## Facts

- Donald Cullen, a deaf consumer, relied on closed captioning or subtitles to watch video programs.
- Netflix offered video programming through (1) Internet streaming (“Watch Instantly”) and (2) DVD/Blu-ray rental by mail.
- Netflix’s streaming library allegedly had captioning for only a small portion of available titles, while the DVD-by-mail service offered more captioned content.
- Cullen subscribed to Netflix in May 2009 and selected a DVD plan rather than a cheaper streaming plan due to the limited captioning in streaming content.
- Netflix made public statements indicating it was working on adding captioning to streaming content, including statements that captioning was in development plans and that developers were continuing work on closed captioning.
- Cullen alleged that he and similarly situated consumers purchased or maintained Netflix subscriptions in reliance on these statements but still lacked full and equal access to streaming content.
- The operative pleading was the Second Amended Complaint (SAC), asserting California disability-rights and consumer-protection claims based on limited captioning and allegedly misleading statements.

## Issues

1. Whether Netflix’s Internet streaming service, as pled, qualified as a covered “place of public accommodation” (or similar covered facility) for purposes of California disability statutes incorporating ADA concepts.
2. Whether the SAC plausibly alleged intentional discrimination sufficient for Unruh Act liability independent of an ADA-based theory.
3. Whether the SAC adequately pled actionable deception, actual reliance, causation, and economic injury under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA based on Netflix’s statements about captioning.

## Decision

- The court granted Netflix’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the SAC in its entirety with leave to amend.
- The court held that, as alleged, Netflix’s streaming service was not within the statutory coverage required to proceed on the disability-rights theories asserted.
- The court dismissed the consumer-protection claims for insufficient pleading of actionable misrepresentation and of reliance, causation, and injury tied to specific statements and transactions.

## Legal Principles

- California disability statutes such as the Unruh Act and the Disabled Persons Act are interpreted with reference to the ADA when claims are premised on ADA-related theories.
- Under controlling Ninth Circuit approaches applied by the court, Title III coverage generally requires a physical place or a sufficient nexus to a physical place; a purely online service, without more as pled, is outside that coverage.
- Unruh Act theories not grounded in an ADA violation require plausible allegations of intentional discrimination; a bare failure to provide full accessibility, without more, is insufficient.
- For UCL and FAL fraud theories, and for CLRA misrepresentation theories, a plaintiff must plead actual reliance and causation resulting in economic injury, tied to specific challenged statements.
- General, forward-looking statements about planned development or ongoing work, without concrete representations of existing features or specific commitments, are less likely to constitute actionable deception absent additional, particularized allegations.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, concluding that the streaming service was not covered on the pleaded disability-rights theories and that the consumer-protection claims failed to allege actionable misrepresentations and specific, transaction-linked reliance and injury.


Cullen v. Netflix, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2012)