Federal Court Dismisses Publicity Rights Claim Against Property Database Yardi, Citing Lack of Commercial Value
Key Takeaways
- ▸Court dismissed publicity rights claims against Yardi's PropertyShark database for publishing government property records in a free-trial model
- ▸Ruling establishes that plaintiffs must demonstrate their names have commercial value beyond incidental appearance in database results
- ▸Decision pushes back against emerging litigation trend targeting freemium databases with publicity rights claims
Summary
A federal court has dismissed a right of publicity lawsuit against Yardi's PropertyShark database, which publishes searchable real property ownership records sourced from government data. Property owners in Ohio sued Yardi, claiming their names and property information were used without consent in PropertyShark's free-trial model, which allows users one free property report before requiring payment. The plaintiffs argued that the free trial converted their publicly available information into unauthorized advertising. The court rejected this claim, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their names carried sufficient commercial value to trigger publicity rights protections.
The decision addresses a growing trend of litigation targeting free-trial and freemium commercial databases. Previous cases involving yearbook and genealogy databases have entertained similar theories—that free trials transform editorial content into commercial advertisements subject to publicity rights claims. The court established that Ohio's publicity rights doctrine requires three elements: unauthorized use of a commercially valuable name or likeness for commercial purposes. While the court acknowledged that plaintiffs don't need widespread fame to establish commercial value—recognition within a subgroup can suffice—it found no allegations supporting that the property owners' names had any recognition value.
The ruling, authored by a Trump-appointed Federalist Society judge, emphasized that the plaintiffs' names appeared only incidentally alongside PropertyShark's service invitations, with nothing about the individuals themselves adding value to users. The decision includes broader criticism of publicity rights doctrine as "incoherent," particularly regarding how free trials of databases containing public records could constitute unauthorized commercial use. The case illustrates ongoing tensions between commercial data aggregation, public records access, and individual privacy rights in the digital age.
- Court recognized 'commercial value' can exist within subgroups, not just widespread fame, but found insufficient pleading in this case
- Case highlights ongoing legal uncertainty around how publicity rights apply to commercial databases of public information
