790 F.Supp.2d 1110
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Young opened a Facebook account in Feb. 2010 and later created several pages with ~4,300 friends.
- Facebook deactivated Young’s account in June 2010 for behavior deemed potentially harassing or threatening, including unsolicited friend requests.
- Young traveled to Facebook’s Santa Clara HQ after unsuccessful inquiries, where she was told in person no meeting was possible.
- Two days later, she received an email that her account was disabled for rapid/abnormal friend requests and warned of permanent shutdown.
- Her account was later permanently disabled; she filed suit alleging ADA, Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, contract, and negligence claims, which the court later dismissed.
- The court granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss and denied leave to amend, concluding the amended complaint failed to state cognizable claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA claim—whether Facebook is a 'place of public accommodation' under the ADA | Young argues Facebook’s online services are a public accommodation | Facebook contends it operates in cyberspace, not a physical place of public accommodation | ADA claim fails; no nexus to a physical place of public accommodation under Ninth Circuit law |
| ADA claim—nexus between online discrimination and physical retail presence | Discrimination on Facebook’s site affects access to Facebook gift cards in stores | No ownership/leasing/operation of stores by Facebook; no nexus to a physical place | No cognizable ADA claim because Facebook does not own/operate a place of public accommodation |
| Unruh Civil Rights Act claim | Discrimination based on disability in public accommodations | No intentional discrimination; automated systems not shown to target disability | Unruh Act claim failed; no willful discriminatory conduct shown |
| California Disabled Persons Act claim | Rights to equal access to public facilities and services extended to online platforms | DPCS Act mirrors ADA; no higher standard shown by California law beyond ADA | No independent DPA claim separate from ADA |
| Breach of contract / implied covenant / negligence | Facebook breached terms of SR&R and acted in bad faith; negligence due to lack of care | Facebook terminated per SR&R; no express/implied term breached; no non-contractual duty shown | Dismissed; amended complaint failed to allege contractual or legal duties breached |
Key Cases Cited
- Ariz. ex rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enters., 603 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2010) (ADA standards for public accommodations in Ninth Circuit)
- Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2000) (Defines 'place of public accommodation' in Ninth Circuit)
- Carparts Distribution Center, Inc. v. Automotive Wholesalers’ Ass’n of New England, 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994) (Public accommodations not limited to physical structures)
- Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2000) (ADA applies to insurance offerings; public accommodations scope)
- Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999) (Disability access arguments in insurance context under ADA)
- Rendon v. Valleycrest Productions Ltd., 294 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002) (Public accommodations ADA applicability across circuits)
- Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 (2005) (California Supreme Court on intentional discrimination and implied duties)