Torn a New One by Judge for Charging for Removals

Share the knowledge

A few years ago we told you about some lawsuits against and other websites which post the mug shots of those charged with crimes. While the particular lawsuit that we covered, Kaplan and Lashway v. Mugshots, et al, was settled, others were not, and now a Federal judge has ruled that the plaintiffs in a case out of Illinois and Florida against and have made a strong enough case for it to move forward, despite the defendants’ motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (known to legal folks as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion).

Of course the background to this is that when somebody’s mug shot and related arrest record are posted on (and similar sites), they are being charged to have their mug shot removed from the site. Even if they have since completed their sentence, or, presumably, even if they’ve been found innocent..

And employers, prospective employers, and others are finding these stale mug shots. In the current lawsuit, at least one of the plaintiffs had job offers rescinded because of the listing, and he was even fired after co-workers found his mug shot on, even though the mug shot was from his prior life and he had already completed his sentence. So he followed the advertisements on for the affiliated, in order to have his stale mug shot removed from the site, at which point told him that “removing the two images from the website would cost $2,000 plus a representation fee. Removal of the entire profile would be $15,000 and a representation fee. The representative further stated that payment did not guarantee removal of the profile.”

Sure sounds like a shakedown to us!

Get New Internet Patrol Articles by Email!


Instead of paying what felt like an extortionary fee, the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs’ complaint had nine counts (allegations of violations of a particular law) in total. Mugshots filed a motion to dismiss all of them based on that Federal Rule 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. What this means, basically, is that Mugshots was saying “none of what they are alleging matches up to the laws they are claiming we violated and so there is no relief to be found for what they are alleging under the laws they are claiming. So their complaint should be dismissed.”

As described in the complaint, the arrest profiles are designed to coerce plaintiffs to pay for removal. In other words, the mugshots themselves are advertisements for the removal service, which is the far more lucrative enterprise.

The plaintiffs’ nine counts (claims) were:

1. Violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (“IRPA”)

The Internet Patrol is completely free, and reader-supported. Your tips via CashApp, Venmo, or Paypal are appreciated! Receipts will come from ISIPP.

CashApp us Square Cash app link

Venmo us Venmo link

Paypal us Paypal link

2. Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (“ICFA”)

3. Violation of the Illinois Mugshots Act

4. Violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)

5. Violation generally of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)

6. Violation specifically of the disclosure provisions of the FCRA

7. Violation specifically of the accuracy requirements of the FCRA

8. Violation of the Florida Right of Publicity Act (“FRPA”)

9. Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”)

While the court, following a detailed analysis by Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, dismissed counts 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, it kept live counts 1, 3, 8, and 9. In other words, the court is allowing the plaintiffs to move forward on the claims based on the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, the Illinois Mugshots Act, the Florida Right of Publicity Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

In denying the RICO claim, basically claiming extortion, the court explained that “The problem here is plaintiffs are not threatened with exposure because the arrest records are already published. While potentially embarrassing, they are public records protected by the First Amendment and plaintiffs do not meaningfully challenge the defendants’ ability to re-publish truthful arrest records. The allegations claim that defendants are essentially threatening not to remove them unless plaintiffs pay a fee, which plaintiffs have refused to do. Those allegations simply do not fit the parameters of either statute.”

While it is perhaps a pity that the court had to strike the claims based on RICO, Judge Coleman went on to say, in no uncertain terms, that the racket that and is running, requiring large amounts of money in order to have a hope of having profiles removed from (and with no guarantee of removal at that) clearly is close to, if not amounting to the legal definition of, extortion.

Observed Judge Coleman, “As described in the complaint, the arrest profiles are designed to coerce plaintiffs to pay for removal. In other words, the mugshots themselves are advertisements for the removal service, which is the far more lucrative enterprise.”

(That ‘lucrative enterprise’ is

So the lawsuit is moving forward with the four counts still intact. Watch this space for any updates!

Share the knowledge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.