8 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 252,626 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 266,542 times 365 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP
152 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 637 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may not amend its complaint by advancing a new theory of liability for the first time in its opposition to a motion to dismiss
Rolon v. Henneman
517 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 256 times
Holding that plaintiff who "submitted no rules or understandings to prove that he had a legitimate claim to overtime" and submitted a page from a collective bargaining agreement granting "managerial rights to assign overtime" failed to adequately allege an unconstitutional deprivation of property
Ellis v. Cartoon Network, Inc.
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:14-CV-484-TWT (N.D. Ga. Oct. 8, 2014) Cited 11 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that while, “[t]he Android ID is a randomly generated number that is unique to each user and device [i]t is not, however, akin to a name. Without more, an Android ID does not identify a specific person . . . is not personally identifiable information.”
In re Hulu Privacy Litigation
No. C 11-03764 LB (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) Cited 8 times 5 Legal Analyses
Defining PII as, in part, “information that identifies a specific person and ties that person to particular videos that the person watched”
In re Hulu Privacy Litigation
No. C 11-03764 LB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012) Cited 9 times 3 Legal Analyses
No. C 11-03764 LB 08-10-2012 IN RE HULU PRIVACY LITIGATION LAUREL BEELER ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION In this putative class action, viewers of Hulu's on-line video content allege that Hulu wrongfully disclosed their video viewing selections and personal identification information to third parties such as online ad networks, metrics companies (meaning, companies that track data), and social networks, in violation
Section 2710 - Wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records
18 U.S.C. § 2710 Cited 207 times 72 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting disclosure of "personally identifiable information concerning" consumer of video rental establishment without consent

Robinson v. Disney Online d/b/a Disney Interactive

8 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

Holding a party may not amend its complaint by advancing a new theory of liability for the first time in its opposition to a motion to dismiss

Holding that plaintiff who "submitted no rules or understandings to prove that he had a legitimate claim to overtime" and submitted a page from a collective bargaining agreement granting "managerial rights to assign overtime" failed to adequately allege an unconstitutional deprivation of property

Holding that while, “[t]he Android ID is a randomly generated number that is unique to each user and device [i]t is not, however, akin to a name. Without more, an Android ID does not identify a specific person . . . is not personally identifiable information.”

Defining PII as, in part, “information that identifies a specific person and ties that person to particular videos that the person watched”

Prohibiting disclosure of "personally identifiable information concerning" consumer of video rental establishment without consent