Facebook must face renewed privacy lawsuit over user tracking

guest · Apr 9, 2020

Facebook must face renewed privacy lawsuit over user tracking
April 10, 2020
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...vacy-lawsuit-over-user-tracking-idUSKCN21R3M7

A federal appeals court on Thursday revived nationwide litigation accusing Facebook Inc (FB.O) of violating users’ privacy rights by tracking their internet activity even after they logged out of the social media website.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Facebook users could pursue several claims under federal and California privacy and wiretapping laws.
A spokeswoman for Facebook said the proposed class action was without merit, and the Menlo Park, California-based company will continue defending itself.
Click to expand...

Facebook users had accused the company of quietly storing cookies on their browsers that tracked when they visited outside websites containing “like” buttons, and then selling personal profiles based on their browsing histories to advertisers.

“Facebook’s user profiles would allegedly reveal an individual’s likes, dislikes, interests, and habits over a significant amount of time, without affording users meaningful opportunity to control or prevent the unauthorized exploration of their private lives,” Thomas wrote.
Citing Facebook’s data use policy, he also said the plaintiffs “plausibly alleged that Facebook set an expectation that logged-out user data would not be collected, but then collected it anyway.”
Click to expand...

guest · Apr 26, 2020

Ninth Circuit Reinstates Decade-Old Lawsuit Against Facebook For Tracking Logged-Out Users–In re Facebook Internet Tracking
April 22, 2020
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archiv...ut-users-in-re-facebook-internet-tracking.htm

Users sued Facebook in 2012 alleging it improperly tracked users’ browsing while they were logged out of Facebook. Facebook apparently included code in its “like” button on third party websites that would inform Facebook when the user visited the website (and the particular URL visited).

Users asserted a variety of claims: (1) violations of state and federal privacy statutes; (2) invasion of privacy claims; (3) breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith; (4) fraud; (5) trespass to chattels; and (6) larceny.
The district court found the users lacked standing to pursue the trespass, the California Data Access and Fraud Act, fraud, and larceny claims. It found users had standing to pursue the remaining claims but dismissed them on the merits.

Standing: The Ninth Circuit agrees that plaintiffs had standing to pursue the invasion of privacy, breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith, Wiretap Act and California Invasion of Privacy Act claims. Both the common law privacy claims and the statutory claims were designed to protect users’ well-established privacy interests. The court concludes that plaintiffs adequately alleged harm to these privacy interests:
[...] this is the second tough ruling from the Ninth Circuit for Facebook. It’s obviously at the earliest possible stages, so expect more activity both in the Ninth Circuit and in the trial court.
Click to expand...

Eric’s Comments: This is one of those long, detailed, technical opinions that the Ninth Circuit is famous for. It’s never obvious at the time which of these opinions actually change Ninth Circuit law, and which ones are soon forgotten. Here’s why I think this case will cast a long shadow on Internet privacy litigation.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Facebook must face renewed privacy lawsuit over user tracking

guest Guest

guest Guest

Log in or Sign up

Facebook must face renewed privacy lawsuit over user tracking

guest Guest

guest Guest

Useful Searches