Feed Me!

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a complaint for lack of standing

Several property management companies advertised their apartment buildings on Facebook, targeting their advertisements to users who are 50 years old or younger. Neuhtah Opiotennione is older than 50 and never saw these advertisements on her Facebook News Feed. When Opiotennione learned about the companies’ advertising practices, she sued, claiming the companies discriminated against her based on her age. The district court dismissed the case because Opiotennione lacked standing to sue. We affirm.

Standing

We agree with the district court that Opiotennione has failed to allege facts plausibly demonstrating that she has suffered a concrete and particularized injury in fact traceable to Defendants’ challenged conduct. The complaint alleges that, in 2018, Opiotennione “regularly used Facebook” and never saw Defendants’ advertisements. J.A. 40. Millions of people could say the same. Indeed, even numerous younger Facebook users who were in the target age group also did not receive the ads. So Opiotennione focuses her briefs on arguing that Defendants injured her, not by denying her the ads, but by denying her “the same chance of receiving the ads as younger people.” Opening Br. 29. How did denial of an equal chance of receiving these ads injure Opiotennione? She answers that the discriminatory classification itself satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement. In her view, she need not do more than allege that Defendants acted in a discriminatory manner to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement here. We disagree.

Without more, Opiotennione’s claim that Defendants discriminated against people over 50 when they targeted their Facebook ads to younger people is not a particularized injury. A particularized injury is “personal, individual, distinct, and differentiated.” Public 7 Citizen, Inc. v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 489 F.3d 1279, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Kavanaugh, J.); see also Griffin, 912 F.3d at 654–655. Opiotennione has not pled facts showing how the alleged discrimination itself was a personal injury to her. Comparison to the cases on which Opiotennione relies illustrates the deficiency.

(Mike Frisch)