are tangible products bought by Plaintiffs
15
and Class Members for personal, family, and/or household use.
16
90. Defendants sale of their products to wholesalers and retailers throughout
17
California constitutes transaction[s] which were intended to result or which
18
result[ed] in the sale of goods to consumers within the meaning of Civil Code
19
Sections 1761(e) and 1770(a).
20
91. Plaintiffs have standing to pursue this claim as they have suffered injury in
21
fact and have lost money as a result of Defendants actions as set forth herein.
22
Specifically, Plaintiffs purchased Vizio Smart TVs. Had Plaintiffs known that
23
these Smart TVs would be used by Defendants to collect, sell, and otherwise share
24
information about them, including their viewing habits, their other Internet
25
connected devices, and other personal information with third parties in a manner
26
that enabled disclosure of their identities, in violation of privacy laws, they would
27
not have purchased the Vizio Smart TVs.
28
92. Section 1770(a)(5) of the CRLA prohibits anyone from [r]epresenting that
goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, use,
benefits, or quantities which they do not have. Defendants represented that their
Smart TVs were for the personal enjoyment of televised entertainment by their
customers, when, in fact the Smart TVs were a means whereby Defendants could
extract and sell personal information for profit in violation of privacy laws.
93. Section 1770(a)(9) of the CLRA prohibits anyone from [a]dvertising goods
or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. Defendants are multi-million
dollar companies advised by skilled counsel who, on information and belief, are or
by the exercise of reasonable care should be aware of the governing regulations and
10
their purpose, and the necessity to exercise reasonable care to ensure compliance
11
with governing regulations and their purpose. By introducing Vizio Smart TVs and
12
the implanted technology into the stream of commerce as products to be used for
13
the personal, private viewing enjoyment of their customers, and then extracting and
14
selling their personal viewing and other information to third parties for profit
15
notwithstanding this knowledge, Defendants thus intentionally sold misbranded
16
products.
17
18
19
94. Plaintiffs have attached hereto the declaration of venue required by Civil
Code Section 1780(d).
95. Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the acts and practices described above, and
20
awarding all available damages, restitution of property, punitive damages, and
21
attorneys fees and costs in accordance with the provisions of the CLRA.
22
IX.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23
Violation of Cal. Civ. Code 1799.3
24
25
26
97. California Civil Code 1799.3(a) provides that No person providing video
27
recording sales or rental services shall disclose any personal information or the
28
contents of any record, including sales or rental information, which is prepared or

maintained by that person, to any person, other than the individual who is the
subject of the record, without the written consent of that individual.
98. Defendants are each a person providing video recording sales or rental
services because through the technology in the Vizio Smart TVs they provide the
sale and rental of videos to consumers.
99. Defendants have disclosed and continue to disclose Plaintiffs personal
information and the contents of records prepared or maintained by them to third
parties, including Defendant Data Partners and other data brokers and advertisers.
9
10
11
12
13
100.
Defendant Data Partners purchased, used, and/or resold and continue
to use and resell such personal information in willful violation of 1799.3.

101.
At all times Defendants have acted willfully. And, no exemption
provided by 1799.3 (b) applies.

102.
Defendants have not obtained Plaintiffs or any member of the Classs
14
consent to allow them to collect their personal information and viewing records, nor
15
to sell or disclose their personal information and viewing records to third parties.
16
103.
As a result of Defendants unlawful disclosures, Plaintiffs and the
17
Class have had their statutorily defined rights to privacy violated. Plaintiffs seek an
18
injunction prohibiting Defendants from collecting, selling and otherwise disclosing
19
their and the Classs personal information in the future, as well as the maximum
20
statutory and punitive damages available under 1799.3(c)(1).

X.
21
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511
23
24
25
26
104.
Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
herein.
105.
Defendants, either directly or by aiding, abetting, or conspiring to do
27
so, have intentionally intercepted or procured to be intercepted Plaintiffs and Class
28
Members electronic communications without Plaintiffs or Class Members

knowledge, authorization, or consent in violation of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511.
106.
Defendants, either directly or by aiding, abetting or conspiring to do
so, have also intentionally used or procured to be used a device to intercept the
above-referenced electronic communications.
6
7
8
9
107.
Defendants conspired to intercept the content of the programs viewed
by Plaintiffs and Class Members on their Smart TVs, as alleged herein.

