In Re Facebook Privacy Litigation
791 F. Supp. 2d 705
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiffs file a putative class action against Facebook alleging ECPA, UCL, and contract-based claims related to sharing user data with advertisers.
- Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges Facebook transmitted Referrer Headers revealing user identities and pages viewed when users clicked ads.
- Allegations cover February 2010 through May 21, 2010; Facebook allegedly knew such transmissions would disclose private information.
- Plaintiffs contend Facebook violated its own policies by disclosing personal information to third-party advertisers without consent.
- Defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); court holds hearings and issues ruling partial grant/denial.
- Court proceeds to evaluate standing, Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, UCL, Penal Code 502, CLRA, Breach of Contract, Civil Code 1572/1573, and unjust enrichment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing/injury-in-fact | Plaintiffs allege statutory rights injuries confer standing. | Standing requires concrete, particularized injury for each plaintiff. | Plaintiffs have standing. |
| Wiretap Act viability | Disclosures of contents to non-intended recipients violate § 2511(3)(a). | Disclosures fall outside liability under either interpretation. | Dismissed with leave to amend. |
| Stored Communications Act viability | Disclosures to non-intended recipients violate § 2702(a). | Permitted if addressee/intended recipient consents or is addressee. | Dismissed with leave to amend. |
| UCL standing and merits | Plaintiffs have standing and alleged unfair competition under 3 prongs. | Personal information is not property; no standing under UCL for free services. | Dismissed with prejudice. |
| Unjust enrichment alternative claim | Plaintiffs seek unjust enrichment alongside breach of contract. | Express contract precludes unjust enrichment. | Dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hepting v. AT&T Corp., 439 F.Supp.2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (class standing can be shown when injury-in-fact is demonstrated for all class members)
- Edwards v. First American Corp., 610 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 2010) (statutory injuries can suffice for standing when rights grant relief)
- Rubio v. Capital One Bank, 613 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2010) (UCL standing requires injury and lost money or property)
- Doe 1 v. AOL, LLC, 719 F.Supp.2d 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (personal information disclosure to public under AOL analysis; consumer status matters)
- Engalla v. Permanente Med. Group, 15 Cal.4th 951 (Cal. 1997) (fraud elements; justifiable reliance required)
- Ruiz v. Gap, Inc., 622 F.Supp.2d 908 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (UCL property/ownership concepts; injury requires more than mere info access)
- Gerlinger v. Amazon.com, Inc., 311 F.Supp.2d 838 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (unjust enrichment barred where express contract exists)