District of Columbia v. Facebook, Inc., 340 A.3d 1

The D.C. Attorney General sued Facebook under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), alleging misleading privacy disclosures related to the Cambridge Analytica data leak.
The claims focus on Facebook’s “friend-sharing” feature, which allowed third-party apps to access user data via friends, and allegedly unintentionally misled users about privacy controls and enforcement.
The District alleged that Facebook failed to adequately disclose the extent of data accessible to third parties and its auditing measures, and omitted material information about the Cambridge Analytica data leak.
The trial court granted Facebook summary judgment, requiring the District to prove unintentional misrepresentation by clear and convincing evidence, and excluded the District's expert witness.
On appeal, the District challenged both the evidentiary standard applied and the exclusion of its sole expert.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of Proof for Unintentional Misrepresentation CPPA Claims	Only a preponderance of evidence is needed for unintentional misrepresentation claims.	Clear and convincing evidence is required for all CPPA misrepresentation claims.	Preponderance of the evidence standard applies; reversed and remanded.
Exclusion of Expert Testimony (Dr. Schaub)	Trial court gave insufficient reasoning and did not apply correct legal standard (Motorola); testimony is admissible.	Dr. Schaub’s methods are unreliable and speculative; exclusion was proper.	Exclusion order reversed; remanded for further explanation and analysis under correct standard.
Whether Facebook’s Disclosures Could Mislead Reasonable Consumers	Disclosures and privacy settings were confusing and misleading to reasonable users.	Disclosures were accurate and complete; reasonable consumers would not be misled as a matter of law.	Did not reach merits due to error in legal standard applied below.
Duty to Disclose Cambridge Analytica Leak	Facebook had a duty to timely disclose the data misuse; omission was material.	No duty to disclose the leak; no misrepresentation occurred due to omission.	Did not reach this issue due to remand on standard of proof.

Osbourne v. Capital City Mortg. Corp., 727 A.2d 322 (D.C. 1999) (established clear and convincing evidence as standard for intentional misrepresentation under CPPA)
Fort Lincoln Civic Ass’n, Inc. v. Fort Lincoln New Town Corp., 944 A.2d 1055 (D.C. 2008) (held that unintentional misrepresentation claims are actionable under the CPPA)
Frankeny v. District Hosp. Partners, LP, 225 A.3d 999 (D.C. 2020) (discussed burden of proof for CPPA, referenced but not conclusive for unintentional misrepresentations)
Saucier v. Countrywide Home Loans, 64 A.3d 428 (D.C. 2013) (explained reasonable consumer standard under the CPPA)
Ctr. for Inquiry Inc. v. Walmart, Inc., 283 A.3d 109 (D.C. 2022) (applied reasonable consumer test, discussed misleading practices under CPPA)
Motorola Inc. v. Murray, 147 A.3d 751 (D.C. 2016) (en banc) (set standards for admissibility of expert testimony)