### In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ No. 19

- 1831
C HRISTINE D ANCEL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

G ROUPON , I NC

. , Defendant

- Appellee

.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois , Eastern Division. No. 1:18

- cv

- 02027

— Ronald A. Guzmán
, Judge

.

____________________
A RGUED S EPTEMBER 16, 2019

— D ECIDED D ECEMBER 18, 2019

____________________

Before B AUER , B RENNAN , and S T

. E VE , Circuit Judges

. S T

. E VE , Circuit Judge

. Is a person ’ s username a part of her identity? That is a complex question , but one that Christine Dancel proposes can be resolved categorically for all usernames and all people

. The district court though t otherwise and declined to certify a class because it would have to be decided username

- by

- user name whether each one is an aspect of a given class member ’ s identity, at least as that word is defined by the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA), 7652 No. 19

- 1831

ILCS 1075/ 5

. Dan cel contends this rejection of her theory was an improper decision on the merits of her and the class ’ s claim s , and the court therefore abused its discretion at the class

- certification stage . We see no such mistake in the district
court ’ s reasoning and affi rm the order denying certification. I. Background Groupon, Inc. is an online marketplace that sells vouchers for other businesses. Groupon ’ s website gives each business its own page with information about the business and the discounts available. Between April 2015 and February 2016
, some visitors to the site could scroll down each page to see a

“ Photos ” section that displayed up to nine pictures

. I f the visitor clicked a button , the page would reveal up to eighteen

mor e. Groupon collected and displayed these picture s automatically using what it calls the “ Instagram Widget. ” A s its name suggests, th is Widget pulled publicly available pictures from the social networking service Instagram

. It select ed which pictures to assign to each page based on data linking the photos to the advertised business ’ s location

. When a Groupon visitor hovered her cursor over a displayed photo , the W idget would show the unique, user

- selected user name of the Inst agram account whose photo was being displayed and a caption, if the user had attached one to the photo. Dancel is an Instagram user , and l ike all Instagram users, her account had a username

— namely, “ meowchristine

. ” I n 2015 , Dancel uploaded to her account a picture of herself and her boyfriend visiting Philly G ’ s, a restaurant in Vernon Hills, Illinois. This picture was one of several Groupon displayed on Philly G ’ s page while the Widget was active.No. 19

- 1831 3

Dancel alleges that Groupon ’ s inclusion of her ph oto and

username on Philly G ’ s page violated the IRPA , which prohibits the use of a person ’ s identity

— meaning an “ attribute ofan individual that serves to identify that individual to an ordinary , reasonable viewer or listener ”

— for commercial purpos es with out consent

. 765 ILCS 1075/ 5, 30. She filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County and sought to maintain the action on behalf of a class of “ Illinois residents ” whose photographs Groupon had similarly shown on its pages . T he parties litigated in that posture for two years until Dancel moved to certify a different class , defined as “[ a]ll persons who maintained an Instagram Account and whose photograph (or photographs) from such account was (or were) acquired and used on a groupon.com webpage for a n Illinois business. ” The class also had a sub

- class : “ All members of the Instagram Class whose likeness appeared in any photograph acquired and used by Groupon. ” In response to th ese new class definition s , Groupon removed the case to federal court

. Dance l tried to argue this removal came too late , but t he district court disagreed, denied her motion to remand to state court , and proceeded to decide whether to certify her prop o sed class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) . That provision requires , among other things, “ that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members

. ” Dancel identified the common question that united the class as “ whether Instagram usernames categori cally fall within the statutory definition of ‘ identity

. ’” S he distinguished this inquiry from the individualized question “ whether any particular username identifies an individual

. ”4 No. 19

- 1831

The district court found Dancel ’ s categorical theory “ unpersuasive

. ” Thou gh the court accepted that a common question existed as to whether any username identifies an individual, that question was not enough to certify a class because it

“ ignore[d] the individual inquiry that is the essence of determining ‘ identity ’ under the I RPA

. ” The district court listed several of the usernames belonging to class members

— e.g., eawhalen, artistbarbie, isa.tdg, loparse, johanneus

— and concluded that it was “ simply impossible to make any type of

across

- the

- board determination as to whether these names

‘ identify ’ a particular person, as that term is defined by the IRPA. ” Because it determined that the IRPA , as applied to the facts of this case, required a “ username

