Patreon: Federal Court Should Reject Opt-Out Requests in Privacy Settlement
On Tuesday, monetization platform Patreon asked the U.S. District Court for Northern California to reject more than 900 opt-outs in a settlement about privacy violations. Patreon argued the opt-outs, submitted by the law firm Lexclaim, the contingent objector in the case, violate the settlement agreement’s ban on group opt-outs and did not comply with the court-approved class notice.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
“Lexclaim’s Administrative Motion should be denied for the simple reason that Patreon did not file a “motion,” it filed a reply to Lexclaim’s objection, exactly as this [district] Court’s scheduling order had contemplated,” the court document said. “The reply was filed just seven days before the fairness hearing only because Lexclaim’s objection itself was filed almost three weeks after the Court’s deadline, forcing Patreon to respond on shortened time. Nothing in Lexclaim’s Administrative Motion justifies departing from the clear and familiar procedure the Court already set; nothing indicates Lexclaim would suffer any undue prejudice if Patreon’s reply is considered at the fairness hearing.”
Patreon was sued in May 2022 for violating the Video Privacy Protection Act and other laws when it disclosed personal information and site viewing history to Facebook using the Meta Platforms’ Pixel tracking tool. A settlement was reached in September 2024 that allowed anyone with both a Facebook account and a Patreon account who had accessed videos on Patreon since April 2016 to be part of the class. It also required anyone who wished to opt out to submit a request for exclusion within 100 days after the order was entered.