2 Subscribers Sue Augusta National for Sharing Viewing Data With Facebook
Augusta National, owner of the Masters golf tournament, doesn’t disclose on its website that subscribers’ personally identifying information (PII) will be captured by the Meta Pixel tracking tool that Augusta installed on the website and then shared with Meta, alleged a class action Monday (docket 1:24-cv-03058) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Plaintiffs Adam Labernik, an Iowa City, Iowa resident, subscribed to the Augusta website in 2019, and Shane Doyle, of Smiths Grove, Kentucky, subscribed in 2022, said the complaint. During the signup process, neither plaintiff was asked for consent to share his information as a result of or via the Pixel, it said.
Labernik and Doyle “routinely used the website to watch pre-recorded video, along with live-video, content and browse articles,” the complaint said. They also used the search bar to find video content relating to a specific golfer on the website using a device that was signed into Facebook, resulting in their PII and video watching data being shared with Facebook, it said. Both plaintiffs’ Facebook profiles include their PII, it said.
Website developers are given access to the data collected through Pixel via Facebook’s Events Manager tool, which allows them to review URLs correlated to Pixel activity, including the parameters and metadata sent through the Pixel activations; they then use that information “to improve advertising effectiveness and user engagement,” said the complaint.
As owner of its website, Augusta National holds the decision-making authority over placement of the Meta Pixel on the site, the complaint said. Though a website owner may not make the decisions about every detail on the site, that doesn’t reduce or eliminate its responsibility over the information displayed on the site and made available to visitors or “what is gathered” about users and then shared with third parties, the complaint said.
Meta’s business terms with website owners explicitly state that using the Pixel will result in Facebook receiving website users’ PII and “the actions they take on your websites,” said the complaint. Terms also require web developers that use Pixel to “represent and warrant that [they] have provided robust and sufficiently prominent notice to users” regarding tracking tool data collection, sharing and usage, it said. That includes at minimum, “a clear and prominent notice on each web page” using Pixel that links to a “clear explanation (a) that third parties, including Meta, may use cookies, web beacons, and other storage technologies to collect or receive information from [the web developers’ websites] ... and use that information to provide measurement services, [and] target and deliver ads,” it said.
The defendant uses the Pixel, which allows it to transmit subscribers’ personal viewing information, without their consent, to Facebook, alleged the complaint. Subscribers who view streaming content on the website “are not provided with any notification that their Personal Viewing Information is being, or will be, shared,” it said. Augusta “fails to obtain subscribers’ written consent to collect and disclose” their viewing information “in a form distinct and separate from any form setting forth other legal or financial obligations of the consumer,” as the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) requires, it said.
The plaintiffs’ seek an order for injunctive and declaratory relief, including requiring the defendant to remove the Pixel from its website or to obtain the appropriate consent from subscribers. They also request damages and statutory damages of $2,500 for each plaintiff and class member under the VPPA; attorneys’ fees and costs; and pre-judgment interest.