- by

- username (photo

by

- photo) ” inquiry, the court found that common questions would not predominate over individual ones and denied certification. Dancel petitioned for review of that decision , and we granted the petition. F ed. R. Civ. P. 23(f).
II. Jurisdiction
We start our analysis where we left off after our previous opinion : the district court ’ s jurisdiction. Dancel v. Groupon, Inc. , 940 F.3d 381, 386 (7th Cir. 2019)

. T he Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)( 2 ) , extends federal subject

- matter jurisdiction to a proposed class action tha t is, among other things, minimally diverse

— meaning one member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a state different from any one defendant. Groupon is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois ; it is therefore a citizen of those
two states. Instead of alleging the citizenship of even one diverse class member, Groupon a sserted only that the class “ undoubtedly would include at least some undetermined number of non

- Illinois and non

- Delaware citizens as classNo. 19

- 1831 5

plaintiffs. ” We agreed with Dancel that this allegation failed
to carry Groupon ’ s burden and direct ed Groupon to ame nd its notice of removal

. Dancel , 940 F.3d at 384

– 85. Though 28 U.S.C. § 165 3 permits a p a rty to amend jurisdictional allegations on appeal, see Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp. , 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012)
, Groupon said it required discovery to make those amendment s , so we ordered a limited remand for the district court to oversee that discovery and confirm its jurisdiction. Dancel , 940 F.3d at 386. On remand, Groupon amended its allegations and supplemented its notice of removal wit h three affidavits in which the affiant s attested to their significant ties to their home states, which are not Illinois or Delaware . Groupon also provided the incorporation and registration documents for two Instagram

using businesses based in California and Missouri

. Dancel argued that the se business es and one of the affiants fell outside the class definition
, but she conceded that the other two affidavits belonged to putative class members domiciled in Virginia and California, respectively. See Myrick v. WellPoint, Inc. , 764 F.3d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 2014) (“ Citizenship means domicile (the person ’ s long

- term plan for a state of habitation) rather than just current residence. ”). The district c ourt saw no reason to conduct an evidentiary hearing to peer beyond Groupon ’ s allegations and Dancel ’ s concession (which was well supported by Groupon ’ s evidence anyway ) , and neither do we

. See Tilden v. Comm'r , 846 F.3d 882, 887 (7th Cir. 2017) ( explaining that parties can agree to the fact of the parties ’ citizenship

— as distinct from the existence of jurisdiction

— if the agreement is not collusive )

. With these amended allegations that at least one class member was a citizen of Virginia and another of California , Groupon has shown minimal diversity between it and the proposed class , and the district court ’ s6 No. 19

- 1831

exercise of jurisdiction was proper . We may now move on to the class

- certification decision

. III. Class Certification Dancel argues that the district court improperly addressed the merits of her IRPA claim at the class

- certification stage
, and that, t o the extent those merits are not off limits, the court resolved them incorrectly

. She posits that the individual content o f each username is irrelevan t to the class ’ s claims . In her view, an Instagram username is inherently an identity under the IRPA because it is unique

— no two accounts can use the same username at the same time

. Because this theory ignores the usernames ’ con tent, Dancel maintains it cannot depend

on the individual usernames of the class members but only onthe common evidence describing the general function of Instagram usernames and the Instagram Widget

. She primarily insists that she is entitled to test her theory, regardless of its validity , on a class

- wide basis because Rule 23 prohibits a court from resolving the merits of a claim at the class

- certification stage. To the extent that the court can consider the validity of her theory , she contends the distr ict court imposed a higher evidentiary burden than the IRPA requires.
We review the district court ’ s certification decision for an abuse of discretion , but a district court necessarily abuses its discretion if its reasoning is based on a legal error , like those Dancel asserts

. See Beaton v. SpeedyPC Software , 907 F.3d 1018, 1025 (7th Cir. 2018), cert. denied , 139 S. Ct. 1465 (2019). We conclude that the district court did not legally err in its interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure o r the IRPA and did not otherwise abuse its discretion

.No. 19

- 1831 7

A. Rule 23(b)(3)
A plaintiff seeking class certification bears the burden of proving that her proposed class meets the four requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) , as well as those for

o ne of the three types of class es identified in Rule 23(b)

. Beaton , 907 F.3d at 1025. We, like the district court, need not reach the Rule 23(a) elements
, because we agree that Dancel has failed to meet th ose of Rule 23(b)(3)

