PHILADELPHIA – One of the defendants in a lawsuit brought by a local television news anchor suing for allegedly improper use of her image on commercial websites across the Internet, says the court has no general jurisdiction over it and it should be dismissed from the case.
“Good Day Philadelphia” anchor Karen Hepp has taken issue with social sites like Facebook and Reddit for featuring an image taken without her knowledge on several commercial websites, including one on an ad for erectile dysfunction.
Hepp first filed her complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 4, suing Facebook, Imgur, Reddit, Giphy, WGCZ S.R.O. and the owners of various websites and media outlets, named in the lawsuit as Does 1-10, for alleged violation of the state’s Right of Publicity statute.
Hepp alleged that her co-workers informed her two years ago that a security camera caught a snapshot of her in a New York City convenience store. That photo is said to have been used in online ads for erectile dysfunction as well as dating websites and other avenues, according to the lawsuit.
The picture was also included in a Facebook ad that implored users to “meet and chat with single women,” based on the complaint. Imgur allegedly posted the photo with the word “milf,” an inappropriate term related to attractive women with kids.
Reddit allegedly featured the photo in a subgroup called r/obsf.
Hepp also alleged, “The photo was modified and featured on Giphy wherein a video appears in the background of a man – who is hiding behind a glass commercial freezer door and masturbating – to what would appear, from his perspective, to the backside of the plaintiff.”
Lastly, the picture also made its rounds on XNXX in the “milf” gallery.
Hepp asked the court to bar the defendants and their related entities from publishing the photo, and to make them remove the ones that are currently present on their sites. She also wants the defendants to have to show how much money they made from using her image.
Several of the defendants have motioned to have themselves dismissed from the case. One of them, Imgur, took such action when it filed a response dismissal motion for lack of jurisdiction on Jan. 24.
“The claims against Imgur must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because there is no basis for a Pennsylvania court to exercise either general or specific jurisdiction over Imgur in this matter,” read the motion from Imgur’s counsel, Michael D. LiPuma.
With regards to general jurisdiction, Imgur claimed the plaintiffs did not show that they could be tied to the Pennsylvania-based case.
“Imgur is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Imgur has never transacted business in Pennsylvania, advertised in Pennsylvania, or directed any advertisements at Pennsylvania. Imgur has never owned or rented any property, real or personal, in Pennsylvania,” the company stated.
On March 16, counsel for Hepp responded to Imgur and countered that it is subject to legal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, which has interest in holding court over the matter since she is a Pennsylvania resident litigating a legitimate dispute.
Giphy, Inc., Reddit and Facebook filed similar motions to dismiss shortly thereafter – with Giphy alleging Hepp’s claims were prohibited by a lack of personal jurisdiction, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations, among other objections, before the company was successful in securing its dismissal motion last week.
On May 28, a notice of partial voluntary dismissal was filed by WGCZ, which asserted a similar argument to Imgur as to the court lacking jurisdiction over it.
“This action should be dismissed because there is no personal jurisdiction over defendant WGCZ. WGCZ has no intentional connections to Pennsylvania – no business, no property, no officers, no employees, and no bank accounts – so no general jurisdiction exists,” according to the company’s dismissal motion.
“Nor can plaintiff show specific jurisdiction. Plaintiff has claimed that her publicity rights were violated by a third-party user’s alleged posting of her photograph on the XNXX.com website. But WGCZ does not own or operate that website, so it cannot form the basis of jurisdiction over WGCZ. WGCZ should be dismissed from this action.”
WGCZ explained that is a company based in the Czech Republic, with no connections to Pennsylvania, and therefore, is not subject to any jurisdiction here. Additionally, WGCZ says it has not owned or operated XNXX since 2014 and it is now operated by a company called NKL Associates.
“WGCZ is not the owner and operator of any website at issue in this case. Furthermore, WGCZ does not intentionally direct its activities toward Pennsylvania. Litigating in Pennsylvania also would pose a great burden to WGCZ, given its complete lack of contacts here,” the motion states.
For counts of violating the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Right to Publicity statute, the plaintiff is seeking a yet-to-be precisely determined award in excess of $10 million.
The plaintiff is represented by Samuel B. Fineman of Cohen Fineman in Cherry Hill, N.J.
The defendants are represented by Dennis Wilson and Tywanda Harris Lord of Kilpatrick Stockton in Beverly Hills, Calif. and Atlanta, Ga., Aditya V. Kamdar, Joseph C. Gratz and Vera Ranieri of Durie Tangri in San Francisco, Calif., Barry L. Cohen of Royer Cooper Cohen Braunfeld, Michael D. LiPuma of LiPuma Law, Bonnie M. Hoffman and Thomas Nelson Brown of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Daniel Gross and Samuel W. Silver of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, all in Philadelphia, plus Michael Zeller and Rachel Kassabian of Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in Los Angeles and Redwood Shores, Calif..
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com