OPINION AND ORDER Insofar as the pleading reveals, Ousmane Bah (“Bah”), a law-abiding New York City high school student, was caught up in a series of distressing and emotionally damaging instances of mistaken identity that seemingly stem from the use of Bah’s lost temporary learner’s permit by one or more thieves. This misidentification has led to Bah being wrongfully accused of stealing from Apple stores in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Bah alleges that these false accusations occurred because an image of the actual thief was initially linked to Bah’s identity in defendants’ internal security systems. Thereafter, subsequent thefts by the same person, or others using the lost learner’s permit as identification, were allegedly linked by facial recognition technology to the image from the first theft which in turn was wrongfully attributed to Bah. In this action, Bah seeks to hold Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and a firm it employed, Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (“SIS”), liable for defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional harm, malicious prosecution, and violation of his civil rights. No arresting or prosecuting person or authority has been named in the action and no federal claim is asserted. Apple and SIS move to dismiss Bah’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on various grounds including lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim. Rules 12(b)(2), (3) & (6), Fed R. Civ. P. For reasons that will be explained, defendants’ motions to dismiss will be denied as to the claims for New York-based defamation and malicious prosecution but will be granted as to all remaining claims. BACKGROUND Bah is a permanent resident alien, who has applied for U.S. citizenship. (FAC 63). On March 26, 2018, Bah received a temporary New York State learner’s permit, which contained Bah’s personal descriptive details, such as height, weight, date of birth, and eye color, but did not include a photograph. (FAC 10). By May 2018, Bah had lost this temporary learner’s permit. (FAC 11). In May 2018, an individual was detained in Connecticut, following an accusation by Apple and SIS that the individual had stolen merchandise from one of Apple’s stores (the “Connecticut Incident”). (FAC 12). During the relevant period, SIS provided loss prevention services at Apple’s stores. (FAC 9). The detained individual identified himself as “Ousmane Bah” using a temporary New York State learner’s permit. (FAC 13). Though the individual’s apparent physical features did not match the physical features described in the temporary learner’s permit, defendants concluded that the bearer of the temporary learner’s permit was Ousmane Bah. Defendants then created an internal security record, matching surveillance footage from Apple’s store of this individual committing the theft with Bah’s name and personal information from the learner’s permit. This effectively labeled Bah as a thief within defendants’ internal security systems. (FAC 16). This internal record was subsequently circulated to Apple and SIS employees. (FAC 16). On May 24, 2018, an individual arrested for shoplifting from an Apple store in Paramus, New Jersey identified himself as Bah using a temporary New York State learner’s permit (the “First New Jersey Incident”). (FAC
20, 23). Though this individual’s apparent physical features matched neither the physical description of Bah in the learner’s permit nor the physical features of the thief visible in the surveillance footage of the Connecticut Incident, defendants identified the Paramus thief as Bah to their own employees. (FAC 28). Defendants may have also updated their internal security records to reflect the details of this identification. (FAC 76). Further, defendants identified this thief as Bah to Paramus, New Jersey police. (FAC 26). On October 20, 2018, Bah received notice of formal charges against him arising from the First New Jersey Incident. (FAC 71). On May 31, 2018, Apple and SIS employees reported to the Boston, Massachusetts police that a Boston Apple store had suffered a theft, committed by the same individual that committed the theft in Connecticut (the “Massachusetts Incident”). (FAC
