Search Articles
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A proposed class of Facebook users who say Meta failed to protect their accounts from hackers and denied users access to their own accounts after they’d been compromised will likely be able to advance their claims against the tech giant, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
Senior U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick said in a tentative ruling from the bench that he was inclined to allow the plaintiffs’ claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unfair competition to move forward as they had addressed his concerns with their prior complaint.
“It seems to me that ‘you can delete the individual content you share, post and upload at any time’ is a promise to begin the process whenever the customer wants, and the deletion is to take place within 90 days,” the Barack Obama appointee said.
He continued: “It seems to me there is a breach of implied covenant theory: Meta is intentionally using the plaintiffs’ information and has gotten rid of people who were there to protect the information; that seems like a plausible theory to me.”
Lead plaintiffs Sara Isgur, Eddie Edwards and Richard Repp sued Meta in 2024, claiming the company breached its terms of service by allowing hackers to take over users’ Facebook accounts while denying users access to their own accounts.
Orrick dismissed the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint in January for failure to state claims but allowed them leave to amend. At Wednesday’s hearing, the judge said he was inclined to find the plaintiffs had addressed his concerns with their prior complaint.
“I think this ought to start maneuvering its way through the process,” he said.
In their most recent complaint, the plaintiffs say they allowed Meta to license their information in exchange for access to Facebook. However, they say Meta violated its terms of service by intentionally not restoring access to their hacked accounts or providing a way for them to rescind the company’s license to their personal information to keep profiting from it.
They additionally claim Meta intentionally fired customer service employees who typically assist users who have been locked out of their accounts, further increasing its profits.
Melissa Zappala of Dunn Isaacson Rhee, representing Meta, argued the plaintiffs are using their licensing theory to attempt to hold the company responsible for being locked out of their Facebook accounts due to the hackers, despite Meta’s terms of service stating that the company is not liable for hackers’ conduct.
Zappala additionally argued that while the platform’s terms of service do state users can delete content at any time, the process does not work perfectly and the terms of service must be read as a whole.
“Yes, there is a statement that a user can delete content, but there is no guarantee that a user can delete content at any time, which is precisely what plaintiffs are attempting to impose,” she said.
Additionally, Zappala said the terms of service do not give users the right to terminate Meta’s license. Licenses can only be terminated, she said, when Meta deletes the content from the system, which is distinct from user deletion of content.
“Even if a user were to initiate a deletion process, Meta may still need to retain that content and the license to that content,” she said. “Because plaintiffs claim that users have the right to delete content and terminate Meta’s license, and that is not a promise in the terms of service, the breach of contract claim should be dismissed.”
Zappala further argued that because the terms of service do not promise users can delete their content and terminate Meta’s license, the implied covenant claim should also be dismissed.
In rebuttal, plaintiffs’ attorney Annick Persinger of Tycko & Zavareei argued the plaintiffs have a right to revoke the contract they have with Meta at any time.
“We did our very best to read your order and follow your instructions,” she told the judge. “We are very glad to hear that you have found our efforts sufficient, at least tentatively."
Orrick said he would issue an order as soon as he could.
Neither party responded to requests for comment by press time.
Follow @mhattridge_Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
