Skip navigation

Florida Woman States Claim Against Man Running “Mug Shot” Websites for Advertising and Profit

Florida Woman States Claim Against Man Running “Mug Shot” Websites for Advertising and Profit

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss Shannon Bilotta’s suit in which she alleged that the defendant had illegally used her photograph on one of his two “mug shot” websites for profit. The defendant, Arthur D’Antonio, filed his motion to dismiss Bilotta’s complaint for failure to state a claim under state and federal law. The district court denied the motion on Jan 10, 2014, holding that Bilotta’s allegations were enough to state a claim under Florida law.

Bilotta, 43, was arrested and charged with battery on June 2013. Evidently, Bilotta had discovered that D’Antonio had placed her name and booking photograph on his website, justmugshots.com, without her consent. D’Antonio allegedly ran two websites – justmugshots.com and mugshots.mob – that published arrestee’s photographs, offered a method to have the photograph removed for a fee and advertised products and services. Consequently, Bilotta filed suit against Citizens Information Associates, D’Antonio and other, raising claims of invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment and violation of Fla. Stat. §540.08, among others. Bilotta sought damages and injunctive relief.

D’Antonio subsequently filed his motion to dismiss, arguing that his websites’ content was protected by the First Amendment and the Federal Communications Decency Act and claimed that §540.08 did not apply as “Bilotta [did] not allege that justmugshot.com [had] used her image separately from its service.”

However, the district court denied D’Antonio’s motion determining that Bilotta did state a claim under §540.08. The statue provides that “[n]o person shall publish…for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use.” The district court also disregarded other arguments D’Antonio had raised for dismissal as they did not pertain to the suit’s claims. See: Bilotta v. Citizens Information Associates, LLC, U.S.D.C. (M.D. Fla.), Case No 8:13-CV-02811-JSM-TGW.

Related legal case

Bilotta v. Citizens Information Associates, LLC