Classmates.com Turned Searchable Yearbook Photos Into an Ad Funnel. A Federal Appeals Court Just Let the Lawsuit Over It Move Forward.
PeopleConnect built Classmates.com by scanning more than 450,000 yearbooks and making every name in them searchable. A California class action says that search function doubles as an advertising trap. The Ninth Circuit didn’t decide who’s right, but it just cleared the way for roughly 100,000 people to find out together.
Right of PublicityTL;DR
- PeopleConnect runs Classmates.com, a searchable digital library of more than 450,000 school yearbooks, and makes money by selling paid subscriptions to view them in full.
- A class action accuses the company of using people’s names, without consent, to steer searchers toward those paid subscriptions, in violation of California’s right-of-publicity statute.
- The lawsuit rests on two mechanisms described in the record: a “sequence theory,” where searching a name funnels a visitor toward a subscription pitch, and a “banner theory,” where subscription ads run alongside search results bearing that name.
- On September 24, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision to let the case proceed as a class action covering an estimated 100,000 Californians, but it did not rule on whether PeopleConnect actually broke the law.
- The company’s central defense, that liability should require proof a specific person was actually searched rather than merely searchable, remains unresolved and will be fought out at trial.
- PeopleConnect removed the lead plaintiff’s own name from Classmates.com search results after she sued.
Whether putting a name into a searchable, ad-driven database counts as “using” that name under the law is a question no court has yet answered. Roughly 100,000 Californians are now waiting on the answer as a group.
What this article is based on: the published Ninth Circuit opinion in Nolen v. PeopleConnect, Inc. The opinion resolves only whether the lawsuit can proceed as a class action, a procedural question. It does not resolve whether PeopleConnect actually violated the law, and the underlying claims remain allegations that have not been proven or disproven. Statements attributed to PeopleConnect reflect positions the company took in litigation, not judicial findings.
The Facts
Classmates.com exists to make old yearbooks searchable. PeopleConnect, the company behind it, buys yearbooks and accepts donated copies from individuals and schools, then scans each page and runs the text through recognition software so visitors can search it by name. The library now holds more than 450,000 yearbooks.
Access to the site comes in three tiers. A “visitor” can browse and search without an account, but only sees full-resolution images of a yearbook’s first few pages; the rest appear as low-resolution thumbnails. A “free member” registers an account and gains full-resolution access to every page. A paid “subscriber,” or “Classmates+ member,” gets everything free members get plus messaging with other users and discounts on hardcover reprints.
Lead plaintiff Alicia Nolen, a 2019 graduate of Tulare Union High School in California, is one of the people whose name and photo appear in a yearbook on the site. She sued on behalf of a proposed class, arguing that PeopleConnect uses class members’ names commercially, without their consent, in violation of California Civil Code § 3344, the state’s right-of-publicity statute. That law makes it illegal to knowingly use someone’s name for advertising or soliciting purchases without prior consent, and entitles a violated party to at least $750 or their actual damages, whichever is greater.
What PeopleConnect Is Accused of Doing
Nolen’s claim isn’t that PeopleConnect published her yearbook photo. It’s that the company wired her searchable name directly into its sales funnel. The complaint describes two specific mechanisms.
The first is what the case record calls the “sequence theory.” A visitor searches for a name, gets a list of results with small thumbnails, and clicks one to see more. Clicking prompts the visitor to register for a free account. The instant she registers, Classmates.com shows her an ad urging her to buy a paid subscription. Under this theory, the name search is the first domino in a chain that ends at a sales pitch.
The second is the “banner theory.” Once someone is a free member, her searches for names produce results displayed alongside banner ads for a paid subscription, on the same page as the name she searched. The ad itself doesn’t contain anyone’s name or photo, but it appears next to search results that do.
Subscribers, who already pay, don’t see these ads at all. PeopleConnect disputes that either mechanism amounts to an unlawful “use” of a class member’s identity under § 3344, and the appeals court expressly did not decide that question. It’s the central issue the case will ultimately turn on.
Who the Lawsuit Covers
The class, as certified, is narrowly defined. It covers California residents who: have never registered a Classmates.com account; have never donated a yearbook to the site; and whose name, searched using the site’s own search bar, returns at least one result from a California yearbook that Classmates.com first posted on or after December 18, 2018. PeopleConnect’s own litigation filings put the likely size of that group at roughly 100,000 people.
People who registered accounts or donated yearbooks are excluded by design, since PeopleConnect’s terms of service treat registration and donation as consent. The class also splits into two tracks: a damages class seeking money under § 3344, and a separate injunctive class seeking to stop the practice going forward.
The Evidence PeopleConnect’s Own Business Supplied
Two pieces of evidence in the record came from PeopleConnect’s own operations rather than from the plaintiff. The company routinely purchases yearbooks to build its library and licenses yearbook content to third parties. The district court treated that ordinary business activity as classwide evidence that individuals’ identities within yearbooks carry monetary value, since a company doesn’t pay to acquire or license something worthless.
PeopleConnect also tried to show that many class members had already consented to its use of their names, by producing seven sample release forms that some students signed authorizing their schools to use their yearbook photos. Only three of the seven forms extended that authorization to “assigns” or “successors” beyond the school itself,
Related posts:
