11.  In 1988, after the public disclosure of then-Supreme Court nominee  Robert Bork’s (and his family’s) video viewing records, members of the United  States Senate warned that records of consumers’ purchases and rentals of  audiovisual and written materials offer “a window into [their] loves, likes, and  dislikes,” and that “the trail of information generated by every transaction that is  now recorded and stored in sophisticated record-keeping systems is a new, more  subtle and pervasive form of surveillance.” S. Rep. No. 100-599, at 7–8 (1988)  (statements of Sens. Simon and Leahy, respectively).   12.  Congress responded by passing the federal Video Privacy Protection  Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710 (“VPPA”)—which, as enacted, regulates a certain type of  2:15-cv-13716-PDB-EAS   Doc # 1   Filed 10/20/15   Pg 4 of 22    Pg ID 4 5  business (a “video tape service provider”) and a narrow subset of consumer  information (that is, “information which identifies a person as having requested or  obtained specific video materials or services”). Although this statute initially also  sought to “protect[] the selection of books that [consumers] read,” 134 Cong. Rec.  S5399 (May 10, 1988), the final version of the VPPA was limited to video  materials. See 18 U.S.C. § 2710.   13.  The Michigan Legislature, however, decided that the federal VPPA  didn’t go far enough, and expressed concern that Michigan consumers’ “choice[s]  in reading, music, and video entertainment [were] a private matter, and not fit for  consideration by gossipy publications, employers, clubs, or anyone else.” H.B. No.  5331 (Jan. 20, 1989).   14.  As a result, in 1989, the VRPA was enacted “to preserve personal  privacy with respect to the purchase, rental, or borrowing of certain materials[,]”  including written materials such as books and magazines. M.C.L. Ch. 445. The  VRPA therefore provides, in relevant part, that:   a person, or an employee or agent of the person, engaged in the  business selling at retail, renting, or lending books or other written  materials, sound recordings, or video recordings shall not disclose to  any person, other than the customer, a record or information  concerning the purchase lease, rental, or borrowing of those materials  by a customer that indicates the identity of the customer.  29.  Plaintiff Julie Bush is a citizen of the State of Michigan.   30.  Bush purchased a subscription to Inc. from Mansueto in or around  December 2014.   31.  Inc. is a magazine published, owned, and operated by Mansueto.   32.  Bush has never agreed in writing or otherwise to allow Mansueto to  sell or disclose her Personal Reading Information to any unrelated third parties.   33.  Bush did not receive notice of such disclosures before Mansueto  2:15-cv-13716-PDB-EAS   Doc # 1   Filed 10/20/15   Pg 10 of 22    Pg ID 10 11  disclosed her Personal Reading Information to unrelated third parties.   34.  Mansueto has disclosed, and continues to disclose, Bush’s Personal  Reading Information (i.e., information that identifies Bush as having purchased a  subscription to Inc.)—without obtaining her permission or providing prior notice— to data mining companies, who append the information with data from their own  records.   35.  During this same time period, Mansueto has also disclosed—and  continues to disclose—Bush’s Personal Reading Information to other unrelated  third party companies, including so-called “database cooperatives” without first  obtaining her consent or giving her prior notice of the disclosures.    36.  These disclosures to unrelated third party companies squarely violate  the VRPA.    37.  Further, and even though it lacked permission to even disclose her  Personal Reading Information in the first place, Mansueto profited from its  disclosures of Bush’s Personal Reading Information.   38.  Ultimately, what Bush received (a subscription without privacy  protections) was substantially less valuable than what she paid for (a subscription  with accompanying privacy protections). Had she known that Mansueto would  disclose her Personal Reading Information to third parties without her permission,  Bush would not have purchased her subscription. Thus, Bush has suffered concrete  2:15-cv-13716-PDB-EAS   Doc # 1   Filed 10/20/15   Pg 11 of 22    Pg ID 11 12  economic harm in the form of the monies paid to Mansueto in exchange for the  magazine subscription.   39.  Class Definition: Plaintiff Bush brings this action on behalf of herself  and a proposed Class, defined as follows:  All Michigan residents who purchased subscriptions to a Monsueto  magazine.  The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate  presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant,  Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in  which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and its current or  former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and  file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this  matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5)  Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives,  successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.   40.  Numerosity: The exact number of Class members is unknown to  Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder of each Class member is  impracticable. Defendant has disclosed the Personal Reading Information of  thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of the Class. Ultimately,  members of the Class will be easily identified through Defendant’s records.  2:15-cv-13716-PDB-EAS   Doc # 1   Filed 10/20/15   Pg 12 of 22    Pg ID 12 13   41.  Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and  fact exist as to all members of the Class, and predominate over any questions  affecting only individual members. Those questions with respect to the Class  include, but are not limited to:  (a)  Whether Mansueto is “engaged in the business of selling at  retail” books or other written materials (i.e., magazines);  (b)  Whether Mansueto obtained written permission before  disclosing Plaintiff’s and the Class’s Personal Reading  Information to third parties;  (c)  Whether Mansueto’s disclosure of Plaintiff’s and the Class’s  Personal Reading Information violated the VRPA; and  (d)  Whether Mansueto was unjustly enriched through its conduct  described herein.   42.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other  Class members. Plaintiff and the Class sustained damages as a result of  Defendant’s uniform wrongful conduct, based upon Defendant’s disclosure of  Plaintiff’s and the Class’s Personal Reading Information.   43.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately  represent and protect the interests of the Class, and has retained counsel competent  and experienced in complex litigation and class actions. Plaintiff has no interests  antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant has no defenses unique to  Plaintiff. Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this  action on behalf of the Class members, and have the financial resources to do so.  2:15-cv-13716-PDB-EAS   Doc # 1   Filed 10/20/15   Pg 13 of 22    Pg ID 13 14  Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel have any interest adverse to those of the other  Class members.   44.  Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is  appropriate for certification because Defendant has acted or refused to act on  grounds generally applicable to the Class as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s  imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the  Class members, and making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the  Class as a whole. Defendant’s practices challenged herein apply to and affect the  Class members uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on  Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law  applicable only to Plaintiff.   45.  Superiority: Class proceedings are superior to all other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, as joinder of all  Class members is impracticable. The damages suffered by the individual Class  members will likely be small relative to the burden and expense of individual  prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions. Thus, it  would be virtually impossible for the Class members to obtain effective relief from  Defendant’s misconduct on an individual basis. Even if Class members could  sustain individual litigation, it would not be preferable to a class action, because  individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the  2:15-cv-13716-PDB-EAS   Doc # 1   Filed 10/20/15   Pg 14 of 22    Pg ID 14 15  complex legal and factual controversies presented in this Complaint. By contrast, a  class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of  single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single  court. Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered and uniformity of  decisions will be ensured.   46.  Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the definition of the Class as  necessary based upon information learned in discovery.  47.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   48.  As a magazine publisher that sells subscriptions directly to consumers,  Mansueto is engaged in the business of selling written materials at retail. See  68.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.    69.  Bush and the Class members conferred a benefit on Mansueto by  providing Mansueto with their Personal Reading Information and paying Mansueto  for their magazine subscriptions. Mansueto received and retained the information  and money belonging to Bush and the Class when Plaintiff and the Class purchased  their subscriptions to Mansueto’s publications.    70.  Because Mansueto received and processed Bush’s and the Class’s  subscription payments and Personal Reading Information, and because Mansueto  processes and fulfills the subscriptions and discloses Bush’s and the Class’s  Personal Reading Information to third parties, Mansueto appreciates and/or has  knowledge of such benefits.   71.  Under the VRPA, Bush and the Class members were entitled to  confidentiality in their Personal Reading Information as part of their subscriptions.   72.  Under principles of equity and good conscience, Mansueto should not  be allowed to retain the full amount of money Bush and the Class paid for their  2:15-cv-13716-PDB-EAS   Doc # 1   Filed 10/20/15   Pg 19 of 22    Pg ID 19 20  subscriptions, or the money it received by disclosing Bush’s and the Class’s  Personal Reading Information because Mansueto failed to comply with the VRPA.    73.  Bush and the other Class members have suffered actual damages as a  result of Mansueto’s unlawful conduct in the form of the monies paid for their  magazine subscriptions, which they wouldn’t have purchased had they known of  Mansueto’s unlawful disclosure practices.    74.  To prevent inequity, Mansueto should return to Bush and the Class all  monies that they paid for their magazine subscriptions, and disgorge any profits  derived from the disclosures at issue.   75.  Accordingly, on behalf of herself and the Class, Plaintiff seeks an  order declaring that Mansueto’s conduct constitutes unjust enrichment, and  awarding Plaintiff and the Class restitution in an amount equal to that which they  paid to Mansueto for their magazine subscriptions, as well as disgorgement of all  profits derived by Mansueto as a result of its unlawful disclosures of Bush’s and  the Class’s Personal Reading Information.   I.  An Overview of the VRPA.   Unjust Enrichment   (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Violation of M.C.L. § 445.1712  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  