Piuggi v. Good for You Productions LLC

District court dismisses plaintiff’s claim that HBO shows Fake Famous and FBOY Island infringed his copyright in treatment for reality TV dating show, holding plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that HBO had access to his work and failed to plead substantial similarity between shows and his treatment, and dismisses plaintiff’s breach of contract claim for failure to state a claim.

Jack Piuggi conceived of Instafamous, a “documentary-style reality TV show” that “tracks Piuggi as he strives to become a famous Instagram influencer.” The show would begin “with an audition to hire women to manage Piuggi’s social media accounts,” but “unbeknownst to them, they are actually being recruited for Piuggi to date.” The show would then become a “real life sitcom” centering on “Piuggi’s family dynamics.” Piuggi wrote a 55-page treatment of his show and eventually obtained a copyright registration for it.

In January 2021, Piuggi pitched Instafamous to Grand Street Media Holdings Inc. after its principal agreed to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Piuggi sent the treatment to Grand Street, which passed on it and referred Piuggi to Good for You Productions (GFY). Piuggi pitched the show to GFY but did not send the treatment to GFY. Shortly thereafter, Piuggi spoke to his attorneys, who also happened to represent HBO, but he did not provide them with a copy of the treatment. 

HBO aired the allegedly infringing shows Fake Famous and FBOY Island beginning in February and July 2021, respectively. Fake Famous is “a documentary that follows ordinary individuals,” who are chosen at a casting audition, “as they are transformed into famous social media influencers.” FBOY Island is a reality television dating competition in which the male suitors are either “Nice Guys,” who are seeking true love, or “FBoys,” who are seeking a cash prize and whom the female contestants must identify and eliminate. 

Piuggi filed suit alleging copyright infringement as well as state law claims, claiming that defendants copied his treatment in creating the shows. The district court dismissed Piuggi’s original complaint for failure to state a claim but gave him leave to amend to attempt to cure his pleading deficiencies. (Read our summary of the court’s decision here.) Piuggi then filed an amended complaint, attaching the copyrighted treatment as an exhibit. 

Defendants again moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the motion, holding that Piuggi failed to allege actual copying or substantial similarity between the protected elements of the works, as required to state a claim for direct copyright infringement. 

Because Piuggi pitched the show to Grand Street and GFY rather than to HBO directly, he was required to allege “a particular chain of events” through which HBO gained access to the treatment. Although Piuggi alleged that certain agents of Grand Street and GFY had remote connections with HBO, none of those agents qualified as intermediaries. Proving access requires more than “a mere allegation that someone known to the defendant possessed the work in question.” Likewise, the fact that Piuggi’s attorneys also represented HBO was immaterial given that Piuggi failed to allege that he gave a copy of the treatment to those attorneys.

Piuggi also failed to allege substantial similarity. Comparing Piuggi’s description of the allegedly infringing shows with the treatment, the court found that the “total concept and feel” of the works are “vastly different.” Although Instafamous and Fake Famous both “ portray non-celebrities attempting to become famous through social media,” Instafamous focuses on Piuggi as the star of the show and its theme is a “rom/com at work” and a sitcom about his family life. By contrast, Fake Famous is a documentary about whether a team of experts can make the participants famous. With respect to FBOY Island, the court found that the similarities between the works “end with the inclusion of a dating element,” which is an unprotectable and unoriginal idea.

The district court held that Piuggi’s causes of action against Grand Street and GFY for alleged breach of the nondisclosure agreements were preempted by the Copyright Act, noting that Piuggi failed to respond to defendants’ briefing on the preemption issue and therefore waived any counterargument. Piuggi also failed to plead which specific provisions of the nondisclosure agreements had been breached, did not explain how Grand Street had breached its nondisclosure agreement and did not plead damages with the required specificity. The district court therefore dismissed the entirety of the amended complaint without leave to amend.

Summary prepared by Tal Dickstein and Keane Barger