Ode to Redbox

We interrupt this regularly scheduled legal blog for a paean to Redbox. . . .

I'll be the first to admit it:  I love Redbox.  There. I've said it.  In an age in which you can watch movies online through Netflix, Hulu or your cable company’s video on demand service, renting an actual DVD may seem outmoded.  Nevertheless, the idea that I can drive to my neighborhood 7-11 or CVS, plunk down a dollar and get a movie with my slurpee or prescription is just, well, great. 

And, I want Redbox to locate kiosks as close as possible to my house.  Heck, if I could walk down the street to a kiosk, that would be even better.  Redbox needs to locate its kiosks as conveniently as possible precisely because it competes with many in-home/on-line options. (I’m willing to get in my car and drive a half-mile to save $3.99, but I’m not sure I would drive 20 minutes. . . .)  

What does this all have to do with this blog, you ask?

Well, loyal blog readers will recall a post by my colleague Aaron Feigenbaum last week, in which he reported on yet another in a flood of suits alleging wrongful collection and recording of zip codes, in violation of California's Song-Beverly Act.  As Aaron explained, the act prohibits businesses from asking for and recording credit-card purchasers ’ “personal identification information.”  Early this year, the California Supreme Court interpreted that prohibition to include purchasers’ zip codes.

Redbox collects zip codes.  It asks for customers’ zip codes at time of rental.  Hence, the suit.

Plaintiffs in the case, who recently filed a motion for certification of the classwith the United States District Court for the Central District of California, complain that, despite the California Supreme Court’s ruling in February, Redbox has continued “to brazenly violate [sic]”* the statute.  Moreover, plaintiffs claim, the zip code is “used exclusively for marketing purposes.”  (Thanks to Law360 for the quotes from plaintiff’s counsel, Caleb Marker of Ridout & Lyons LLP.)  

Horrors!  Setting aside the statute itself for a moment, lets talk about the policy at play here.    

1. Redbox has a product whose principal attractions are its low cost ($1 a DVD) and convenience (kiosks conveniently located near customers).  That latter element is key because nothing is as convenient as pressing the “on-demand” button on your remote or browsing to Netflix, Hulu or other sites online.    

2.  Redbox offers a product that is far more affordable than typical on-demand services and, thus, attractive to those of limited means or who just may not want to pay as much for their home movie fix.    

3.  Redbox, according to plaintiffs, uses the zip code information it collects not to send its customers junk mail or to sell to third parties, but simply to analyze where its customers reside so it can improve the locations of its kiosks.  Redbox already collects customers’ email addresses and sends them email marketing communications, from which they can opt out.  So what is the real harm here?  Whom does this hurt?    

Answer (at least to me): no one. 

Now, again, none of this is about the legal underpinnings of plaintiff’s case. The statute says what it says - or, more precisely, what the California Supreme Court has construed it to say.  The court will have to sort out who is in the right.

But, notwithstanding plaintiffs’ counsel’s diligent efforts to muster up some outrage, I just don’t see it.  To this humble blogger, this case and others like it offer classic illustrations of legislation run amok.  

There are plenty of data privacy issues that actually matter. I respectfully submit that this is not one.  

Now back to our regular programming . . . .

* Split infinitive.  Pet peeve (although in an oral interview, forgivable).