Jurisdiction – Streaming service – Purposeful availment

Listen to this article

Where the defendant, a subscription-based video-on-demand streaming service, has moved to dismiss a complaint under the Video Privacy Protection Act, that motion should be allowed because the plaintiff has not shown that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Massachusetts.

“This putative class action arises from the defendant Zeus Networks’ alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §2710. Pending before the Court is the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. …

“According to the complaint, Zeus Networks, LLC, a Delaware-based limited liability company, is a subscription-based video-on-demand streaming service that creates its own prerecorded shows. Zeus offers ‘original premium subscription video programming generated by’ social media influencers and has a ‘global audience of over 100 million people.’ … To access the content, a user must register for an account and pay subscription fees. Subscribers then can watch Zeus content through their accounts on either mobile applications or on its website (the ‘Zeus Network Service’ or ‘the service’).

“The service uses Vimeo OTT for hosting its content, as well as for advertising and analytics purposes. It integrates into its website and app the Vimeo application programming interface (‘API’), software that permits companies to open up their applications’ data and functionality to developers and other parties. The plaintiff contends that Zeus violates the VPPA by disclosing information characterized by the plaintiff as personally identifiable information (‘PII’), including a record of every video viewed by the user, the user’s email address, and the user’s identification number, to unrelated third parties, including Vimeo via the Vimeo API. Various tools on the Vimeo API then permit the defendant to analyze user data, launch marketing campaigns, and target specific users or specific groups of users to receive certain content to help it monetize the Zeus Network Service and maximize revenue to retain and expand its paying user base.

“In or around 2023, Chalene Riley, a Massachusetts resident, downloaded and installed the defendant’s app onto her phone, created an account, and purchased a subscription. From 2023 until the present, she regularly watched videos on the website and on her cell phone through the app. She claims that every time she viewed a pre-recorded video on the service, Zeus disclosed to Vimeo her email address, user ID, and video-viewing information, including the video ID of the video she watched. Vimeo in turn compiled her information and activity on the service, which Zeus used for marketing, advertising, and analytics purposes. …

“In recent years, the First Circuit has made clear that the mere availability of a website in a particular forum — without ‘something more’ — is insufficient, as ‘such a rule would eviscerate the limits on personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.’ Cossaboon v. Maine Med. Ctr, 600 F.3d 25, 35 (1st Cir. 2010). … The First Circuit has explained that the ‘something more’ could be demonstrated by showing that the website either (1) ‘specifically targets the forum’ or (2) ‘has resulted in the defendant’s knowing receipt of substantial revenue from forum residents.’ …

“Here, first, there is no indication that the defendant targeted Massachusetts specifically as opposed to other potential forums. The products are available to anyone with internet access and/or a smartphone, and the mere availability of the defendant’s website and app is insufficient. The interaction with the plaintiff was based on the plaintiff’s unilateral decision to access the defendant’s services. Her PII was not disclosed because the defendant deliberately targeted the forum, but because the plaintiff herself downloaded and used the defendant’s app. There is no indication in the plaintiff’s complaint that Delaware-based Zeus has any actual business presence in the state, such as a physical location or employees, or that it advertises specifically in Massachusetts, solicits customers here, or operates in any way that would distinguish Massachusetts from any other forum.

“Second, the plaintiff has failed to establish the defendant’s knowing receipt of substantial revenue from Massachusetts residents. There are no specific allegations that the defendant knowingly received substantial revenue from Massachusetts subscribers, nor that it engaged in a regular course of sales in the forum. It is the plaintiff’s burden to proffer evidence sufficing to show facts essential to personal jurisdiction, and its failure to proffer information on this front is fatal to her claim. …

“On this record, the plaintiff has not shown that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Massachusetts in the necessary sense. There is not, therefore, a sufficient basis to satisfy the minimum requirements for the exercise of jurisdiction to comport with due process. To the contrary, finding in the plaintiff’s favor would risk ‘eviscerate[ing] the limits on personal jurisdiction’ on out-of-state defendants like Zeus. The defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is consequently allowed.”

Riley v. Zeus Networks, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-560-25) (6 pages) (O’Toole, J.) (Civil Action No. 24-13120-GAO) (Sept. 30, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.