The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to certify a class of individuals in a lawsuit against PeopleConnect, Inc., the operator of Classmates.com. The court's ruling, issued on September 24, 2026, allows the class to seek damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of California's right-of-publicity law. This decision affects thousands of individuals whose names were used without consent in advertisements on the website.
The case, Nolen v. PeopleConnect, Inc., stems from claims made by Alicia Nolen, a California resident and the lead plaintiff, who argues that PeopleConnect used her name and likeness to promote its paid subscription services without obtaining proper consent. The ruling is significant as it addresses the balance between digital advertising practices and individuals' rights to control the use of their identities.
PeopleConnect operates Classmates.com, a platform that digitizes yearbooks and allows users to search for names and connect with former classmates. The company has faced scrutiny for its practices, particularly regarding how it uses individuals' names in connection with advertisements for its subscription services. Nolen's lawsuit alleges that PeopleConnect violated California's right-of-publicity statute, which protects individuals from unauthorized commercial use of their names and likenesses.
The dispute began when Nolen filed her initial complaint in December 2020, representing a class of individuals whose names appeared in yearbooks digitized by PeopleConnect. After several plaintiffs withdrew their claims, Nolen became the sole representative. She contends that PeopleConnect's practices of directing users to sign up for free accounts and subsequently prompting them to purchase subscriptions constitute unauthorized use of their identities.
The district court initially certified the class in December 2023, allowing Nolen to proceed with her claims on behalf of others similarly affected. PeopleConnect challenged this certification, arguing that the court failed to demonstrate that common questions of law or fact predominated over individual issues and that Nolen could not adequately represent the class.
The Ninth Circuit, led by Judge Marsha S. Berzon, reviewed the certification decision and ultimately found no error in the district court's ruling. The court stated, "We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by certifying the classes." The ruling emphasized that the predominant issues in the case—whether PeopleConnect's actions constituted a violation of the right-of-publicity statute—could be addressed collectively rather than on an individual basis.
In its ruling, the court rejected PeopleConnect's arguments that class members needed to prove they had been specifically searched on Classmates.com to assert a claim. The court determined that the question of whether individuals' names being searchable was sufficient for a § 3344 claim was a matter for the jury to decide, not a barrier to class certification. The court also noted that the issue of injury could be established through common evidence, allowing the class to proceed.
The ruling has broader implications for digital privacy and advertising practices. As more companies digitize personal information for commercial use, the case highlights the need for clear guidelines on how individuals' identities can be used without consent. The Ninth Circuit's decision reinforces the idea that individuals have a right to control the commercial use of their likenesses, especially in an age where digital advertising is pervasive.
Moving forward, the implications of this ruling extend to other companies that utilize personal data for advertising purposes. Businesses may need to reassess their practices to ensure compliance with state laws protecting individuals' rights to publicity. The case also sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar claims involving digital content and advertising.
As for the next steps, PeopleConnect has the option to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision, but details on whether they will pursue this route were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence future litigation involving digital privacy rights and the commercial use of personal information.