— the provision on which she relies

. See Riffey v. Rauner , 910 F.3d 314, 318 (7th Cir. 2018), cert. denied sub nom. Riffey v. Pritzker , 139 S. Ct. 2745 (2019). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) requires a district
court to find that “ the questions of law or fact common to classmembers predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. ” This distinction is often easier stated than applied: An individual question is one where “ members of aproposed class will need to present evidence that varies from member to memb er, ” while a common question is one where “ the same evidence will suffice for each member to make a prima facie showing [or] the issue is susceptible to generalized, class

- wide proof

. ” Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo , 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016) (alteration in original) (quoting 2 W. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 4:50 (5th ed. 2012) ) ; Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem , 669 F.3d 802, 815 (7th Cir. 2012) (“ If, to make a prima facie showing on a given qu estion, the members of a proposed class will need to present evidence that varies from member to member, then it is an individual question. If the same evidence will suffice for each member to make a prima facie showing, then it becomes a common question. ” (quoting8 No. 19

- 1831

Blades v. Monsanto Co. , 400 F.3d 562, 566 (8th Cir. 2005))). Oneway of establishing that common evidence can supply an answer to a common question is to consider whether an individual class member could have relied on that same evidence in an in dividual action. Bouaphakeo , 136 S. Ct. at 1046.In resolving whether a common question exists or predominates, t he Supreme Court has emphasized that “ Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free

- ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage. ” Amgen Inc. v. Conn

. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds , 568 U.S. 455, 466 (2013) ; see also Messner , 669 F.3d
at 811 ( “[ T]he court should not turn the class c ertification proceedings into a dress rehearsal for the trial on the merits. ”)

. C ritically, “ Rule 23 allows certification of classes that are fated to lose as well as classes that are sure to win. ” Schleicher v. Wendt , 618 F.3d 679, 686 (7th Cir. 2010). St ill the merits are not completely off limits. Rule 23 is more than “ a mere pleading standard , ” and t he court must satisfy itself with a “ rigorous analysis ” that the prerequisites of certification are met, even if that analysis has “ some overlap with the me rits of the plaintiff ’ s underlying claim. ” Wal

- Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338, 350

– 51 (2011). We have described this analysis as involving a “ peek at the merits ” that is “ limited to those aspects of the merits that affect the decisions essential under Rule 23.” Schleicher , 618 F.3d at 685

. The Supreme Court discussed the limits and extent of this peek in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds , 568 U.S. 455. There the Court confronted a fraud

- on

the

- market securities class action. The underlying securities fraud claim required a plaintiff to prove, among other things, a material misstatement or omission and reliance on that misrepresentation

. I d. at 460

– 61. Ordinarily, reliance is a fact

-No. 19

- 1831 9

intensive individual question that is not conducive to class

wide resolution. Id. at 462

– 63. Under the fraud

- on

- the

- market theory, however, a plaintiff can demonstrate reliance by common proof , on the inference that a security traded in an efficient market reflects all publicly available material information, so all buyers presumptively relied on false public statements when purchasing the securit y

. Id. at 4 61

– 62

. In order to certify a class under th is theory, a plaintiff is required to affirmatively prove that the market is efficient and that an alleged misrepresentation was publicly made. Id. at 473. Not so with materiality, the Supreme Court held. The Court gave two reasons why a plaintiff does not need
to est ablish materiality in order to certify a class but can wait to prove it at the merits stage . First, materiality is an objective question that can be proven through common evidence

. Id. at 467. Second, t he Court emphasized that “ there is no risk whatever that a failure of proof on the common question of materiality will result in individual questions predominating. ” Id.
at 467

– 68. This is so because materiality is an element of every plaintiff ’ s securities

- fraud claim and not just a prerequisite to the class ’ s fraud

- on

- the market theory , as publicity and market efficiency are

. Id. at 468 , 473

– 74

. “ As to materiality, therefore, the class is entirely cohesive: It will prevail or fail in unison. In no event will the individual circums tances of particular class members bear on the inquiry. ” Id. at 460. The parties agree that the IRPA's identity element is like materiality in that it, too, is an objective

- inquiry

— it asks whether an attribute would identify a plaintiff to the “ ordinary, reasonable viewer or listener , ” 765 ILCS 1075/ 5

. Dancel concedes , however , that her theory is different from materiality , in that if a class is certified and it is proven that a username10 No. 19

- 1831

is not categorically an identity, Dancel and the class ’ s claims would “ remain live, ” Amgen , 568 U.S. at 474 . Each person could still try to prove , after decertification, that his or her username is an identity in a way different from usernames generally

. T his distinction is not fatal to class certification , Dancel argues, because this court has permitted certification even when there was a risk the court might later need to decertify the class

