790 F. Supp. 2d 1110
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Young, proceeding pro se, sues Facebook, Inc. in the Northern District of California asserting ADA, Unruh Act, and California Disabled Persons Act claims, plus contract and negligence claims.
- Young created multiple Facebook pages and accumulated about 4,300 friends on her personal Facebook account.
- Facebook disabled Young’s account in June 2010 for behavior deemed harassing or threatening, with no initial appeal and minimal human interaction.
- Young traveled from Maryland to Facebook’s Santa Clara headquarters seeking in-person or live assistance but was told no in-person or phone meetings were available; she could file a written request.
- Two days after the first deactivation, Facebook stated via email that the account would be reactivated but warned of permanent disabling for further violations; a subsequent permanent denial followed.
- Young’s amended complaint attempts to state multiple claims but does not allege cognizable legal theories or contract provisions violated by Facebook’s actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA claim viability | Young asserts Facebook as a place of public accommodation discriminated due to disability. | Facebook is not a physical place of public accommodation; its services are cyberspace-based. | ADA claim dismissed; no nexus between Facebook’s online services and a physical place of public accommodation. |
| Unruh Act viability | Unruh Act independent claim for intentional discrimination by Facebook. | No showing of intentional discrimination; actions were uniform and policy-driven. | Unruh Act claim dismissed; no willful, affirmative misconduct alleged. |
| California Disabled Persons Act viability | DP A claim separately actionable when standards exceed federal ADA. | No California-standard exceeds ADA in this context; no independent basis. | DPA claim dismissed; no basis beyond ADA claim. |
| Breach of contract viability | Facebook breached the terms of its Statements of Rights and Responsibilities. | Termination provisions and notification language were satisfied; no specific contract provision violated. | Contract claim dismissed; no identified provision breached. |
| Breach of implied covenant and negligence viability | Facebook failed to act in good faith and with reasonable care. | No express or implied obligation breached; no non-contractual duties alleged. | Implied covenant and negligence claims dismissed; no cognizable duties or bad-faith conduct shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ariz. ex rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enters., 603 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2010) (requires disability, public accommodation, and denial due to disability)
- Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2000) (physical-space limitation of 'place of public accommodation')
- Carparts Distribution Center, Inc. v. Automotive Wholesaler's Ass'n of New England, 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994) (public accommodations beyond physical structures permissible)
- Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2000) (ADA applicability to nontraditional contexts)
- Rendon v. Valleycrest Productions Ltd., 294 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002) (example of website/public accommodations implications)
- Harm v. Frasher, 181 Cal. App. 2d 405 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960) (implied covenant limitations; public policy not general)
- Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Bank & Svc., 222 Cal. App. 3d 1371 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (implied covenant requires cognizable contract duty)
- Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 476 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (implied covenant analysis and contract duties)
- Yount v. Acuff Rose-Opryland, 103 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 1996) (contract intent and writing controls in implied terms)
- Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999) (web of cases cited regarding non-ADA public accommodation issues)