108.
Through the provision, loading, and enabling of software and other
technology on Smart TVs, collection of communications, and provision of services
10
to permit the illegal interception of electronic communications as alleged herein,
11
Defendants, one or all of them, set out on a course of conduct with the intention of
12
intercepting communications of Plaintiffs and Class Members.
13
109.
An electronic communication is defined in 2510(12) as any
14
transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature
15
transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or
16
photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce. This definition
17
includes television programming.
18
110.
Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(a) by intentionally
19
intercepting, endeavoring to intercept, or procuring another person to intercept or
20
endeavor to intercept Plaintiffs and Class Members electronic communications.
21
111.
Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(c) by intentionally collecting,
22
transmitting, storing and disclosing, or endeavoring to disclose, to any other person,
23
the contents of Plaintiffs and Class Members electronic communications, knowing
24
or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the
25
interception of Plaintiffs and Class Members electronic communications.
26
112.
Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(d) by intentionally using or
27
endeavoring to use the contents of Plaintiffs and Class Members electronic
28
communications, knowing or having reason to know that the information was

obtained through the interception of Plaintiffs or Class Members electronic
communications.
3
4
5
113.
Neither Plaintiff nor Class Members authorized nor consented to
Defendants interception of electronic communications.

114.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2520
provides for a private cause of action and allows for declaratory and equitable relief
as appropriate, damages, disgorgement of profits, and statutory damages of the
greater of $10,000.00 or $100.00 per day for each day of violation, actual and
punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
10
11
115.
Plaintiffs and the Class seek all relief afforded by these provisions as a
result of Defendants violations.

XI.
12
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13
Unjust Enrichment
14
15
16
17
116.
herein.
117.
A measurable benefit has been conferred on Defendants under such
18
circumstances that Defendants retention of the benefit without payment to
19
Plaintiffs and Class Members would be unjust.
20
118.
The benefit is the secret taking of Plaintiffs and Class Members
21
private information and capitalizing on it by using it and/or selling it to third parties
22
for Defendants monetary gain.
23
119.
The benefit is measurable because Defendants systematically, through
24
carefully designed computer programs and calculations, commoditized and
25
packaged Plaintiffs and Class Members private information and used it and/or
26
sold it to third parties.
27
28
120.
Defendants retained both the private information and profits from its
sale.
121.
Defendants retention of the benefits would be unjust because this
information was private and personal, it contained personally identifiable
information, and Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have voluntarily provided
that information for free, as Vizio has admitted.

XII.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Customer Records Act,
Cal. Civ. Code 1798.80, et seq.
9
10
11
12
122.
herein.
123.
California Civil Code 1798.81 (the Customer Records Act)
13
provides that [a] business shall take all reasonable steps to dispose, or arrange for
14
the disposal, of customer records within its custody or control containing personal
15
information when the records are no longer to be retained by the business by (a)
16
shredding, (b) erasing, or (c) otherwise modifying the personal information in those
17
records to make it unreadable or undecipherable through any means.
18
124.
By knowingly and willfully obtaining and/or disclosing and continuing
19
to disclose Plaintiffs and the Class personal information and viewing history and
20
habits to third parties, Defendants have failed to take any steps to dispose, or
21
arrange for the disposal, of customer records within their custody and control
22
containing personal information of Plaintiffs and members of the Class, in violation
23
of Californias Customer Records Act.
24
125.
California Civil Code 1798.81.5 requires a business that discloses
25
personal information about a California resident pursuant to a contract with a
26
nonaffiliated third party that is not subject to [the security requirements of
27
1798.81.5(b)] shall require by contract that the third party implement and maintain
28
reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the

information, to protect the personal information from unauthorized access,
destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. Defendants have failed to
contractually require third party buyers of this personal information and other data
based on this information to so implement and maintain security procedures and
practices in violation of the Customer Records Act.
126.
As a result of Defendants unlawful actions and conduct, Plaintiffs and
Class Members statutory rights to privacy have been violated. Plaintiffs and the
Class seek an injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing to engage in the
unlawful conduct alleged herein, as well as actual damages, punitive damages, civil
10
penalties, reasonable attorneys fees and costs under Cal. Civil Code 1798.84(g),
11
and all other appropriate relief.
12
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13
14
15
16
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated request

the Court to enter judgment against Defendants as follows:
A. An order certifying the proposed Class, designating Plaintiffs as the
17
named representatives of the Class, and designating the undersigned as
18
Class Counsel;
19
20
21
B. A declaration that Defendants are financially responsible for notifying

