DETROIT – In a proposed class action complaint filed last week, Michigan resident Mark Kokoszki alleges that between January 30, 2016 and July 30, 2016, Playboy Enterprises Inc. “rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed personal information about” the plaintiff and other subscribers, in violation of Michigan’s Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (“PPPA”).
In his complaint, Kokoszki claims Playboy provided its subscribers’ data to “data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed his information to aggressive advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies.”
The complaint adds that due to Playboy’s actions, Kokoszki “has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail.”
As evidence of Playboy’s disclosure of subscriber data, Kokoszki’s complaint includes information from a rate card offered by Specialists Marketing Services, a list broker which claims to offer “access to the Personal Reading Information of 100,749 active U.S. subscribers” to Playboy magazine.
According to the complaint, renters of the list identified as the “Enhanced Masterfile” are able to access “the Personal Reading Information of Playboy subscribers based on, but not limited to, ‘age,’ ‘income,’ and whether they are ‘gift givers.’”
“The ‘Enhanced Masterfile’ list gave renters access to the Personal Reading Information of Playboy subscribers based on additional selection criteria, such as whether the subscriber enjoys ‘golf,’ ‘boating/sailing,’ and ‘dieting/weight control,’” Kokoszki’s complaint asserts. “By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing the Personal Reading Information of its Michigan-based subscribers… Playboy violated the PPPA.”
The provision of the PPPA that Kokoszki accuses Playboy of violating is subsection 2, which 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.”
In his complaint, Kokoszki alleges that Playboy discloses its customers’ personal information to “supplement its revenues” – and that the approach of renting the data, as opposed to selling it, is a component of the company’s strategy.
“By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing – rather than selling – its customers’ Personal Reading Information, Playboy is able to disclose the information time and time again to countless third parties,” Kokoszki states in his complaint.
Kokoszki also claims that the disclosure of subscriber data is “not only unlawful, but also dangerous because it allows for the targeting of particularly vulnerable members of society.”
“In fact, almost any organization can rent a customer list from Playboy that contains a number of categories of detailed subscriber information,” the complaint states. “For example, almost any organization could rent a list with the names and addresses of all Playboy customers who are female, over the age of 50, and with a net worth of greater than $500,000.”
As for the harm done to Kokoszki through Playboy’s alleged disclosure of his personal information, the plaintiff argues the junk mail he receives as a result of the disclosure waste his “time, money, and resources.”
Kokoszki further argues that Playboy’s disclosure of his information has deprived him of “the full set of benefits to which he was entitled as a part of his Playboy subscription, thereby causing economic harm.”
“(W)hat Plaintiff Kokoszki received (a subscription without statutory privacy protections) was less valuable than what he paid for (a subscription with accompanying statutory privacy protections), and he would not have been willing to pay as much, if at all, for his Playboy subscription had he known that Playboy would disclose his Personal Reading Information,” the complaint states.
The complaint alleges both violations of the PPPA and unjust enrichment and seeks damages from Playboy on both fronts.
Assuming the Class is certified by the court, the complaint seeks an order from the court declaring Playboy’s actions to be in violation of the PPPA, an award of “actual damages or $5,000, whichever is greater, to Plaintiff and each Class member,” and “restitution in an amount to be calculated at trial equal to the amount of money obtained by Playboy through its rental, exchange, and/or other disclosure of Plaintiff’s and the Class’s Personal Reading Information.”
