A business may possess information about a person that is publicly available. That does not necessarily answer a different question: can the business use that person’s name or photograph to help sell a paid product or subscription?
The Ninth Circuit recently addressed a class action raising that issue in Nolen v. PeopleConnect, Inc. (2026).
PeopleConnect operates Classmates.com and maintains a large collection of digitized yearbooks. The plaintiff alleged that the company used names and photographs from those yearbooks in connection with efforts to sell paid subscriptions without obtaining consent.
The lawsuit was brought under California Civil Code section 3344, California’s statutory right of publicity law.
On September 24, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s certification of damages and injunctive relief classes.
The decision is important, but its procedural posture matters. The Ninth Circuit did not decide that PeopleConnect ultimately violated section 3344. It decided issues concerning whether the claims could proceed on a classwide basis.
What Was PeopleConnect Alleged to Be Doing?
PeopleConnect operates Classmates.com, a website that allows users to search school yearbooks and other historical information.
According to the litigation, the company’s collection includes hundreds of thousands of digitized yearbooks containing names and photographs of former students.
The plaintiff alleged that PeopleConnect used this material in connection with its commercial subscription business without obtaining consent from the individuals whose identities appeared in the yearbooks.
That distinction matters under California law.
A person’s name or photograph can appear in a historical record without necessarily creating liability. The legal question becomes more complicated when a person’s identity is allegedly used for advertising, selling, or soliciting purchases of a product or service.
California Civil Code Section 3344
California Civil Code section 3344 provides a statutory remedy when a person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness is knowingly used without consent for advertising, selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services, subject to the statute’s requirements and exceptions.
These disputes can therefore turn on how the identity was actually used.
There can be a meaningful difference between maintaining information in a database and using a person’s identity as part of a commercial promotion designed to encourage a purchase.
For online businesses, the distinction may not always be obvious. Search results, previews, emails, landing pages, and subscription prompts can all become relevant to how a plaintiff characterizes the use.
The Ninth Circuit Was Reviewing Class Certification
The procedural history is particularly important.
The district court certified classes seeking damages and injunctive relief. PeopleConnect appealed that certification ruling.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
That does not mean the Ninth Circuit decided that every person whose name or photograph appears in the Classmates.com database has a valid right of publicity claim.
Class certification and liability are different questions.
The appellate court was deciding whether the district court properly allowed certain claims to proceed collectively as a class action. The ultimate merits of the claims remain separate.
This distinction is especially important when discussing the court’s treatment of searchability.
The Ninth Circuit did not establish a general rule that merely making someone’s name searchable on a website violates section 3344. Questions about whether particular uses satisfy the statute remain merits questions.
Why Class Certification Can Change a Business Dispute
For a company facing a consumer or privacy related lawsuit, class certification can dramatically change the litigation.
An individual claim may involve relatively modest damages. A certified class can aggregate claims involving a large number of people and can substantially increase the financial exposure, discovery burden, and settlement pressure associated with the case.
That is why disputes over class certification often become some of the most consequential proceedings in consumer litigation.
The Nolen decision is a useful example. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling does not establish final liability, but allowing the claims to proceed on a classwide basis can materially affect how the litigation moves forward.
Public Information Is Not Necessarily Free for Every Commercial Use
Businesses sometimes assume that information found in a public source can be used for any commercial purpose.
California’s right of publicity law makes the analysis more specific.
The source of the information is relevant, but so is the use.
A historical photograph displayed as part of an archive may raise different questions from the same photograph being presented in a way designed to induce someone to purchase a subscription.
Context therefore matters.
Businesses that use names, photographs, profiles, historical records, or other identifying information in customer acquisition should consider where that information appears and what commercial function it serves.
The Issue Extends Beyond Yearbooks
The facts of Nolen involve Classmates.com, but similar issues can arise in many online businesses.
A platform may collect information from public records. A directory may display professional profiles. A website may aggregate photographs or biographical information. A service may show a preview of information before asking the user to pay for additional access.
The legal analysis will depend on the particular facts, including what information is used, how it is presented, whether consent exists, and how closely the use is connected to advertising or selling a product or service.
Businesses should also remember that California’s statutory right of publicity is not the only possible source of liability. Depending on the facts, common law rights, privacy claims, intellectual property issues, contractual rights, and other statutes may also become relevant.
What Nolen Decided, and What It Did Not
Nolen is best understood as a class action decision involving California publicity rights.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed class certification. It did not enter a final judgment finding PeopleConnect liable under section 3344.
That distinction should remain clear.
Still, the case is useful for businesses because it shows how the commercial use of personal identity can create significant litigation even when the underlying information originated in historical or publicly accessible materials.
For companies building products around large collections of personal information, the question should not end with whether the company was legally able to obtain the information.
How the information is used to generate revenue may matter just as much.
Legal Authorities
- California Civil Code § 3344 — official text
- Nolen v. PeopleConnect, Inc. (9th Cir., Sept. 24, 2026) No. 24-3894 — official opinion
Related practice areas: Copyright and Trademark · Civil Litigation