Crane v. The New York Times Company

On October 28, 2022, Mark Crane (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm, filed a personal injury lawsuit against The New York Times Company (“NYT” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory relief and damages for Defendant’s alleged violation of Michigan’s Video Rental Privacy Act. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, with Judges Mark A. Goldsmith and Kimberly G. Altman presiding.

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, “Defendant The New York Times Company rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed detailed information about Plaintiff’s The New York Times newspaper subscriptions to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed Plaintiff’s information to aggressive advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies. As a result, Plaintiff has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail.” 

The plaintiff alleged, “During the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, i.e., between March 24, 2016 and July 30, 2016, numerous list brokers, data aggregators, data cooperatives, data brokers, and others, including but not limited to NextMark, Experian, Direct Magazine, Facebook, and Infogroup (now known as Data Axle) and its subsidiary Exact Data, acting as third-party intermediaries on behalf of NYT, obtained from NYT and then disclosed to numerous other third parties the Private Reading Information of all of the subscribers and recently expired subscribers to The New York Times and NYT’s other publications.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “Notably, the Direct Magazine offering confirms that The New York Times subscriber information has been shared and supplemented, or enhanced, with third-party Experian’s demographic data prior to being rented out to third-party mailers including ‘[f]undraiser[s].’ The lists of Michigan subscribers that NYT sold, rented, exchanged, and otherwise disclosed to third parties during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period included the full names and addresses of each subscriber to The New York Times.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Although at some point NYT ceased making its ‘data cards’ available on list brokers’ publicly accessible websites (the data cards shown above are no longer publicly advertised online), NYT nonetheless continued to sell, rent, exchange, and/or otherwise disclose all of its subscribers’ Private Reading Information to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, throughout the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period.”

The plaintiff additionally alleged, “To supplement its revenues, NYT rents, exchanges, or otherwise discloses its customers’ information—including their full names, titles of publications subscribed to, and home addresses (collectively ‘Private Reading Information’), as well as myriad of other categories of individualized data and demographic information such as gender and age—to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and other third parties without the written consent of its customers.”

The plaintiff also alleged, “By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing—rather than selling—its customers’ Private Reading Information, NYT is able to disclose the information time and time again to countless third parties. NYT’s disclosures of Private Reading Information and other individualized information is not only unlawful, but also dangerous because it allows for the targeting of particularly vulnerable members of society.”

Plaintiff stated one claim for the alleged violation of the Michigan Video Rental Privacy Act.

In its prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested a judgment for declaratory relief. The plaintiff also requested an award $5,000 to Plaintiff and each Class member along with prejudgment interest.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.