• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, Yesterday

The social networking service LinkedIn is pressing a federal judge to dismiss a class-action complaint by subscriber Courtney Cole who claims the company violated the federal video privacy law by allegedly sharing her personally identifiable video-viewing history with Meta Platforms.

In papers filed late last week with U.S. District Court Judge P. Casey Pitts, LinkedIn argues that Cole's allegations, even if proven true, wouldn't show that LinkedIn shared the kind of data that would allow a "reasonable ordinary person" to link her video-watching history to her identity.

The company also argues that it isn't covered by the Video Privacy Protection Act because its primary business doesn't involve displaying videos. The Video Privacy Protection Act, which dates to 1988, prohibits "video tape service providers" from disclosing consumers' identifiable viewing history, without their consent.

The company's new court filing comes in a lawsuit brought in February by Cole in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. She alleged that LinkedIn disclosed her Facebook ID to Meta, via its tracking pixel, and that LinkedIn disclosed that she viewed the LinkedIn Learning course “Nano Tips for Negotiating Your Salary with Sho Dewan.”

Cole, a New York resident, alleged in the complaint that Meta's records of her off-site activity show that LinkedIn revealed her video-viewing history to Facebook on October 11, 2023 -- the same date she viewed the LinkedIn Learning video.

She also alleged in the original complaint that LinkedIn shared her data with Adobe.

Cole is one of numerous web users who have recently sued online companies -- including the National Basketball Association and NBC Universal -- for allegedly transmitting information to Meta through its pixel.

LinkedIn initially urged Pitts to dismiss the lawsuit in April for several reasons. Among others, LinkedIn argued that even if Cole's allegations were true, her Facebook ID isn't "personally identifiable" because it wouldn't allow an "ordinary person" to identify her.

Cole's attorneys responded last month that anyone can identify a Facebook user "by appending the Facebook ID to the end of facebook.com.”

But LinkedIn counters in its newest papers that the allegations, even if proven true, wouldn't show that any data allegedly sent to Meta would allow ordinary people to connect Cole's identity to her video viewing history.

LinkedIn additionally argues that it only makes "ancillary use" of videos, and therefore isn't considered a "video tape service provider."

"LinkedIn is a professional networking site making ancillary use of audiovisual materials, like every other modern business with a meaningful internet presence," LinkedIn contended in its April filing.

Cole responded that LinkedIn Learning -- which offers video courses -- is "significantly tailored" to delivering videos to consumers.

But LinkedIn says its Learning page doesn't transform the company into a video tape service provider.

"Plaintiff identifies no allegations that show that video content is a central focus of LinkedIn’s business or that LinkedIn is specifically tailored to the purpose of conveying video content," the company argues. "She merely leans on the presence of video content on a LinkedIn webpage -- LinkedIn Learning -- which is not enough in and of itself," the tech company says.

Pitts is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on July 31.