CHICAGO – Ancestry.com DNA user Carolyn Bridges of St. Clair County petitioned U.S. appellate judges to review rejection of a claim that purchase of the website by Blackstone Group violated privacy of every user in Illinois.
She posted an appeal notice on the docket of District Judge David Dugan on Aug. 23, a week after he entered judgment.
He granted leave to amend the complaint in July but Bridges didn’t amend.
Attorney Gregory Shevlin, of Bruce Cook’s firm in Belleville, filed the complaint in St. Clair County circuit court last year.
He alleged Blackstone violated Illinois law on privacy of genetic information by taking possession without consent and proposed to certify Bridges as leader of a statewide class action for perhaps hundreds of thousands of users.
He listed three Chicago area lawyers as associates and one from Pennsylvania.
He claimed Bridges wouldn’t have provided genetic information to Ancestry if she had known Blackstone would compel disclosure.
Blackstone counsel Martin Roth of Chicago removed the complaint to district court on the basis of diverse citizenship.
He moved to dismiss it and Bridges amended it.
Her team wrote, “Defendant disclosed on Ancestry’s website that customer’s genetic information would be released or disclosed to defendant for its own use.”
They claimed Blackstone paired genetic information with first and last name, email address, home address, and other information.
“Blackstone disclosed in regulatory findings that agreements to share information between its affiliated entities have already been implemented and that its effort to package and sell data to unaffiliated third parties is underway," the suit claimed.
Blackstone moved again to dismiss the complaint and Dugan dismissed it without prejudice on July 8.
He found attachments that came with the complaint contradicted it.
“It is appropriate for the court to review the entirety of the statements incorporated in the complaint," Dugan wrote.
“When material in an exhibit contradicts the complaint’s allegations, the exhibit controls.”
He found the entirety of the statements suggested the opposite of the allegations.
He found the statement about Blackstone’s disclosure that it would pair and release information was an update of Ancestry’s privacy statement.
He found it didn’t mention Blackstone at all.
“Moreover, the statement indicates that Ancestry would not share personal information or genetic information with third parties," he wrote.
“Ancestry also stated that its promises as to privacy would continue to apply in the event of an acquisition.
“Thus, nothing in this privacy statement indicates that Blackstone made these representations on Ancestry’s website.”
He found the allegation of packaging and selling data came from a Bloomberg news article that didn’t specifically mention Ancestry.
He found a document Bridges relied on contradicted the allegation of pairing.
He found that even construing allegations broadly, the complaint didn’t allege that Blackstone compelled Ancestry to take any action.
He found even if Blackstone’s actions were somehow compulsory, the complaint failed to allege that Illinois law protected the information.