The consumer litigants fighting Clearview AI Inc., one of its subsidiaries, and several of its leaders said there is no need for the court to reconsider its prior dismissal decision in an opposition filed on Thursday.
The sprawling multidistrict suit takes issue with practices underlying Clearview AI’s business model, which involved scraping the internet for photos of individuals, cataloging their unique faceprints, and selling access to its billions-deep biometric database to paying customers.
Last month, Law Street Media reported on the Clearview defendants’ bid to alter a February-issued decision denying their motion to dismiss. Therein, the defendants argued that Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman made clear errors of law and relied on false allegations to support a finding of subject matter jurisdiction.
This week’s opposition says that the defendants’ accusations against the court are “unfounded.” Instead, the plaintiffs dedicate page space to explaining why the court reached sound conclusions.
First, the plaintiffs assert that the court did not commit a manifest error of law in finding that the plaintiffs have Article III standing to assert their state claims. Notably, they respond to the defendants’ contention that the court failed to consider the holding in Ramirez v. TransUnion.
Not so, the opposition says. Pointing to another recent order by the court denying Macy’s Inc.’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal, the plaintiffs say that reliance on TransUnion is misplaced because it considered a fundamentally different type of claim, defamation.
Here by contrast, the plaintiffs are faced with harm more analogous to trespass and intrusion upon seclusion because “[d]efendants obtained Plaintiffs’ and class members’ private information without their consent and deprived them of their ability to make informed decisions about the use of that information.”
The plaintiffs also support the court’s conclusion that certain defendants waived their personal jurisdiction and government-contractor defenses. “Defendants, again, seek to blame the Court for their failure to properly present the argument,” the opposition says.