GameStop Denied Dismissal Bid for VPRA Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

GameStop has been denied a dismissal bid in a class action lawsuit claiming that the company sold Game Informer magazine subscribers’ personal information, violating the Video Rental Privacy Act.

U.S. District Judge Gordon J. Quist determined on Friday in Michigan that the consumers who filed the VRPA class action lawsuit against GameStop had rightly attempted to hold the company liable under an older version of Michigan’s Video Rental Privacy Act that allowed individuals to seek $5,000 in statutory damages if it was found that their information was disclosed without their permission.

The state reportedly amended its privacy laws in 2016 so that this would no the the case, but allegedly, the consumers had claimed that the company released their information without their consent before the law change went into effect. Judge Quist said that “thus, the unamended VRPA apples to plaintiff’s claims that accrued prior to July 31, 2016, and, consequently, plaintiff was not required to plead actual damage.”

GameStop argued that the subscribers info class action lawsuit should be dismissed because the consumers had failed to show that they had been concretely injured after GameStop allegedly shared their information without their consent.

Judge Quist’s determination in the GameStop class action lawsuit contrasts with a decision in Raden v. Martha Stewart Living Omnipedia Inc., in which another Michigan court determined that the plaintiffs did have to show injury, as required by the current version of the state’s Video Rental Privacy Act.

Additionally, Judge Quist’s decision is the first case in the country in which a judge determined that the privacy statute’s old requirements should apply to cases in which the violation took place before the law’s changes took effect, according to attorney for the consumers, Frank S. Hedin.

The GameStop subscribers info class action lawsuit was filed in May by Robert Jeremy Horton who claimed that GameStop Corp. sold information from people who subscribe to the company’s Game Informer magazine to third party data miners. Allegedly, this information included names, addresses, demographic data, and other personally identifying information.

He says that he purchased a one-year subscription to Game Informer in 2010, and continued to subscribe to the magazine every year until 2013. According to Horton, he did not give the magazine to sell or share his information with third parties.

Horton says that had he known that his data would be sold if he purchased a subscription to the company’s magazine, he would not have subscribed at all, or would not have paid as much as he did for his magazine subscription.

On Friday, Judge Quist went on to say that even if the Game Stop magazine class action lawsuit was filed under the new terms of Michigan’s VRPA, he would not have approved GameStop’s bid to dismiss, because Horton’s statement that he would not have paid as much for the subscription if he knew that his information would be sold was sufficient establishment of injury.

Robert Jeremy Horton is represented by Frank S. Hedin and David W. Hall of Hedin Hall LLP, and Wedad Ibrahim of Lyngklip & Associates Consumer Law Canter PLC.

The GameStop Game Informer Magazine VRPA Class Action Lawsuit is Horton v. GameStop Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-00596, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.