192 F. Supp. 3d 1053
N.D. Cal.2016Background
- Facebook operates a free social network where users register with real names and provide personal information; Facebook sells targeted advertising based on that data.
- Plaintiffs allege Facebook transmitted identifying info via HTTP referer headers to advertisers when users clicked ads (some headers combined a profile-specific string "ref=profile" with a user ID/username). Plaintiffs assert this violated Facebook's privacy promises.
- Named plaintiffs are Katherine Pohl and Wendy Marféo; earlier proceedings involved other plaintiffs and an appeal by Robertson that revived breach of contract and fraud claims.
- Plaintiffs bring breach of contract and fraud claims; Facebook moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing, arguing neither Pohl nor Marféo suffered a concrete injury in fact.
- The district court held (1) Pohl lacks standing because her only ad click led to an advertiser’s Facebook page (so no referer sent to a third‑party external server), and (2) Marféo has standing based on denial of the benefit of the bargain and availability of nominal contract damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pohl has Article III standing | Pohl clicked ads and was exposed to the same referer‑header practice | Facebook's records show Pohl's only click went to an advertiser's Facebook page (no external referer sent) | Pohl lacks standing; her claim dismissed |
| Whether Marféo can establish standing via threat of future harm | Marféo faces a credible threat of future disclosure / identity harm | Allegations of possible future injury are speculative, not certainly impending | Threat‑of‑future‑harm theory rejected for Marféo |
| Whether Marféo can establish standing via denial of the benefit of the bargain | Marféo bargained for confidentiality and was deprived of that benefit when Facebook transmitted her data | Facebook: benefit requires third‑party receipt/use and plaintiffs cannot prove such receipt or value | Court: benefit‑of‑the‑bargain theory suffices for standing; third‑party use not required at standing stage |
| Whether nominal contractual damages can support Article III injury | Nominal damages recognize the legal wrong of breach even absent measurable loss | Facebook: California law requires actual damages; nominal damages alone do not satisfy standing | Court: under Cal. Civ. Code §3360 and California authority, nominal damages can constitute a concrete injury for standing; Marféo may seek nominal damages |
| Whether substitution/mooting earlier named plaintiffs deprived court of jurisdiction | Plaintiffs treated substitution as proper following mootness; current named plaintiff has standing | Facebook: substitution after Robertson’s voluntary dismissal mooted jurisdiction | Court: denies retroactive dismissal; having a current plaintiff (Marféo) with standing preserves jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (injury‑in‑fact, traceability, redressability standing framework)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (future‑harm standing requires injury that is certainly impending)
- WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 795 F.3d 1148 (plaintiff bears burden to prove standing at each litigation stage)
- Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 350 F.3d 1018 (class rep must personally allege and show injury)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (need for evidentiary proof at certification/stage-appropriate burdens)
- Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220 (standing elements restated)