Campbell v. Facebook, Inc.
951 F.3d 1106
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- Facebook users (Plaintiffs Campbell & Hurley) alleged Facebook scanned private-message URLs and used that data without consent for (a) incrementing third-party “Like” counts, (b) sharing with third parties for customized content/ads, and (c) powering Recommendations Feed; claims brought under ECPA and California Penal Code §631 (CIPA).
- The district court dismissed some claims, denied others; it certified a nationwide class for injunctive and declaratory relief (not damages) after extensive discovery and multiple mediations.
- Parties settled: Facebook acknowledged prior uses and represented it had stopped them, agreed to post a one-year Help Center disclosure about stored/identified links, and class members retained monetary claims (except named plaintiffs); class counsel could seek up to $3.89M in fees (Facebook wouldn’t oppose).
- The district court approved the settlement and granted the full $3.89M in fees over an objection by Anna St. John (Center for Class Action Fairness).
- On appeal, the panel addressed Article III standing (post-Spokeo and post-Gaos), mootness concerns, and whether the settlement was substantively fair (including whether injunctive relief was “worthless” and whether fee arrangements evidenced collusion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing — concreteness of harm from interception/use of private-message URLs | Plaintiffs: interception and use of private-message contents violates ECPA/CIPA and itself causes a concrete privacy injury (no additional harm required). | Facebook/Objector: any use was of anonymized/aggregated data or consented-to, so no concrete injury. | Court: Plaintiffs have concrete injury; ECPA/CIPA protect substantive privacy interests analogous to traditional privacy torts, so standing existed. |
| Standing for injunctive relief and mootness (risk of future harm) | Plaintiffs: Facebook was still accessing messages and retaining data when suit filed, creating a sufficient likelihood of future injury to support injunctive relief. | Objector/Facebook: challenged continued risk; some challenged practices stopped pre-suit so injunctive claims may be moot. | Court: At filing there was ongoing access/retention and risk of resumption; not moot — district court had jurisdiction. |
| Substantive fairness — whether injunctive relief was “worthless” (Koby) given class releases | Objector: Relief (one-year Help Center disclosure) was nominal; class gave up injunctive/declaratory claims so settlement gave class nothing of value. | Plaintiffs/Facebook: disclosure and other practice changes provided tangible informational and privacy value; damages claims by absent class preserved. | Court: Settlement not “worthless.” Considering the weak prospects for further relief and narrow release, the modest injunctive relief was reasonable relative to what class gave up. |
| Whether Bluetooth warning signs (disproportionate fees, clear-sailing, reversion) show collusion | Objector: $3.89M fee award, clear-sailing promise, and absence of monetary relief indicate counsel-driven deal favoring fees. | Plaintiffs/Facebook: fees were negotiated separately, lodestar-supported, no common fund or reversion, settlement resulted from hard-fought mediations. | Court: No abuse of discretion. Given post-certification settlement, difficulty valuing injunctive relief, lodestar discount, and procedural history, Bluetooth red flags did not require reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019) (courts must assure Article III standing before approving class settlements)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (factors for assessing fairness of class settlements)
- In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (warning signs of collusion: disproportionate fees, clear‑sailing, reversion)
- Koby v. ARS Nat’l Servs., Inc., 846 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2017) (invalidating settlement that gave class no value while releasing valuable claims)
- Patel v. Facebook, Inc., 932 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2019) (statutory privacy violations can vindicate concrete privacy interests)
- Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc., 876 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2017) (statutory privacy protections can confer concrete injury)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (mootness: defendant must show it is absolutely clear the wrongful behavior cannot reasonably be expected to recur)