. In Bell v. PNC Bank, N.A. , 800 F.3d 360 (7th Cir. 2015)
, we affirmed a district court ’ s certification of a class alleging PNC had a policy requiring employees to work unpaid overtime. Id. at 372. W e recognized that, if the policy were found not to exist then the class would be decertified
, and the class members could still bring individual claims

. T hose individual claims , though, “ would be based on an entirely different legal theory ”

— “ Employee A alleging that her manager, Manager B, forced her to work off

- the

- clock

. ” Id. at 378. The class ’ s policy

- based theory would still “ prevail or fail for the class as a whole. ” Id. Similarly, in Costello v. BeavEx, Inc. , 810 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 2016)
, we reversed the denial of certification to a class of couriers arguing that they were employees

— not independent contractors

— of a delivery company, Beav Ex

. Id. at 104 8

– 4 9

. Under state law, all workers were employees unless the employer could prove three elements , but the district court thought only the second element (whether the plaintiffs performed work outside the usual course of the employer ’ s business) was subject to common proof. Id. at 1059. The district court refused to consider whether this common question predominated for fear of deciding the merits of the other elements

. Id. at 1060. We explained that even if only this single element was subject to common proof, that did not prevent certification

. Id. If the p laintiffs won on that element , then allNo. 19

- 1831 11

the couriers would be employees notwithstanding the other elements ; if BeavEx won, then it would not have to relitigate the second element against each plaintiff. Id. Regardless of the way the evidence turned out , this common answer would represent a significant aspect of the c ase

. Id.
Dancel ’ s theory is different from those in Bell and Costello because it presents a question that is common only if she is right

. If the class in Bell lost on its theory, no member could argue that PNC had a policy only with respect to her overtime; no r could an individual courier in Costello argue that Beav Ex ’ s usual course of business included delivery in his situation but not the class ’ s

. The question

— does this policy exist ? is couriering Beav Ex ’ s usual business ?

— was common regardless of its answer

. If the common proof failed as to that

answer , the plaintiffs could not use individualized proof in its stead

. Any individual class member with a claim remaining would have to rely on different proof to answer a different question to establis h the defendant ’ s liability

. In contrast, the answer to Dancel ’ s proposed common question

— are usernames categorically identit ies under the IRPA ?

— matters not only for the merits but for commonality

. If the answer to that question is yes , then one significant aspect of the case can be resolved in the class ’ s favor (if, as a factual matter, Groupon used the usernames within the meaning of the IRPA)

. But i f usernames are not categorically an identity under the IRPA , and the court decertified the clas s , then the same element would remain entirely subject to dispute for each plaintiff

. No thing significant will have been decided, because e ach member could provide individualized evidence

— her username ’ s content

— on top of the common evidence to prove her username is an identity

. Indeed,12 No. 19

- 1831

because each username necessarily has some content, whether it be meowchristine or isa.tdg or loparse , the individual claims would not be hindered by the preclusion of a content

- ig norant theory

. Class members would be prohibited only from arguing again that all usernames are categorically an identity

— that is, from certifying another class.
This difference arises from the fact that Dancel ’ s proposed common question is whether i dentit y is a common or an individualized question in the first place

. Must identity be proven through “ evidence that varies from member to member ” (the

username ’ s content) or can “ the same evidence ” ( its being a username) “ suffice for each member to make a prima facie showing ” ? Bouaphakeo , 136 S. Ct. at 1045

. This is not a question that can be saved for after certification ; it is precisely the question the court must answer at certification

. As we said in Bell , “[ a] proposed class of plaintiffs must prove the existence of a common question

... but it need not prove that the answer to that question will be resolved in its favor

. ” 800 F.3d at 376. Like PNC, though, Dancel has “ conflated [these] two inquiries , ” i d. , by failing to separate her argument for why a common question exists with an argument that the question should be resolved in her favor. A court cannot decide the latter , b ut it must decide the former

— and it must police t his fine line or else reduce certification to a mere pleading standard.
The Third Circuit faced a situation like this in Gonzalez v. Corning , 885 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2018). The plaintiff there alleged that the defendant ’ s shingles were defective ly designed because some would not last as long as advertised

. Id. at 196. Whether any individual shingle would fail , though, could be determined only on review of that shingle. Id. The plaintiff came up with a theory to avoid this problem: the defect wasNo. 19

- 1831 13

not that the individual shingle would fail , but the chance that any shingle would fail. Id. at 197. This theory presented a common , shared defect (the chance of failure) distinct from the individualized defect (the failure) , and the plaintiff insisted that, under Amgen , he could test the merits of his common theory on a class

- wide basis. Id. at 200. The Third Circuit saw this request for wha t it was , though

— an “ attempt to circumvent the need to identify a common defect by, in effect, redefining the concept. ” Id. at 198. By checking the plaintiff ’ s superficially common theory for “ coherence and legal foundation , ” the district court had not f ou nd that any class member ’ s shingles were not defective and thereby decided the merit s in violation of Amgen ; it “ merely applied Rule 23’ s predominance requirement. ” Id. at 201.
The same reasoning applies here. Dancel is trying to define the concept of identity in a common way so that it covers up individual questions that each class member might raise

. Her use of the word “ categorically ” makes her theory universal, but only in the way “ any questio n becomes universal when it includes the word ‘ all. ’” Id. This is not a disingenuous tactic under Rule 23

— it is no different from how a securities

- fraud class can paper over the individualized question of reliance with the fraud

- o n
- the

- market theory under which all buyers are presumed to rely on material public statements

. See Amgen , 568 U.S. at 461. Whether the tactic succeeds , however, must be determined before class certificatio n by considering the substantive law underlying the putative class ’ s claims

. See Richard A. Nagareda , Class Certification in the Age of Aggregate Proof , 84 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 97, 104 (2009)

. The district court, then, was right to identify the starting point as “ the substantive elements of plaintiffs ’ cause of action14 No. 19

- 1831

and

... the proof necessary for the various elements

. ” Simer v. Rios , 661 F.2d 655, 672 (7th Cir. 1981) (emphasis added). If the proposed common proof could be enough to carry a prima facie

case on an element for an individual plaintiff , in an individual

case , then th at element presents a common question that can predominate for a class action

. Bouaphakeo , 136 S. Ct. at 1045

– 47 ; Messner , 669 F.3d at 815 ; see also Costello , 810 F.3d at 1060 ( “ Plaintiffs have demonstrated that common questions predominate by making out a prima facie claim

... based on evidence common to the class. ”). Here the present dispute is precisely what evidence is needed to make a prima facie case for the identity element u nder the IRPA . W ould fact s common to all Instagram username s (i.e., their innate uniqueness) suffice
, or would a plaintiff need to show something more, something about her username , to meet her initial burden? Though this question overlaps with the merits, it is also “ vital to any sensible decision about class certification, ” Szabo v. Bridgeport Machs

. , Inc. , 249 F.3d 672, 674 (7th Cir. 2001) , and the district court was right to decide it before certifying a class . We must now determine whether the court correctly decided it

. B. The IRPA
We start with the substantive elements of an IRPA claim. The IRPA prohibits “ us[ing] an individual ’ s identity for commercial purposes during the individual ’ s lifetime without havin g obtained previous written consent from the appropriate person. ” 765 ILCS 1075/30(a). A plaintiff must thus prove (1) the appropriation of one ’ s identity, (2) without one ’ s consent, (3) for another ’ s commercial benefit. Trannel v. Prairie Ridge Media, Inc

. , 987 N.E.2d 923, 929 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). T he IRPA defines identity as “ any attribute of an individual that serves to identify that individual to an ordinary, reasonableNo. 19

- 1831 15

viewer or listener, including but not limited to (i) name, (ii) signature, (iii) ph otograph, (iv) image, (v) likeness, or (vi) voice

. ” 765 ILCS 1075/5. Name, in turn, “ means t he actual name or other name by which an individual is known that is intended to identify that individual. ” Id. Dancel argues that a ll Instagram username s are name s or identit ies under the IRPA because an ordinary, reasonable viewer would know that a username is intended to identify one and only one user. Because a username is innately unique , Dancel contends , the viewer would not need to know what the username is to know that it identifies an individual. Dancel supports her categorical rule by comparing usernames to email addresses, but her analogy cuts against her

. In United States v. Hastie , 854 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2017), the Eleventh Circuit conclu ded that email addresses can qualify as “ personal information ” under the Driver ’ s Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721, which defines the term as “ information that identifies an individual. ” Hastie , 854 F.3d at 1301 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2725(3)). This w as so, the court explained, because “[ e]mail addresses often expressly include the account holder ’ s name, affiliated organization, or other identifying information. ” Id. at 1303. As is critical for our purposes,
t he court did not hold that email addresses categorically identify an individual, only that they often did, and they often did so only because of their content , not their inherent nature as email addresses

