152453P.pdf   08/16/2016  Matthew Carlsen  v.  GameStop, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2453
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Beam, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Consumer law. In action alleging defendant shared plaintiff's 
   personally identifiable information with Facebook in violation of the 
   privacy policy contained in defendant's online terms of service, the 
   district court erred in finding plaintiff did not have standing to pursue 
   the action, as he provided sufficient facts alleging he is a party to a 
   binding contract - the terms of service, which included the privacy policy 
   - with defendant and defendant does not dispute this relationship;; 
   further, he alleged a breach of the agreement and that he had suffered 
   damages as a result of the breach, in the form of devaluation of the value 
   of his subscription (the difference in value between what he paid for and 
   what he received - a subscription with compromised privacy protection); 
   additionally, he showed his injury was fairly traceable to defendant's 
   action and that his injury was redress able;; he also had standing to 
   pursue his claim for unjust retention of his subscription payment and to 
   bring a claim under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act; however, the 
   district court did not err in dismissing the action for failure to state a 
   claim as the privacy policy in the service agreement does not ambiguously 
   promise not to disclose plaintiff's personally identifiable information, 
   including his Facebook ID and browser history; accordingly defendant did 
   not breach the agreement by disclosing the information; plaintiff's 
   Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act claim fails for similar reasons; with respect 
   to plaintiff's equitable claims, plaintiff did not allege that any portion 
   of his subscriber fee went to data protection or that defendant agreed to 
   provide additional protection to subscribers, and the claims fail. Judge 
   Beam, concurring in part and dissenting in part.