An Illinois federal district court recently dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction a publicity privacy suit against Geneanet, which the complaint alleges is a French subsidiary of Ancestry.com that owns and operates an interactive genealogy website. See Shebesh v. Geneanet, S.A., No. 23-cv-4195 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2024). Plaintiff Ethan Shebesh sued on behalf of himself and a putative class under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, which prevents the use of an individual’s identity for a commercial purpose without the individual’s consent. 765 ILCS 1075/30(a). Shebesh asserted that Geneanet unlawfully used his and the putative class members’ names and other identifying information to advertise and sell premium memberships. Concluding that the plaintiff failed to show that Geneanet intentionally directed its conduct at Illinois, the court granted Geneanet’s motion to dismiss.

Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that a search on Geneanet’s site for his name returns a “free preview” page that displays his full name and advertises for the premium membership—even though Shebesh never uploaded his information to the site or consented to Geneanet using his information for advertising. In support of his jurisdictional argument, the plaintiff asserted that Geneanet purposefully directs it conduct at Illinois by obtaining Illinoisans’ personal information from its users and using their identities to advertise the premium membership. He further argued that Geneanet directly advertises and sells its services to Illinois residents.

Geneanet moved for dismissal on the grounds that it does not directly target Illinois by simply owning and operating a website that is accessible in the state. It also filed an affidavit from its president and chief operating officer attesting that the company has no offices or employees in the U.S. and does not advertise in the U.S.

The court agreed with Geneanet that it had not purposefully directed its conduct at Illinois. The court distinguished the case from, among others, Bonilla v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., in which the court held that Ancestry was subject to personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff alleged that Ancestry “amassed millions of individual yearbook records, including by digitizing records on-site and by accepting donations shipped to Ancestry by Illinois residents” and advertised its subscription services through ads shown in Illinois. 574 F. Supp. 3d 582, 589 (N.D. Ill. 2021).

Finally, the court rejected the plaintiff’s additional argument that Geneanet consented to jurisdiction in Illinois by attempting to enforce an arbitration provision in Ancestry’s terms of service, which provides for arbitration in the county in which the Ancestry user resides. The court, in line with others, reasoned that the arbitration provision was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction because it does not address litigation forum. The court also noted that Geneanet, though purportedly an Ancestry subsidiary, was not a party to Ancestry’s terms and conditions that Shebesh agreed to when creating an Ancestry.com account.

Though the court will allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint, this decision highlights the importance of online services considering personal jurisdiction arguments in defense of privacy-related claims.