On May 7, 2026, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the Northern District of California issued an order denying Academia, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration, denying its motion to dismiss, and granting in part our motion for a protective order. Salahi PC represents the lead plaintiff and the proposed class. The ruling clears the way for the case to move forward and bars Academia from leaning on Terms of Use changes it pushed through after we filed suit to the detriment of class members.
The case, Judge v. Academia, Inc., No. 25-cv-05857-AMO (N.D. Cal.), targets marketing emails sent by Academia.edu to promote sales of its subscriptions. The complaint alleges that Academia sends emails and uses on-site advertisements which leverage the identities of specific scholars to entice non-paying users to purchase subscriptions, in violation of California’s right of publicity statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 3344, and the corresponding laws of several other states.
We defeated Academia’s arbitration push
Corporations have increasingly relied on arbitration agreements to push consumers out of court and effectively evade legal accountability. These agreements are often buried in “terms of use” which few people read or have the opportunity to reject. Indeed, few people ever realize that they may be giving up their rights just by using an online service.
In this case, Academia argued that our client had agreed to arbitrate by creating an account and using the website. We argued that none of those interactions with the website created an enforceable agreement to arbitrate, and won. The Court held that none of Academia’s disclosures adequately explained what actions would give rise to an agreement, so Academia could not kick the into private arbitration.
The Court rejected Academia’s Section 230 and public affairs defenses
Academia argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shielded it from liability because the names appearing in its ads came from third parties. The Court rejected that argument, too, and accepted our argument that Academia did not merely transmit user-generated content, but rather packaged that content into its own commercial solicitations urging readers to subscribe to its paid service. As the court put it, Section 230 does not allow a website to cloak its own advertisements as user-created content and thereby evade liability.
Academia’s public affairs defense fared no better. The ads communicated only that someone had cited another person in an unspecified paper. That use of a scholar’s name was “window-dressing” for a sales pitch, not a public affairs broadcast.
On standing, the Court also accepted our position that a Section 3344 claim right of publicity claim is sufficiently analogous to a common law injury, and thus allows a federal court to exercise jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution under the test set forth in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021). A plaintiff does not need to allege that their name had economic value or that he suffered separate distress. The misappropriation itself is the injury.
We blocked Academia’s mid-lawsuit attempt to rewrite its Terms of Use
Sometimes, companies that are sued try to impose new terms of use with updated arbitration agreements. That’s what Academia did here. After we filed suit, it rewrote its Terms of Use to shore up problems with its arbitration agreement that we had pointed out. But it didn’t tell its users that this lawsuit was already pending and that agreeing to the new terms could prejudice users’ rights. Academia also updated its Terms of Use to expressly grant itself the right to use users’ names “for the purpose of advertising, selling, or soliciting” its services—the exact issue we were challenging.
We filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) and argued that these communications were misleading and could quietly extinguish the claims of putative class members. The Court agreed. Academia did not tell users that many of them were not previously bound to the Terms of Use, or to arbitration. It did not disclose that clicking the link in its announcement email could itself constitute “use” of the account. And it did not warn users that agreeing to the new terms could wipe out their claims in this case. Relying on the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Avery v. TEKsystems, Inc., 165 F.4th 1219 (9th Cir. 2026), the court ruled that Academia cannot rely on the post-September 17, 2025 Terms changes to limit putative class members’ claims in this litigation.
Are you a member of the proposed class?
The proposed class includes residents of Alabama, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, South Dakota, and Washington whose names appeared in Academia.edu’s Mentions advertisements without their consent. If you have ever seen Mentions ads on Academia.edu featuring another scholar’s name, or you suspect your own name has been used in those ads, we’d like to hear from you. Use the contact form below to reach us.
The plaintiffs in this case are represented by Yaman Salahi, Nicole Cabañez, and Taylor Applegate.