[Sil_liS]

If anyone cares:
(Source: Scribd)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) promises in its agreement that users “will always receive notice when information about you might go to third parties, and you will have an opportunity to choose not to share the information.” Relying on that promise,actress Junie Hoang agreed to IMDb’s terms and, as IMDb required, she disclosed her private credit-card information. But IMDb did not comply with its own agreement.Instead, it misappropriated Hoang’s private credit-card information and publicly posted her age on IMDb’s website—without giving her notice or obtaining her consent. Now,casting directors know that Hoang is over 40, and her career is damaged. IMDb’s disclosure violated its privacy-policy agreement and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. These facts are undisputed. Thus, the Court should grant summary judgment in Hoang’s favor on both claims.
[...]
II. FACTS
[...]
Defendants falsely told this Court that they did not use Hoang’s payment information to obtain Hoang’s birth date and update the IMDb website. (
Compare Dkt.No. 15 at 7:15-26 and11:27-35, with Cairella 30(b)(6) Dep. at 31:15-32:16, 36:12-16;Cairella Dep. at 46:7-47:17, 58:25-59:9, Whitcomb Dep. at 10:2-17.) In Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Defendants attacked Hoang for making “the unreasonable assertion that her birth date could be obtained from no source other than her credit card data and that it is therefore her belief that Defendants obtained her birth date using her credit card information… which Defendants deny .” (Dkt. 15 at 7:15-26 (emphasis added).)Defendants also represented that Hoang made false statements by alleging “that Defendants used her credit card information to obtain her date of birth…”. (Dkt. 15 at11:27-35.) Yet, IMDb did obtain Hoang’s legal name from her payment information, and used it to uncover Hoang’s birth date. (Cairella 30(b)(6) Dep. at 31:15-32:16, 36:12-16;Cairella Dep. at 46:7-47:17, 58:25-59:9, Whitcomb Dep. at 10:2-17.)

IMDb compounded its unfair practices by violating PrivateEye.com’s terms of service. PrivateEye.com is a research tool into private information. It expressly limits IMDb’s dissemination of information from PrivateEye.com, providing that “You agree that you are only authorized to visit, view, and retain a copy of pages of this Site for your own personal use . . . you shall not duplicate, download, publish, modify, or otherwise distribute the material on this Site for any commercial use[.]” (Hoang Decl. at Ex. H.)IMDb’s actions—taking Hoang’s private consumer information from her, and then breaching a contract with PrivateEye.com by displaying Hoang’s private information for IMDb’s commercial gain—are exactly the types of unfair practices forbidden by the CPA.

So IMDb used her credit card information to get her legal name, and used her legal name to get her date of birth from PrivateEye.com, which they were not actually allowed to distribute.

Hoang requests that the Court enter judgment against IMDb and Amazon, including injunctive relief requiring IMDb to immediately remove Hoang’s birth date and age, and allow a jury to determine the specific damage amount.

According to this, she didn't ask for a million dollars. She didn't ask for any specific amount.