Facebook Settles 'Sponsored Stories' Suit For $10M To Charity
Reuters reports that Facebook has taken the face-saving move (and a cheap one, considering the company's market cap) of settling for $10 million — plus lawyers' fees — the lawsuit brought against it for appropriating users' names and pictures in deceptive ads. Says the linked story: "The lawsuit, brought by five Facebook members, alleged the social networking site violated California law by publicizing users' 'likes' of certain advertisers on its 'Sponsored Stories' feature without paying them or giving them a way to opt out, the documents said. A 'Sponsored Story' is an advertisement that appears on a member's Facebook page and generally consists of another friend's name, profile picture and an assertion that the person 'likes' the advertiser."
LIKE
Dear David,
Sorry I told all my friends you were gay without asking you if it was okay first. If you were upset by that, I apologize. In order to show my sincerity and to help make amends, I will donate $20 to a charity. In addition, I promise that I will never again betray someone's trust by outing someone's sexuality at one of Mary's barbecues. I will do my best to find another way instead.
Sincerely,
Anthony
Maybe someone should file a class action suit against slashdot.
Sorry, it only works with real money.
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Why don't the lawyers work for charity, too?
Just last month one of my high schoolmates "liked" a company suddenly out of the blue after a period of inactivity. The problem was my schoolmate died a month earlier. I haven't talked to his parents but I'm sure they were pissed.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
So do the users have control over usage in Facebook ads now? If not, Facebook won big. Even if so, Facebook has inspired a whole bunch of "social" marketers.
Ick.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
As someone who is procrastinating from studying for the bar, I have to say that the key phrase here is "lawyer's fees." Once those words have been invoked, there's no real incentive for the lawyers to look out for the class member's interests anymore. These massive class actions are usually miserable for the class members, but great for the attorneys who take the case.
As far as what should have been done, giving every facebook user their share would be difficult, but I don't see why they couldn't have come to an agreement to run something like youtube's partnership program and give people who bring in a lot of business for their advertisers a kickback. Everybody else could be given a farmville cow or something (I have no idea what the new big shitty gam^H^H^H data-mining project is).
Anybody know which charity the money is going to? EFF sounds like a fine choice.
What charities are receiving the said money and then who owns them.
Market Cap has nothing to do with how much cash a company has on hand to pay things like settlements, nor does it have much to do with the financial health of the company.
Market Cap is simply the perceived value of the outstanding traded shares. It's based solely on what market traders think the company is worth.
There are tons of companies out there who are deep in debt and have almost no cash that still have very high market capitalization.
This is an interesting article and a very contentious subject. Questions were also asked here (http://www.abhirdayaram.com/2012/05/16/facebooks-big-dilemma/) as to the site justifies its valuation.