services, or brands without obtaining Plaintiffs’ consent, and that Plaintiffs were economically injured when denied compensation for such unauthorized use. See SAC ¶ 2; Opp’n at 5-6. Without assessing the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim, the Court finds that they have alleged a violation of their individual statutory rights under California Civil Code § 3344, and therefore, an invasion of a legally protected interest for Article III purposes. See, e.g., DeMando v. Morris, 206 F.3d 1300, 1303 (9th Cir.2000) (“[Plaintiff] has suffered the loss of a statutory right to disclosure [under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1693] and has therefore suffered injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing.”); see also Graczyk v. W. Publ’g Co., 660 F.3d 275, 278 (7th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); In re Facebook Privacy Litig., 791 F.Supp.2d
holding that plaintiffs who alleged that their own personal credit information was disclosed for an improper purpose established their standing to sue under the fcra recognizing a constitutional right of privacy in mental health records recognizing privacy interest in medical records requested under freedom of information act holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records holding that plaintiffs had constitutional standing where plaintiffs alleged that defendant engaged in bulk compilation and distribution of their personal information contained in motor vehicle records in violation of the drivers privacy protection act dppa 18 usc  2722