Class members about the true nature of Vizio Smart TVs;
C. An order enjoining Defendants to desist from further deceptive
22
distribution, marketing and sales of non-compliant Vizio Smart TVs;
23
D. An award to Plaintiffs and Class Members of compensatory, exemplary,
24
punitive and statutory penalties and damages, including interest, in an
25
amount to be proven at trial;
26
E. An award to Plaintiffs and Class Members for the return of the purchase
27
prices of the Vizio Smart TVs, with interest from the time it was paid for
28
the reimbursement of the reasonable expenses occasioned by the sale, for

1
2
damages and for reasonable attorneys fees;

F. A declaration that Defendants must disgorge, for the benefit of Plaintiffs
and Class Members all or part of the ill-gotten profits received from the
use and sale of their personally identifiable information to third parties,
and make full restitution to Plaintiffs and Class Members;
G. An award of attorneys fees and costs as allowed by law;
H. An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by
8
9
10
11
law;
I. Leave to amend this Complaint to conform to the evidence produced at
trial; and
J. Such other relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances.
12
13
DATED: April 20, 2016
CUTTER LAW, P.C.
14
15
16
17
18
19
/s/ John R. Parker, Jr.

By: _______________________
C. BROOKS CUTTER
JOHN R. PARKER, JR.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF JOHN R. PARKER, JR.
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 1780(d)
3
4
I, John R. Parker, Jr., declare as follows:

1.
I submit this declaration pursuant to section 1780(d) of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act. I have personal knowledge of the matters set
forth below and if called as a witness could and would be competent to testify
thereto.
2.
Venue is proper in this Court because (1) Vizios principal place of
business is located in this District; (2) many of the acts and transactions giving rise
10
to this action occurred in this District, (3) Defendants are authorized to conduct
11
business in this District and have intentionally availed themselves of the laws and
12
markets of this District through the manufacture, distribution and sale of their
13
products in this District and/or the purchase and use of personal information within
14
this District; and (4) Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
15
16
17
3.
Plaintiff Robyn Kuntzmann is a resident of Multnomah County,
Oregon, and Plaintiff Linda Bunch is a resident of Atlantic County, New Jersey.
4.
Defendants Vizio Holdings, Inc., Vizio, Inc., Vizio Inscape Services,
18
LLC, Vizio Inscape Technologies, LLC, and Cognitive Media Networks Inc.,
19
maintain their principal executive offices at 39 Tesla, Irvine, California.
20
21
22
5.
This action is commenced in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
23
and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration
24
was executed on April 20, 2016, in Sacramento, California.
25
26

John R. Parker, Jr.
27
28
Case 8:16-cv-00750
Document
Filed
04/20/16
Page
1 of 3 Page ID #:27
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT 1-1
COURT,
CENTRAL
DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS ( Check box if you are representing yourself
DEFENDANTS
( Check box if you are representing yourself
ROBYN KUNTZMANN and LINDA BUNCH
WPP GROUP USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; et al.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff CA
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant CA
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are
representing yourself, provide the same information.
Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are
representing yourself, provide the same information.
John R. Parker, Jr.

CUTTER LAW P.C.
401 Watt Avenue,
Sacramento, CA 95864 / 916.290.9400
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES-For Diversity Cases Only
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.)

1. U.S. Government
Plaintiff
(Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant)

PTF
3. Federal Question (U.S.

Government Not a Party)
2. U.S. Government
Defendant
4. Diversity (Indicate Citizenship

of Parties in Item III)
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place

of Business in this State
Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business in Another State
Citizen of This State
Citizen of Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
3 Foreign Nation
IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.)

1. Original
Proceeding
2. Removed from
State Court
3. Remanded from
Appellate Court
V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND:

CLASS ACTION under F.R.Cv.P. 23:
Yes
4. Reinstated or
Reopened
Yes
No
5. Transferred from Another

District (Specify)
PTF
DEF
4
6. MultiDistrict
Litigation
(Check "Yes" only if demanded in complaint.)

MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $
No
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause.
Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)
VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only).

OTHER STATUTES
CONTRACT
375 False Claims Act
110 Insurance
376 Qui Tam

(31 USC 3729(a))
120 Marine
400 State
Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce/ICC
Rates/Etc.
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Org.
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/Exchange
890 Other Statutory
Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental
Matters
895 Freedom of Info.
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Admin. Procedures
Act/Review of Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
CV-71 (02/16)
130 Miller Act

140 Negotiable
Instrument
150 Recovery of
Overpayment &
Enforcement of
Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of
Defaulted Student
Loan (Excl. Vet.)
153 Recovery of
Overpayment of
Vet. Benefits
160 Stockholders'
Suits
190 Other
Contract
195 Contract
Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land
Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease &
Ejectment
REAL PROPERTY CONT.

240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product
Liability
290 All Other Real
Property
TORTS
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane
Product Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Fed. Employers'
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal InjuryMed Malpratice
365 Personal InjuryProduct Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos
Personal Injury
Product Liability
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization
Application
465 Other
Immigration Actions
TORTS
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
371 Truth in Lending
540 Mandamus/Other
863 DIWC/DIWW (405 (g))
380 Other Personal

Property Damage
550 Civil Rights

555 Prison Condition
864 SSID Title XVI
385 Property Damage

Product Liability
BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28
USC 158
423 Withdrawal 28
USC 157
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 American with
DisabilitiesEmployment
446 American with
Disabilities-Other
448 Education
560 Civil Detainee

Conditions of
Confinement
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
625 Drug Related
Seizure of Property 21
USC 881
690 Other
865 RSI (405 (g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
Defendant)
871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC
7609
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Mgmt.
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor
Litigation
791 Employee Ret. Inc.
Security Act
Case Number:
CIVIL COVER SHEET
Page 1 of 3
Case 8:16-cv-00750
Document
Filed
04/20/16
Page
2 of 3 Page ID #:28
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT 1-1
COURT,
CENTRAL
DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET
VIII. VENUE: Your answers to the questions below will determine the division of the Court to which this case will be initially assigned. This initial assignment is subject
to change, in accordance with the Court's General Orders, upon review by the Court of your Complaint or Notice of Removal.
QUESTION A: Was this case removed
from state court?
Yes
STATE CASE WAS PENDING IN THE COUNTY OF:
If "no, " skip to Question B. If "yes," check the

box to the right that applies, enter the
corresponding division in response to
Question E, below, and continue from there.
Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo
Western
Orange
Southern
Riverside or San Bernardino
Eastern
QUESTION B: Is the United States, or B.1. Do 50% or more of the defendants who reside in
the district reside in Orange Co.?
one of its agencies or employees, a
PLAINTIFF in this action?
YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Southern Division.

Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue
from there.
check one of the boxes to the right
Yes
No
NO. Continue to Question B.2.
If "no, " skip to Question C. If "yes," answer

Question B.1, at right.
B.2. Do 50% or more of the defendants who reside in

the district reside in Riverside and/or San Bernardino
Counties? (Consider the two counties together.)
YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division.

Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below, and continue
from there.
NO. Your case will initially be assigned to the Western Division.

Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below, and continue
from there.
QUESTION C: Is the United States, or C.1. Do 50% or more of the plaintiffs who reside in the
district reside in Orange Co.?
one of its agencies or employees, a
DEFENDANT in this action?
YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Southern Division.

Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue
from there.
Yes
INITIAL DIVISION IN CACD IS:
No
No
NO. Continue to Question C.2.
If "no, " skip to Question D. If "yes," answer

Question C.1, at right.
C.2. Do 50% or more of the plaintiffs who reside in the

district reside in Riverside and/or San Bernardino
Counties? (Consider the two counties together.)
YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division.

Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below, and continue
from there.
NO. Your case will initially be assigned to the Western Division.

Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below, and continue
from there.
A.
QUESTION D: Location of plaintiffs and defendants?
Orange County
B.
Riverside or San
Bernardino County
C.
Los Angeles, Ventura,
Santa Barbara, or San
Luis Obispo County
Indicate the location(s) in which 50% or more of plaintiffs who reside in this district
reside. (Check up to two boxes, or leave blank if none of these choices apply.)
Indicate the location(s) in which 50% or more of defendants who reside in this
district reside. (Check up to two boxes, or leave blank if none of these choices
apply.)
D.1. Is there at least one answer in Column A?
Yes
D.2. Is there at least one answer in Column B?
No
Yes
No
If "yes," your case will initially be assigned to the
If "yes," your case will initially be assigned to the
SOUTHERN DIVISION.
EASTERN DIVISION.
Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.
Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below.
If "no," go to question D2 to the right.
If "no," your case will be assigned to the WESTERN DIVISION.

Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below.
QUESTION E: Initial Division?
INITIAL DIVISION IN CACD
Enter the initial division determined by Question A, B, C, or D above:
Southern Division
QUESTION F: Northern Counties?

Do 50% or more of plaintiffs or defendants in this district reside in Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo counties?
CV-71 (02/16)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
Yes
No
Page 2 of 3
Case 8:16-cv-00750
Document
Filed
04/20/16
Page
3 of 3 Page ID #:29
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT 1-1
COURT,
CENTRAL
DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET
IX(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court?
NO
YES
NO
YES
If yes, list case number(s):
IX(b). RELATED CASES: Is this case related (as defined below) to any civil or criminal case(s) previously filed in this court?
If yes, list case number(s):
8:15-01860; 8:15-01984; 8:15-02090; 8:15-02151; 8:15-02166; 8:16-00156
Civil cases are related when they (check all that apply):
A. Arise from the same or a closely related transaction, happening, or event;
B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or
C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.
Note: That cases may involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright is not, in itself, sufficient to deem cases related.
A civil forfeiture case and a criminal case are related when they (check all that apply):
A. Arise from the same or a closely related transaction, happening, or event;
B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or
C. Involve one or more defendants from the criminal case in common and would entail substantial duplication of
labor if heard by different judges.
X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY
(OR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT): /s/ John R. Parker, Jr.
DATE: 04/20/2016
Notice to Counsel/Parties: The submission of this Civil Cover Sheet is required by Local Rule 3-1. This Form CV-71 and the information contained herein
neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. For
more detailed instructions, see separate instruction sheet (CV-071A).
Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:

Nature of Suit Code
Abbreviation
Substantive Statement of Cause of Action

All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also,
include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the program.
(42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b))
861
HIA
862
BL
All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 U.S.C.
923)
863
DIWC
All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus
all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))
863
DIWW
All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as
amended. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))
864
SSID
All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act, as
amended.
865
RSI
All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended.
(42 U.S.C. 405 (g))
CV-71 (02/16)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
Page 3 of 3
Case 8:16-cv-00750 Document 1-2 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:30

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

for the
Central
District
of California
__________
District
of __________
ROBYN KUNTZMANN; LINDA BUNCH, on behalf of
themselves, and a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff(s)
v.
WPP GROUP USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
SEE ATTACHMENT
Defendant(s)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendants name and address)
A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)
u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)
; or
u I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)
, and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or
u I served the summons on (name of individual)
, who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date)
; or
u I returned the summons unexecuted because
; or
u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $
for travel and $
for services, for a total of $
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Servers signature
Printed name and title
Servers address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
0.00

NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF ATTORNEY(S)
OR OF PARTY APPEARING IN PRO PER
C. Brooks Cutter, (SBN 121407)

John R. Parker, Jr. (SBN 257761)
CUTTER LAW P.C.
401 Watt Avenue,
Sacramento, CA 95864
Tel: 916.290.900 - Fax 916.588.9330
ATTORNEY(S) FOR:
Plaintiffs

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROBYN KUNTZMANN and LINDA BUNCH, et
al.
CASE NUMBER:
Plaintiff(s),
v.
WPP GROUP USA, INC., a Delaware

