Spokeo Agrees to Pay $10 Million to Settle Suit Over Teaser Profiles

People search website Spokeo will pay $10 million to settle a proposed class action alleging it used consumers' names and personal details in so called teaser profiles to advertise paid subscriptions without their consent, Bloomberg Law reported on November 10. The deal has been given initial approval by a federal court.

The case, Kellman v. Spokeo, Inc., is pending in the US District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge William H. Orrick. Court records show it was filed in November 2021, which means the litigation has run for close to five years.

What the Lawsuit Alleged

Spokeo is an online service that compiles information about individuals into searchable profiles. According to a summary published by Morgan & Morgan, one of the plaintiffs' law firms, those profiles can include names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses.

The plaintiffs alleged that Spokeo displayed free preview profiles of real people, the teaser profiles at the center of the case, to encourage visitors to buy subscriptions, and that it did so without the knowledge or consent of the people featured. They claimed this violated state right of publicity laws, which generally restrict the commercial use of a person's name or identity without permission.

The claims are allegations. The reports reviewed by Court Magazine did not include a comment from Spokeo, which is represented in the case by the law firm Mayer Brown, according to Morgan & Morgan.

How the Settlement Is Structured

The settlement is not a single national fund. Bloomberg Law reported that it creates separate settlement funds for subclasses of residents of nine states: Alabama, California, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota and Washington. Members of each subclass will receive a pro rata share of their own state's fund, according to the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval.

That design reflects how right of publicity law works in the United States. There is no single federal right of publicity, so these claims arise under state statutes and common law, which differ in what they protect and what damages they allow.

The Road to Settlement

The case was hard fought. According to Morgan & Morgan, Judge Orrick certified a class of Californians and a class of Ohioans in 2024, which the firm said together covered about 275,000 people. Class certification is often a turning point in consumer litigation, because it raises the stakes for a defendant considerably.

Court records show the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on July 14, 2026, and filed a third amended complaint shortly afterwards. Initial approval means the judge found the deal fair enough to notify class members. Final approval usually comes only after class members have a chance to object or opt out and the court holds a fairness hearing.

Why It Matters for Business

Data brokers and people search sites operate in a legal landscape that is changing quickly. Lawsuits like this one test whether using a real person's name in marketing, even in a preview designed to sell access to public records, counts as a commercial use that requires consent.

For companies whose business model depends on personal data, the case is a reminder that how information is presented can matter as much as where it came from. A profile that serves as an advertisement may be treated differently from one that a paying customer looks up.

For consumers in the nine states covered, the next step is the notice process. People who believe they may be class members should watch for official notice from the court appointed settlement administrator and read it carefully before deciding whether to file a claim, object or opt out. Court Magazine will follow the case as it moves toward final approval.