14.  In 1988, members of the United States Senate warned that records of  consumers’ purchases and rentals of audiovisual and publication materials offer “a  window into our 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).   16.  Subsection 2 of the PPPA states:  [A] person, or an employee or agent of the person,  engaged in the business of selling at retail, renting, or  lending books or other written materials . . . shall not  disclose to any person, other than the customer, a record  or information concerning the purchase . . . of those  materials by a customer that indicates the identity of the  customer.  PPPA § 2 (emphasis added).   17.  Michigan’s protection of reading information reflects the “gut feeling  that people ought to be able to read books and watch films without the whole world  knowing,” and recognizes that “[b]ooks and films are the intellectual vitamins that  fuel the growth of individual thought.  The whole process of intellectual growth is  one of privacy—of quiet, and reflection.  This intimate process should be protected  from the disruptive intrusion of a roving eye.”  S. Rep. No. 100–599, at 6 (Statement  of Rep. McCandless).   19.  Senator Leahy also explained why choices in movies and reading  materials are so private: “These activities . . . reveal our likes and dislikes, our  interests and our whims.  They say a great deal about our dreams and ambitions, our  fears and our hopes.  They reflect our individuality, and they describe us as people.”   Id.   20.  Michigan’s passage of the PPPA also established as a matter of law  “that a person’s choice in reading, music, and video entertainment is a private matter,  and not a fit subject for consideration by gossipy publications, employers, clubs, or  anyone else for that matter.”  Privacy: Sales, Rentals of Videos, etc., House  Legislative Analysis Section, H.B. No. 5331, Jan. 20, 1989 (attached hereto as  Exhibit B).   21.  Despite the fact that thousands of Michigan residents subscribe to  PMP’s publications, PMP disregarded its legal responsibility by systematically  violating the PPPA.  The Private Information Market:   Consumers’ Private Information Has Real Value   23.  More than a decade later, Commissioner Swindle’s comments ring  truer than ever, as consumer data feeds an information marketplace that supports a  $26 billion dollar per year online advertising industry in the United States.4   24.  The FTC has also recognized that consumer data possesses inherent  monetary value within the new information marketplace and publicly stated that:  Most consumers cannot begin to comprehend the types  and amount of information collected by businesses, or why  their information may be commercially valuable. Data is  currency. The larger the data set, the greater potential for  analysis—and profit.5   26.  The scope of data aggregators’ knowledge about consumers is  immense: “If you are an American adult, the odds are that [they] know[] things like  your age, race, sex, weight, height, marital status, education level, politics, buying  habits, household health worries, vacation dreams—and on and on.”7   27.  Further, “[a]s use of the Internet has grown, the data broker industry  has already evolved to take advantage of the increasingly specific pieces of  information about consumers that are now available.”8   28.  Recognizing the serious threat the data mining industry poses to  consumers’ privacy, on July 25, 2012, the co-Chairmen of the Congressional Bi- Partisan Privacy Caucus sent a letter to nine major data brokerage companies  6   See Exhibit F, Martha C. White, Big Data Knows What You’re Doing Right  Now, TIME.com (July 31, 2012), http://moneyland.time.com/2012/07/31/big-data- knows-what-youre-doing-right-now/ (last visited July 30, 2021).  7   Exhibit G, Natasha Singer, You for Sale: Mapping, and Sharing, the  Consumer  Genome,  49.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all Michigan residents  who, at any point during the relevant pre-July 30, 2016 time period, had their Private  Reading Information disclosed to third parties by PMP without consent (the  “Class”).  Excluded from the Class is any entity in which Defendant has a controlling  interest, and officers or directors of Defendant.   51.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and  predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members.  Common  legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to: (a) whether PMP is a  “retailer or distributor” of publications (i.e., magazines); (b) whether PMP obtained  consent before disclosing to third parties Plaintiff’s and the Class’s Private Reading  Information; and (c) whether PMP’s disclosure of Plaintiff’s and the Class’s Private  Reading Information violated the PPPA.   52.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class  in that the named Plaintiff and the Class suffered invasions of their statutorily  protected right to privacy (as afforded by the PPPA) as a result of Defendant’s  uniform wrongful conduct, based upon Defendant’s disclosure of Plaintiff’s and the  Class’s Private Reading Information.   53.  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because his interests  do not conflict with the interests of the Class members he seeks to represent, he has  retained competent counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and he intends  to prosecute this action vigorously.  The interests of Class members will be fairly  and adequately protected by Plaintiff and his counsel.   55.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   56.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of members of the  Class against Defendant PMP.   57.  As a magazine publisher that sells subscriptions to consumers, PMP is  engaged in the business of selling written materials at retail.  See PPPA § 2.   59.  Because Plaintiff purchased written materials directly from PMP, he is  a “customer” within the meaning of the PPPA.  See PPPA § 1.   60.  At various times during the pre-July 30, 2016 time period, PMP  disclosed Plaintiff’s Private Reading Information, which identified him as a PGA  customer, in at least three ways.   61.  First, PMP disclosed mailing lists containing Plaintiff’s Private  Reading Information to data aggregators and data appenders, who then  supplemented the mailing lists with additional sensitive information from their own  databases, before sending the mailing lists back to PMP.   62.  Second, PMP disclosed mailing lists containing Plaintiff’s Private  Reading Information to data cooperatives, who in turn gave PMP access to their own  mailing list databases.   63.  Third, PMP rented and/or exchanged its mailing lists containing  Plaintiff’s Private Reading Information—enhanced with additional information  from data aggregators and appenders—to third parties, including other consumer- facing companies, direct-mail advertisers, and organizations soliciting monetary  contributions, volunteer work, and votes.   65.  By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing its customer lists,  during the relevant pre-July 30, 2016 time period, PMP disclosed to persons other  than Plaintiff records or information concerning his purchase of written materials  from PMP.  See PPPA § 2.   66.  The information PMP disclosed indicates Plaintiff’s name and address,  as well as the fact that he subscribed to PGA.  Accordingly, the records or  information disclosed by PMP indicated Plaintiff’s identity.  See PPPA § 2.   67.  Plaintiff and the members of the Class never consented to PMP  disclosing their Private Reading Information to anyone.   68.  Worse yet, Plaintiff and the members of the Class did not receive notice  before PMP disclosed their Private Reading Information to third parties.   69.  PMP’s disclosures of Plaintiff’s and the Class’s Private Reading  Information during the relevant pre-July 30, 2016 time period were not made  pursuant to a court order, search warrant, or grand jury subpoena.   70.  PMP’s disclosures of Plaintiff’s and the Class’s Private Reading  Information during the relevant pre-July 30, 2016 time period were not made to  collect payment for their subscriptions.   72.  By disclosing Plaintiff’s and the Class’s Private Reading Information  during the relevant pre-July 30, 2016 time period, PMP violated Plaintiff’s and the  Class’s statutorily protected right to privacy in their reading habits.  See PPPA § 2.   73.  As a result of PMP’s unlawful disclosure of their Private Reading  Information, Plaintiff and the members of the Class have suffered invasions of their  statutorily protected right to privacy (afforded by the PPPA).  On behalf of himself  and the Class, Plaintiff seeks: (1) an injunction requiring Defendant PMP to obtain  consent from Michigan customers prior to the disclosure of their Private Reading  Information as required by the PPPA; (2) $5,000.00 per Class member pursuant to  PPPA § 5(a); and (3) costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to PPPA § 5(b).  Michigan’s Preservation of Personal Privacy Act   Violation of Michigan’s Preservation of Personal Privacy Act  (PPPA § 2)  