Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-23-03998/USCOURTS-ca6-23-03998-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Datanyze, LLC
Appellee
Charisma Hudson
Appellant
Brian Schaefer
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 25a0014n.06

Case No. 23-3998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

CHARISMA HUDSON and BRIAN 

SCHAEFER, Ohio citizens, individually and as 

the representatives of a class of similarly 

situated persons,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

DATANYZE, LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

OPINION

Before: SILER, GRIFFIN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Datanyze, LLC created digital profiles of over 100 million

individuals, including Plaintiffs Charisma Hudson and Brian Schaefer. Datanyze then allowed

their prospective customers to access the profiles, including Plaintiffs’, via a free trial to its online 

database. Plaintiffs brought a putative class action asserting that Datanyze violated their publicity 

rights under Ohio law by using their identities to solicit paid subscriptions to its database. The 

district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint. We affirm.

I.

Datanyze operates a digital database for users in sales, marketing, and recruiting to search 

and obtain contact and other information (both business and personal) of professional prospects. 

Datanyze’s database contains over 120 million profiles, “with 84 million email addresses and 63 

Case: 23-3998 Document: 28-2 Filed: 01/13/2025 Page: 1
No. 23-3998, Hudson v. Datanyze

- 2 -

million direct dial numbers,” and is accessible through its website or a Google Chrome extension.

R. 1, PageID 5. The extension works in conjunction with LinkedIn, the world’s largest online 

professional network. Datanyze uses a “credits” system where a user can spend a credit to access 

a single profile on its platform. Id. at 6. Datanyze offers a 90-day free trial period, during which 

prospective customers receive 10 credits each month. After the trial ends or a customer expends 

all the credits, the customer must obtain a paid subscription to view additional profiles. A person

cannot access Datanyze’s database without a paid subscription or free trial.

Hudson’s and Schaeffer’s profiles appear in Datanyze’s database, are accessible (and were 

accessed) through Datanyze’s free trial, and contain information beyond what LinkedIn provides. 

Plaintiffs did not consent to Datanyze using their information, nor did the parties have a prior

relationship with Datanyze. Hudson’s profile includes her name, business and personal emails,

and cellular and work telephone numbers; Shaefer’s profile includes his name, personal email, and 

work telephone number. Plaintiffs allege that Datanyze caused them injury when it used their

names and likenesses to solicit paid subscriptions through its free trial offering.

Plaintiffs filed a putative class-action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and similarly situated 

Ohio residents. They claim that Datanyze’s actions: (1) violate the Ohio Right of Publicity Statute 

(“ORPS”), Ohio Revised Code Ann. §§ 2741.01–09, and (2) subject it to liability for the commonlaw tort of invasion of privacy by appropriation. The district court granted Datanyze’s motion to 

dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. Hudson v. Datanyze, LLC, 702 F. Supp. 3d 628 (N.D. Ohio 2023). 

Plaintiffs timely appealed.

II.

We review the district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss de novo. Lindke v. 

Tomlinson, 31 F.4th 487, 495 (6th Cir. 2022). “We may affirm the district court’s dismissal of the 

Case: 23-3998 Document: 28-2 Filed: 01/13/2025 Page: 2
No. 23-3998, Hudson v. Datanyze

- 3 -

plaintiff’s claims on any grounds present in the record, including grounds not relied upon by the 

district court.” Majestic Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Huntington Bancshares Inc., 864 F.3d 455, 458 (6th 

Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). 

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient

“to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

570 (2007). To determine whether a plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for relief, we “must 

accept any factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” 

Ogbonna-McGruder v. Austin Peay State Univ., 91 F.4th 833, 839 (6th Cir. 2024) (citation 

omitted). “But we need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences, and 

conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual allegations will not suffice.” 

Willman v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 972 F.3d 819, 823 (6th Cir. 2020) (brackets and internal 

quotation marks omitted). And a pleading that offers only “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

The parties agree that Plaintiffs’ claims are governed by Ohio law. See Baker Hughes Inc. 

v. S&S Chem., LLC, 836 F.3d 554, 560 (6th Cir. 2016).

III.

Plaintiffs contend that Datanyze violated the ORPS and committed the common-law tort 

of invasion of privacy by appropriation. Both causes of action protect Ohio citizens’ right of 

publicity.

In 1999, the Ohio legislature codified a cause of action to protect Ohio citizens’ right of 

publicity in the ORPS. That law defines “right of publicity” as “the property right in an 

individual’s persona to use the individual’s persona for a commercial purpose.” Ohio Rev. Code 

Ann. § 2741.01(D). The ORPS prohibits a person from “us[ing] any aspect of an individual’s 

Case: 23-3998 Document: 28-2 Filed: 01/13/2025 Page: 3
No. 23-3998, Hudson v. Datanyze

- 4 -

persona for a commercial purpose.” Id. § 2741.02(A). This includes “using a persona in 

connection with a product, advertising a product, or soliciting the purchase of a product.” Ohio 

State Univ. v. Redbubble, Inc., 989 F.3d 435, 450 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 

§§ 2741.01(B), 2741.02(A)). Persona includes “an individual’s name” or “likeness,” if the name 

or likeness has “commercial value.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2741.01(A). Potential remedies for 

a violation of the ORPS include actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, and 

injunctive relief. Id. § 2741.07(A), (D). And the remedies provided by the ORPS “are in addition 

to any other remedies provided by state . . . common law.” Id. § 2741.08. 