Corporation; et al.
CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE

OF INTERESTED PARTIES
(Local Rule 7.1-1)
Defendant(s)
TO:
THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES OF RECORD:
The undersigned, counsel of record for

Plaintiffs ROBYN KUNTZMANN and LINDA BUNCH
or party appearing in pro per, certifies that the following listed party (or parties) may have a pecuniary interest in
the outcome of this case. These representations are made to enable the Court to evaluate possible disqualification
or recusal.
(List the names of all such parties and identify their connection and interest. Use additional sheet if necessary.)
PARTY
CONNECTION / INTEREST
ROBYN KUNTZMANN
Plaintiff
LINDA BUNCH
Plaintiff
4.20.16
Date

Signature
Attorney of record for (or name of party appearing in pro per):

Plaintiffs ROBYN KUNTZMANN and LINDA BUNCH
CV-30 (05/13)
NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES

Kuntzman Et Al. v. WPP Group USA, No. 8:16-cv-760 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2016)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Kuntzman Et Al. v. WPP Group USA, No. 8:16-cv-760 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2016)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 8:16-cv-00750 Document 1 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:1

C. Brooks Cutter, Esq., (SBN 121407)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBYN KUNTZMANN; LINDA

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-1COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 8:16-cv-00750 Document 1 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:2

TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Delaware

Civ. Code 1798.80, et seq.

Plaintiffs Robyn Kuntzmann and Linda Bunch, by and through their

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of the minimum

NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case 8:16-cv-00750 Document 1 Filed 04/20/16 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:3

advertisers and media content providers. See

7. According to Vizio, approximately 90% of its Smart TV customers made an

discovery and engagement software. See

Case 8:16-cv-00750 Document 1 Filed 04/20/16 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:4

Case 8:16-cv-00750 Document 1 Filed 04/20/16 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:5

offering data enrichment, combining additional information about persons tied to

particular IP addresses provided by Vizio.

address or other device IDs.

Privacy Protection Act, which requires an opt-in procedure.

knows that such data can identify persons by name.

Xpress LLC (collectively Data Partners).

communications services group. Through its numerous operating companies, WPP

provides a comprehensive range of advertising and marketing services. See

Case 8:16-cv-00750 Document 1 Filed 04/20/16 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:6

agencies and marketing service companies. It is a global provider of marketing

solutions that specializes in consumer advertising, digital marketing,

communications planning and media buying, public relations and specialty

marketing. See https://www.interpublic.com/about/overview.

opportunity for marketers to address the ever-evolving reality of media

consumption on smartphones, tablets, home computers and smart TVs. See

http://www.tapad.com/about-us/who-we-are/. According to its website, Tapad has

the associated devices.

21. iSpot.tv, Inc. is a marketing technology company that provides social

your customers in a way youve never bene able to before, bringing an

unprecedented measurement capability to TV advertising. See www.ispot.tv.

Case 8:16-cv-00750 Document 1 Filed 04/20/16 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:7

of the worlds largest third-party data networks. According to its website, it

tablets, laptops and desktops, which are linked 1:1. See

http://resources.lotame.com/smart-tv-audiences. Lotame further suggests that its

websites. This information includes the type of Internet browser, browser

address, unique identifiers available at or pertaining to your device, connection type

device is connected, longitude/latitude of a (mobile) device, mobile carrier (if

order to ascertain your interests). Devices include computers, mobile phones,

tablets, e-readers, or other digital devices capable of maintaining an Internet

connection. See https://www.xaxis.com/static/view/privacy-policy-en.

24. TubeMogul, Inc. is a digital advertising company. According to its website,

TubeMoguls cross-channel advertising software allows you to run global,

inventory on all devices, formats and channels. See

25. Audience Xpress LLC is an advertising technology firm. According to its

Case 8:16-cv-00750 Document 1 Filed 04/20/16 Page 8 of 26 Page ID #:8

website, Audience Xpress optimizes media buying based on the efficiency of

analytics. See http://www.audiencexpress.com/about/.

exchange and/or repackage the personally identifiable information of Vizio

information with the personally-identifying information that the broker already

30. Defendant Vizio Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation. Its principal

32. Defendant Vizio Inscape Services, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability

Case 8:16-cv-00750 Document 1 Filed 04/20/16 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:9