IP Law Daily, PUBLICITY RIGHTS—N.D. Cal.: Case against academic research sharing website accused of misappropriating users’ names proceeds, (May 13, 2026)

By Steven D. Cole, J.D.

A putative class action can proceed, alleging that Academia.com violated California’s right-of-publicity statute by including users’ names in its subscription solicitations without their permission.

A motion to dismiss filed by Academia.com (Academia) in a putative class action alleging misappropriation of users’ names was denied by a federal district court in California. The suit alleges that Academia, which operates a commercial academic research sharing website, unlawfully used the names of its members to promote its fee-based “Mentions” feature, in violation of California’s right-of-publicity statute. Academia’s arguments in favor of dismissal, including that site members consented by agreeing to its Terms of Use, were unpersuasive. The court imposed a protective order barring Academia from relying on changes to its Terms of Use made in response to the filing of this suit (Judge v. Academia, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-05857-AMO (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2026)).

Background. Academia maintains a website service whereby researchers can log in as members and create profiles featuring their academic work. Academia aggressively promotes a fee-based subscription to its Mentions feature, which alerts members when their names have been mentioned in another’s work. Relevant here, the solicitation e-mails and on-site advertisements contain the names of members. For instance, an e-mail might indicate that “[member’s name] was mentioned by [other member’s name]” and prompt the user to “View your Mention.”

The plaintiff in this putative class action, a “scholar of South Asia, Postcolonial Theory, and Modern World History” (scholar), alleged that Academia’s use of his and other Academia members’ names in these solicitations without their permissions contravenes California’s right-of-publicity statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 3344. The scholar aimed to represent himself, as well as residents of California and seven other states, whose names have appeared in Academia’s Mentions advertisements.

Academia’s Terms of Use, which users must accept when creating a profile to become a member, grant it permission to “use your Member Content in connection with operating and providing the Services and Content to you and to other Members.” Shortly after this suit was filed, on September 17, 2025, Academia amended its Terms of Use to give it permission to “use your Member Content and your personal information … in any manner, including for the purpose of advertising, selling, or soliciting the use or purchase of Academia.edu’s Services” (emphasis added).

Academia moved to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds, and the scholar filed a motion for a protective order.

Standing. The scholar’s pleading that Academia used his name to solicit paid subscriptions to its Mentions service without his consent was sufficient to allege that he had suffered a concrete injury, contrary to Academia’s position. This, coupled with the scholar’s other allegations, provided him with standing to sue under § 3344.

Academia additionally moved to strike the scholar’s out-of-state class allegations for lack of standing. But the court categorized this as a question of class certification, and Academia’s memo accompanying its motion did not discuss the Rule 23 requirements. As noted in Sultanis v. Champion Petfoods U.S. Inc., Nos. 21-cv-00162-EMC, 21-cv-00167-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021), “[a] growing minority of courts in this circuit have held … that whether a named plaintiff can represent class members whose claims arise under the laws of different states is not a standing question.”

Consent. Considering the website’s sign-in process and how other courts have analyzed similar scenarios, the court concluded that the scholar did not agree to Academia’s Terms of Use. But even if he had, Academia did not establish that these Terms permitted it to use members’ names in the way that it did. It was ambiguous, at best, as to whether “Member Content” included members’ names, as other parts of the Terms of Use distinguished “Member Content” from “personal information” disclosed during the registration process. Notwithstanding Academia’s contention, the scholar’s routine use of the Mentions service did not demonstrate his implied consent to Academia’s use of his name to advertise it.

Public affairs exception. A California statute provides an exception whereby “a use of a name … in connection with any … public affairs … shall not constitute a use for which consent is required.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(d). Academia did not qualify for this exception, however, since its use of the scholar’s name was “window-dressing” for an advertisement—i.e., the scholar’s reference of someone’s work in an unspecified academic paper could hardly be called a public affair. Moreover, Academia’s commercial use of members’ names removed it from the scope of subsection (d)’s exception.

Anti-SLAPP motion. Academia also sought dismissal pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which protects defendants from lawsuits brought primarily to chill the exercise of free speech. This attempt to combat the suit was unsuccessful because the public interest exemption applied. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.17(b). In other words, the lawsuit enforced an important right affecting the public interest because it intersected with “California’s public policy goal of protecting an individual’s right to control the use of his or her persona” (Batis v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc., 106 F.4th 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2024)). Although an “exception to the exemption” exists for persons engaged in the dissemination of ideas in academic journals, this did not help Academia’s cause because Academia was simply the redistributor of articles written by others. In addition, the complained-of conduct related not to the articles’ content, but Academia’s advertisements for a service.

Section 230. Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 generally shields websites from liability for user content. That did not apply here. The scholar claimed that Academia unlawfully packaged user-contributed content—his name and purported mention of the user—within its own solicitation to pay for its Mentions service. The court noted, “Section 230 does not allow a website to cloak its own advertisements as user-created content and thereby evade state-law liability.”

Protective order. The court granted in part the scholar’s motion for a protective order, barring Academia from relying on the changes to its Terms of Use as to its conduct prior to September 17, 2025, as this could extinguish potential claims raised by this suit. “It is hard to see these changes as anything but targeted at this lawsuit,” the court concluded, finding that its order was “[t]he clearest remedy for Academia’s misleading communications.”

Motion to compel arbitration. As an alternative to dismissal, Academia’s motion sought to compel arbitration, per a clause included in its Terms of Use. The court denied this motion, finding that the scholar did not manifest unambiguous assent to the arbitration agreement when he used Academia’s “Find Your Friends” feature to import contacts from Google, logged in to academia.com through google.com, or repeatedly used academia.com.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-05857-AMO.

Judge: Olguín, A.

Attorneys: Nicole Cabanez (Salahi PC) for Rajbir Singh Judge. Eric J. Ball (Fenwick & West LLP) for Academia, Inc.

Companies: Academia, Inc.

Cases: PublicityRights CaliforniaNews TechnologyInternet GCNNews