. See also Gov't Accountability Project v. U.S. Dep't of State , 699 F. Supp. 2d 97, 106 (D.D.C. 2010) (recognizing that email addresses “ can be identified as applying to particular individuals ” (emphasis added)).
A username ’ s content , and not its nature, is likewise necessary to decide whether it is an identity under the IRPA

.16 No. 19

- 1831

Categorically, Instagram usernames identify only Instagram
account s

. The IRPA , however, requires more than that . It demands that an attribute , even a name, serve to identify an individual. And not just an individual but “ that individual , ” the one whose ide ntity is being appropriated. This is a comparative exercise that depends on both the specific individual and the specific appropriated attribute in question and cannot be solved categorically here

. The common evidence that Dancel proposes she will provide

— that usernames are unique , the Instagram Widget collected usernames, and Groupon ’ s deal pages delivered those usernames to visitors

— does nothing to answer the question whether any given username identifies th at specifi c individual who is behind that username and its associated account

. So, when Dancel insists that she is not asking “ whether any particular username identifies an individual, ” she gives up the game

. Whether the appropriated attribute serves to identify a particular person is , as the district court said, the “ essence of determining ‘ identity ’ under the IRPA

. ” Dancel cannot answer this question for herself or for any putative class member with only her proposed common evidence , and so she cannot develop, for each class member,

a common prima facie case under the identity element of an IRPA claim.
Dancel insists that this individualized inquiry is inconsistent with the IRPA ’ s broad scope, which is intended to protect lay people ’ s identities

. She argues that t he content of a

username could matter only if the person needed to know to who m the username belonged from just the username itself. The Illinois common law had just such a “ notoriety ” element, whereby the plaintiff needed to show her identity had “ i ntrinsic value, ” like a celebrity ’ s might

. Dwyer v. Am. Exp. Co. , 652 N.E.2d 1351, 1356 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). As Dancel rightly notes,No. 19

- 1831 17

though , t he IRPA has supplanted the common law right of publicity. 765 ILCS 1075/60; Trannel , 987 N.E.2d at 928. So, a pl aintiff need not show her identity has value to prove a claim under the IRPA

. Sh e still must show , however, that it is her identity that the defendant appropriated. T he Appellate Court in Tranell v. Prairie Ridge Media , thus , did not ask whether a reasonab le person would know who Karen Tranell, winner of the 2009 McHenry County Living gardening contest,

was based only on her photograph. 987 N.E.2d at 926 . It did, however, emphasize that the photograph “ depict[ed] plaintiff and her daughter smiling at the camera, ” and reviewed several other photographs for whether the subjects were recognizable. Id. A n individual ’ s photograph, like her name, is expressly protected by the IRPA, but that protection extends only so far as that photograph, that name, that user name

“ serve s to identify that individual to an ordinary, reasonable viewer. ” 765 ILCS 1075/5 (emphasis added). Not all photographs, names, or usernames will do so, and whether any does must be answered with individ ual proof beyond the category into which the attribute falls

. Even if individual proof is necessary, Dancel proposes that she could provid e it through class members ’ affidavits attesting to their ownership of their usernames. We have permitted district courts , in their discretion, to use individual affidavits
to identify class members after liability is established class

wide , Mullins v. Direct Dig

. , LLC , 795 F.3d 654, 672 (7th Cir. 2015), or to resolve individual merits questions after resolution of class issues, Beaton , 907 F.3d at 1030. Dancel ’ s proposal goes much further than this . S he asks to use class members ’ affidavits not to clean up individual questions left over after some other, common question has been decide d , but to provide individual proof for the same question that she says can18 No. 19

- 1831

be resolved through common proof

. Given this contradic tion , we need not decide whether it would ever be permissible to resolve the IRPA ’ s identity element this way (for example if she had identified some other, predominating common question)

. T he district court here did not abuse its discretion

. We emphasize that neither we nor the district court have decided the merits of any putative class member ’ s claim. S ome Instagram usernames

— maybe a great many of them

— might qualify as identities under the broad definition in the IRPA. An ordinary, reasonable viewer might recognize that meowchristine serves to identify Christine Dancel, or that isa.tdg, artistbarbie, and loparse serve to identi fy their respective users. We cannot say. What we can say is, u nder the IRPA, that ordinary, reasonable viewer would need to have evidence of which username , which account, and which personit was linking before it could make that decision. This individual ized evidentiary burden prevents identity from being a predominating common question under Rule 23(b)(3).
IV. Conclusion
We affirm the district court ’ s order denying class certification.