Ohio courts also recognize a common-law right of publicity. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard 

Broad. Co., 351 N.E.2d 454, 458–60 (Ohio 1976), rev’d on other grounds, 433 U.S. 562 (1977). 

A violation of this common-law right constitutes the tort of invasion of privacy by appropriation. 

To establish a claim for invasion of privacy by appropriation, a plaintiff must show “appropriation, 

for the defendant’s advantage, of the plaintiff’s name or likeness.” Retuerto v. Berea Moving 

Storage & Logistics, 38 N.E.3d 392, 406 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) (citation omitted). Like an ORPS 

claim, “plaintiffs must demonstrate that their name or likeness has value.” Roe v. Amazon.com,

714 F. App’x 565, 568 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Zacchini, 351 N.E.2d at 458 n.4). That is so because 

“[i]t is only when the publicity is given for the purpose of appropriating to the defendant’s benefit 

the commercial or other values associated with the name or the likeness that the right of privacy is 

invaded.” Zacchini, 351 N.E.2d at 458 n.4 (quotation omitted). 

As mentioned above, Plaintiffs must establish that their names or likenesses have

commercial value to succeed on their claims. “While plaintiffs need not be national celebrities to 

assert a right of publicity claim, they must at least ‘demonstrate that there is value in associating 

an item of commerce with [their] identity.’” Roe, 714 F. App’x at 568 (alteration in original) 

Case: 23-3998 Document: 28-2 Filed: 01/13/2025 Page: 4
No. 23-3998, Hudson v. Datanyze

- 5 -

(quoting Landham v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 227 F.3d 619, 624 (6th Cir. 2000)). Two 

considerations help establish the commercial value of a name or likeness: “(1) the distinctiveness 

of the identity and . . . (2) the degree of recognition of the person among those receiving the 

publicity.” Harvey v. Sys. Effect, LLC, 154 N.E.3d 293, 306 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020) (quotation 

omitted).

Plaintiffs purport to allege facts showing the commercial value of their names and 

likenesses in two ways. First, they allege that they “ha[ve] intellectual property and privacy 

interests” in their names and likenesses. R. 1, PageID 8, 10. Second, Plaintiffs allege that they 

“have been denied the commercial value” of their names and likenesses. Id. at 14. These cursory 

allegations are insufficient to show that Plaintiffs’ names or likenesses have commercial value. 

Thus, they have not stated plausible claims for violation of the ORPS or for invasion of privacy

by appropriation.

Consider the allegation about Plaintiffs’ intellectual property and privacy interests. The 

complaint mentions nothing about the distinctiveness of Plaintiffs’ identities. See Harvey, 154 

N.E.3d at 306. Nor does the complaint explain how Plaintiffs received more recognition than 

others receiving publicity. See id. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not allege that their names and 

likenesses were particularly valuable or recognizable to Datanyze’s targeted customers—business 

recruiters, salespersons, and marketers. At most, Plaintiffs allege that they have LinkedIn profiles, 

but we cannot reasonably infer that the existence of such profiles, without any elucidating factual 

allegations, shows that Datanyze’s prospective customers value Plaintiffs’ names or likenesses. 

Plaintiffs’ allegation that Datanyze has denied them the commercial value of their names 

and likenesses fares no better. This allegation is merely an “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyCase: 23-3998 Document: 28-2 Filed: 01/13/2025 Page: 5
No. 23-3998, Hudson v. Datanyze

- 6 -

harmed-me accusation” that does not suffice to plausibly state a claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).

Plaintiffs argue that Datanyze’s misappropriation of their names or likenesses to solicit 

paid subscriptions, in and of itself, demonstrates commercial value. Neither Ohio courts, nor this 

court when applying Ohio law, have endorsed this theory. For instance, in Roe, the plaintiffs 

brought ORPS and invasion-of-privacy claims against an author and the distributors of a book that 

featured the plaintiffs on the cover. 714 F. App’x at 566–67. We upheld the grant of summary 

judgment to the distributors because the plaintiff could not show “that there was any commercial 

value in associating their likeness with” those defendants. Id. at 569. And in Harvey, the plaintiff 

sued after learning that the defendants referenced her in a slideshow for a continuing-education 

class for realtors. 154 N.E.3d at 298–99. The plaintiff’s ORPS and invasion-of-privacy claims 

failed, in part, because she did not show any commercial value in her name. Id. at 306. 

Moreover, Plaintiffs do not allege that Datanyze curated and delivered, or otherwise

highlighted, Plaintiffs’ profiles to potential customers. Nor do Plaintiffs allege their profiles were 

specially maintained. Thus, without any allegation to indicate that Datanyze did anything more 

than treat Plaintiffs’ profiles like the millions of others in its database, there is no way for us to 

infer that Plaintiffs’ names or likenesses have commercial value. “[O]ne’s name and appearance, 

in and of themselves, are not private and, therefore, may be brought before the public.” Imperial 

Aviation Servs. LLC v. Ohio State Univ., __ N.E.3d __, 2024 WL 3897791, at *7 (Ohio Ct. App. 

2024) (quotation omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiffs assert that the profiles in the database, and in turn their names and 

likenesses, have commercial value because Datanyze sells subscriptions to its database. But no 

Case: 23-3998 Document: 28-2 Filed: 01/13/2025 Page: 6
No. 23-3998, Hudson v. Datanyze

- 7 -

allegations in the complaint permit a reasonable inference that Plaintiffs’ names and likenesses

had commercial value before or after their appropriation. 

IV.

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. 

Case: 23-3998 Document: 28-2 Filed: 01/13/2025 Page: 7